Discuss the new Ghostbusters movie to be released in 2016, directed by Paul Feig.
By 9sam1
#4897441
I've thought alot about this, interested to see what everyones idea would be on how GB2016 could have been done better.

First off, I would pick between this really being a full reboot or a sequel, a big problem with this movie was it didn't seem to know what it wanted to be. It was halfway between trying to be it's own thing and trying to be a continuation/remake of the originals.
Seeing as how they got the original team on board to make cameos, I think it would have made more sense to just have this be a sequel, and have a quick 5 minute scene of them being too old to do the job and passing the torch to the younger team.

Let's assume this is still paul fieg and the female busters, I'd say have them be based on the female gb's we already have from the cartoons/comics, this way we can flesh out characters diehard fans already know and love and officially canonize them in the film universe, you get to change it up and have a female centric GB team, but also still appease the fanbase. Also go back and look at if there are any ideas you can use from Danny and Harold's various scripts for GBIII so that the fans can feel more comfortable about someone else taking over the franchise knowing that the people who brought us the original films are still having atleast some input.

Despite being a sequel, tone down the references to the first movie, we don't need slimer and stay-puft, thats been done, i'd say instead draw upon the existing lore of villains from the cartoons and bring those as well into the film cannon, my choice would be Samhain.

Around halloween time, Ghostbusters re-enters the social consciousness. The song is on the radio and at parties, people are dressing up in costume, use that to your advantage to get people excited about a new Ghostbusters movie that is loosely halloween based and released around that time when people are surrounded by reminders of the first films and in the mood for something paranormal and fun. This has the added bonus of an increase in sales of dvd's and some replay value every year around Halloween time if the movie is done well.
By Seth Rex
#4897442
I would focus more on story than try to work in jokes. The characters and the way they interact with the world, the ghosts, the other characters, is an important part of what makes Ghostbusters what it is. I would try to keep that as a focus as I tell the story. It wouldn't matter who the characters are, if it's a reboot or not, or whatever. If the story is good, the characters used are likable enough, and the overall film maintains a good tone, then it would be worth while.
deadderek liked this
By RichardLess
#4897452
How to fix GB2016? You mean in it's current state or starting over?

I'd replace Paul Feif with..Gore Verbinski. Cinematography by Darius Wolksi, Production design by Rick Heinrichs, FX by ILM, music by Howard Shore.

I'd cast Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, Ellen Degeneras & Emma Stone if it HAS to be all female. If not I'd cast Chris Pratt, Steven Colbert, Craig Robinson and Bill Hader.
Plot: three unemployed non scientists friends decide to go to a franchise expo. They see all sorts of franchise opportunities: McDonald's, Arby's, Trump Hotels. They are all way too expensive. At the very end of the expo hall, tucked away in the corner is a small booth run by Ellen in the Female version OR Steven Colbert in the Male version. The franchise is a paranormal removal company that was big in the '80s called "Ghostbusters". It's cheaper than the other options so the friends decide to give it a go. There's one catch: they have to be approved first by the head of the franchise : Dr Ray Stanz.
The supernatural plot involves the new GB's investigating why New York is one of the one cities in America with such major Paranormal Activity happening every 5-10-20 years. They'll go periods with zero ghosts and then 5-10 years later? Boom. A supernatural doorway opens somehow. Why New York? What's so special? Since I don't want to reveal here what my mythology plot line is I won't give too much away but it involves American History in a way that is currently relevant.
Comedy and supernatural hi-jinx ensue. Also? The runtime is no longer than 1 hour and 50 minutes.

That's how I'd fix GB2016
Alphagaia, Sav C, TK5759 liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4897465
Main thing would have been to bring the two movie universes together. There really wasn't a need to keep them separate and only served to confuse/annoy audiences. Don't leave the Zuul thing hanging for a sequel, make that part of the movie we already have. Or as the OP said, incorporate aspects of Dan's script. Again, there was no good reason for Sony to separate themselves so much from the original.

Also, hmm, I personally would have given Benni a bigger role as the guy teasing the girls who eventually gets won over. And you know, I do think it's odd that there's no romance in the movie at all. I think some millennial feminists somehow think that's progressive, but I can't agree. Romance is part of the essence of humanity. Feminism should not be some Vulcan philosophy where we suppress our messy emotions.

Beyond that, I enjoy the movie and it's nowhere near as broken as some fans need to think it is. Ask me how I'd fix Force Awakens if you want a longer post. ;)
Lee FW, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4897468
This is really nitpicky, but I'd probably cut back on the amount of effects used, and then focus on making the ones used more effective. A less is more type of scenario. But mainly I would just try and work on the story to make it stronger, and perhaps make some of the jokes a bit more thought out.
JurorNo.2 wrote:And you know, I do think it's odd that there's no romance in the movie at all. I think some millennial feminists somehow think that's progressive, but I can't agree. Romance is part of the essence of humanity. Feminism should not be some Vulcan philosophy where we suppress our messy emotions.

Thank you! When I was first learning about feminism, that was an impression I got quite a bit. It really was the only main aspect of feminism that I disagreed with, or at very least the most alienating. Obviously I try to remain fair--it's not as if I have a problem with all of feminism due to one small hangup. However, with that said, I don't think it's a mindset of millennial feminists anymore--I think it's just a millennium mindset caused by cellphone and social media usage. There is a study published that shows that teens date a lot less and start dating later in life with the advent of social media.

And I agree, ATC is nowhere near a broken as some fans make it out to be. I beleive I recently stated that I inflated my rating of ATC in my review, but I'd like to retract that statement. My review was my accurate impression on the movie, and it doesn't deserve to be undermined by some stupid remark I made afterwards.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Lee FW
#4897477
JurorNo.2 wrote:Also, hmm, I personally would have given Benni a bigger role as the guy teasing the girls who eventually gets won over.


Yup, I would've liked Benni to have a more integral role, maybe even replace the Kevin character as their receptionist. Would kinda make sense with where Kevin comes into the film to have had Benni instead but hey ho. I actually did like kevin even as a live action cartoon character and he got several of the bigger laughs in the cinema so he clearly worked more than some people seem to want to argue. I would maybe have given him a reason to be so odd though, maybe psychic tendencies? Could he see things that others couldn't? He's clearly operating on another plane to most and I had a feeling that's where they were going with him in 101 after he's the first to see an apparition of Peter in the ATC dimension but don't think that's the case now. I guess he's just not a smart man, a clueless hipster.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4897482
I liked GB:ATC well enough, but I would like to change the enemies powers and motivation a bit. While I liked he was able to jump into bodies and take over, the dance scene made him way to OP. He could have ended the battle versus the GB right there. I could file it under Gozers inability to actually throw the GB over the railing, but I would like some rules.
When is Rowan able to possess others, does he need to enter them? If so, make him jump from agent to agent or let the other ghosts help him. This would create tension in the big fight scene afterwards as well.
While I liked the big logo visually, he was not very threatening to the busters. Chasing them around with some near misses would have been awesome, instead he loses them fairly quickly.

The way the comic has connected the universes is fine, but perhaps make it so the old GB/Mayor are possessed as well to keep a tight lid on the old busters, which also explains their not wanting to help the new GB, and perhaps use the moodslime to explain why people forgot about ghosts or something.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4897495
I didn't see the reasoning for Kevin's character being in the film except to be eye candy to the female audience. I would have rather have had them use Benny, or the very least the guy who spray painted the GB logo on the subway wall. At least Benny and the subway guy were able to add two and two.
User avatar
By TK5759
#4897505
RichardLess wrote:How to fix GB2016? You mean in it's current state or starting over?

I'd replace Paul Feif with..Gore Verbinski. Cinematography by Darius Wolksi, Production design by Rick Heinrichs, FX by ILM, music by Howard Shore.

I'd cast Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, Ellen Degeneras & Emma Stone if it HAS to be all female. If not I'd cast Chris Pratt, Steven Colbert, Craig Robinson and Bill Hader.
Plot: three unemployed non scientists friends decide to go to a franchise expo. They see all sorts of franchise opportunities: McDonald's, Arby's, Trump Hotels. They are all way too expensive. At the very end of the expo hall, tucked away in the corner is a small booth run by Ellen in the Female version OR Steven Colbert in the Male version. The franchise is a paranormal removal company that was big in the '80s called "Ghostbusters". It's cheaper than the other options so the friends decide to give it a go. There's one catch: they have to be approved first by the head of the franchise : Dr Ray Stanz.
The supernatural plot involves the new GB's investigating why New York is one of the one cities in America with such major Paranormal Activity happening every 5-10-20 years. They'll go periods with zero ghosts and then 5-10 years later? Boom. A supernatural doorway opens somehow. Why New York? What's so special? Since I don't want to reveal here what my mythology plot line is I won't give too much away but it involves American History in a way that is currently relevant.
Comedy and supernatural hi-jinx ensue. Also? The runtime is no longer than 1 hour and 50 minutes.

That's how I'd fix GB2016

^This.

This would have been an amazing movie.
User avatar
By timeware
#4897509
Maybe. I would think the political climate would have been much more hostile given the choices of Colbert, Fey and Degeneras. I would imagine they would have had a segment on their shows devoted to mean tweets and comments while encouraging negative responses to keep it going.

I would agree with replacing the director and throwing in Emma Stone. I would have turned it over to Happy Madison thrown in Eddie Murphy as mayor, Jon Lovitz as secretary, Leslie Jones, Bruce Campbell, Seth MC Farlane, and Kate McKinnon.
By RichardLess
#4897526
timeware wrote:Maybe. I would think the political climate would have been much more hostile given the choices of Colbert, Fey and Degeneras. I would imagine they would have had a segment on their shows devoted to mean tweets and comments while encouraging negative responses to keep it going.

I would agree with replacing the director and throwing in Emma Stone. I would have turned it over to Happy Madison thrown in Eddie Murphy as mayor, Jon Lovitz as secretary, Leslie Jones, Bruce Campbell, Seth MC Farlane, and Kate McKinnon.


I don't know. Colbert just looks good in my imagination in a GB uniform. Very Egonish. Ellen I just find hilarious. She's very dry and witty(her stand up is very underrated. She's the female Jerry Seinfeld. Both are genius at observational comedy) . Fey is also very understated. Eddie Murphy is an interesting choice given his history with GB'84.

Happy Madison? The Adam Sandler production company? With Ghostbusters? I don't know about that idea.. I love Bruce Campbell and Jon Lovitz but Seth Mcfarlane is not a very good actor. Then again so long as he doesn't write or direct it maybe someone can reign him in.

I think anyone here could write a better script than what we got. We may not be pro comedy writers, but we could write a GB script that feels like a GB movie and then have someone with comedy talent do a dialogue polish. What I love about the first two films is that A) Not everyone is trying to make jokes. Like in real life, a couple characters are funny(some intentional-Venkman, some unknowing-Louis Tully). And B) the mythology; the threat. There is a romance. We worry about Dana.

I have to be careful in threads like this. I start getting into how the original is compared to what we got and I start getting annoyed all over again. How could they get it so wrong???

Sorry. I know a lot of you like the reboot and I don't mean to start a big argument. Sometime's it's just hard to not get frustrated in threads like these when I really sit and think about it all. I just envy you guys so much. I wish I could have another Ghostbusters film to cherish. Truly, I do. You reboot fans are lucky. I've tried so hard to approach this film in a variety of ways and like it. It's happened with other films I didn't like at first and have come to enjoy. But I can't with this reboot. Then I think about some of you like Alpha or Kingpin. There are quite a few things we agree on. What do they see that I dont? Can it really be taste? Is it that simple? I mean we are all here on this site so we each love Ghostbusters. We each find the same lines funny, right? Then the GB reboot comes along and we find ourselves on opposite sides. I've said it before but I'd really love to watch the reboot with some of you. Just to see if I can see it through your eyes, or you through mine. I HATE so much that I hate a film with the title "Ghostbusters". That's what really gets me angry is that here we are, 25+ years since the last GB films. All the waiting. All the false starts. All the promises. And...ugh

Sorry for the rant. I just can't even..
philmorgan81 liked this
By philmorgan81
#4897529
RichardLess wrote:
timeware wrote:Maybe. I would think the political climate would have been much more hostile given the choices of Colbert, Fey and Degeneras. I would imagine they would have had a segment on their shows devoted to mean tweets and comments while encouraging negative responses to keep it going.

I would agree with replacing the director and throwing in Emma Stone. I would have turned it over to Happy Madison thrown in Eddie Murphy as mayor, Jon Lovitz as secretary, Leslie Jones, Bruce Campbell, Seth MC Farlane, and Kate McKinnon.


I don't know. Colbert just looks good in my imagination in a GB uniform. Very Egonish. Ellen I just find hilarious. She's very dry and witty(her stand up is very underrated. She's the female Jerry Seinfeld. Both are genius at observational comedy) . Fey is also very understated. Eddie Murphy is an interesting choice given his history with GB'84.

Happy Madison? The Adam Sandler production company? With Ghostbusters? I don't know about that idea.. I love Bruce Campbell and Jon Lovitz but Seth Mcfarlane is not a very good actor. Then again so long as he doesn't write or direct it maybe someone can reign him in.

I think anyone here could write a better script than what we got. We may not be pro comedy writers, but we could write a GB script that feels like a GB movie and then have someone with comedy talent do a dialogue polish. What I love about the first two films is that A) Not everyone is trying to make jokes. Like in real life, a couple characters are funny(some intentional-Venkman, some unknowing-Louis Tully). And B) the mythology; the threat. There is a romance. We worry about Dana.

I have to be careful in threads like this. I start getting into how the original is compared to what we got and I start getting annoyed all over again. How could they get it so wrong???

Sorry. I know a lot of you like the reboot and I don't mean to start a big argument. Sometime's it's just hard to not get frustrated in threads like these when I really sit and think about it all. I just envy you guys so much. I wish I could have another Ghostbusters film to cherish. Truly, I do. You reboot fans are lucky. I've tried so hard to approach this film in a variety of ways and like it. It's happened with other films I didn't like at first and have come to enjoy. But I can't with this reboot. Then I think about some of you like Alpha or Kingpin. There are quite a few things we agree on. What do they see that I dont? Can it really be taste? Is it that simple? I mean we are all here on this site so we each love Ghostbusters. We each find the same lines funny, right? Then the GB reboot comes along and we find ourselves on opposite sides. I've said it before but I'd really love to watch the reboot with some of you. Just to see if I can see it through your eyes, or you through mine. I HATE so much that I hate a film with the title "Ghostbusters". That's what really gets me angry is that here we are, 25+ years since the last GB films. All the waiting. All the false starts. All the promises. And...ugh

Sorry for the rant. I just can't even..


LOL! Believe me Richardless you are not alone. I need to be careful of what I say as well because I don't want to upset or start an argument with anyone that loved the movie. Maybe I can give you some insight on why you feel the way you do. I was extremely disappointed with the Reboot. For a time I was wondering what was wrong with me. So many of my fellow Ghostheads were able to walk out of the theatre with a smile on their face after watching this movie. Why am I so disappointed and to certain extent annoyed? Well the more times I read the opinions of those that saw the Reboot in a positive light, the more I started to understand why I felt the way I do. You see There is nothing wrong with the way I feel towards the Reboot, just like there is nothing wrong with those who enjoyed the Reboot.

I had said this in a previous thread so forgive me if you heard this before, but I came to the realization that my expectations for another Ghostbusters film were so high that when they decided to remake Ghostbusters instead of making a sequel it hit me pretty hard. Then when the movie was less than groundbreaking it just annoyed me. My attitude was that if you were going to reinvent the wheel with a new crew you better be doing something amazing. The movie was by no stretch of the imagination the worst Remake ever made, for me that Honor goes to Leprechaun Origins. ;).

This is my take on it. I was 4 years old when the first movie came out and as it happens it is the first movie I ever saw. Already it holds a very special place in my heart. Then you could imagine just how excited I was when the The Real Ghostbusters came out. Then when Ghostbusters 2 came out I was as happy as a child could be. Many people were disappointed with how the sequel turned out because of it being a watered down version of the original. Not me though I was already used Ghostbusters being watered down because I was watching the cartoon religiously. After the hype of Ghostbusters died down in the 90s my love for it never deminished I just figured there would be a third movie some day. When Extreme Ghostbusters came out in 1997 I was disappointed in that too. Man I was incredibly hard on that series. For a time I hated the new characters, I hated the new equipment, I hated the darker tone. I was in High School and I just wasn't ready for a new team of Ghostbusters. I still continued to watch it though to see where the show was going to go. Then when Egon would occasionally strap on a proton pack to help the new crew my feelings toward the series started to soften. I came to really embrace the series when the rest of the original Ghostbusters showed up at the end of the series. After that I felt that another film in the series with the original crew passing the torch could work real well. So my excitment for another film grew. The hype for another film would continue to grow until Ghostbusters The Video Game came out and just blew me away. The 360 Version, Wii and DS. I found things to enjoy on all 3 versions. The Realistic version being my personal favorite. ;) Now in my mind after how much enjoyment I got from the Video Games there was no excuse for another movie to not be as equally breathtaking.

So in a nutshell my expectations for another film were so high I doubt even a mediocre sequel would have satisfied them. Now even though I felt a bit burned by the Reboot I am still extremely excited for those future Ghostbusters films. Even if the next film is set in the world of the Reboot, at least we don't have to sit through another origin story. Now I need to apologize for my rant. :) :) :)
RichardLess, deadderek liked this
By RichardLess
#4897535
philmorgan81 wrote:
RichardLess wrote:
I don't know. Colbert just looks good in my imagination in a GB uniform. Very Egonish. Ellen I just find hilarious. She's very dry and witty(her stand up is very underrated. She's the female Jerry Seinfeld. Both are genius at observational comedy) . Fey is also very understated. Eddie Murphy is an interesting choice given his history with GB'84.

Happy Madison? The Adam Sandler production company? With Ghostbusters? I don't know about that idea.. I love Bruce Campbell and Jon Lovitz but Seth Mcfarlane is not a very good actor. Then again so long as he doesn't write or direct it maybe someone can reign him in.

I think anyone here could write a better script than what we got. We may not be pro comedy writers, but we could write a GB script that feels like a GB movie and then have someone with comedy talent do a dialogue polish. What I love about the first two films is that A) Not everyone is trying to make jokes. Like in real life, a couple characters are funny(some intentional-Venkman, some unknowing-Louis Tully). And B) the mythology; the threat. There is a romance. We worry about Dana.

I have to be careful in threads like this. I start getting into how the original is compared to what we got and I start getting annoyed all over again. How could they get it so wrong???

Sorry. I know a lot of you like the reboot and I don't mean to start a big argument. Sometime's it's just hard to not get frustrated in threads like these when I really sit and think about it all. I just envy you guys so much. I wish I could have another Ghostbusters film to cherish. Truly, I do. You reboot fans are lucky. I've tried so hard to approach this film in a variety of ways and like it. It's happened with other films I didn't like at first and have come to enjoy. But I can't with this reboot. Then I think about some of you like Alpha or Kingpin. There are quite a few things we agree on. What do they see that I dont? Can it really be taste? Is it that simple? I mean we are all here on this site so we each love Ghostbusters. We each find the same lines funny, right? Then the GB reboot comes along and we find ourselves on opposite sides. I've said it before but I'd really love to watch the reboot with some of you. Just to see if I can see it through your eyes, or you through mine. I HATE so much that I hate a film with the title "Ghostbusters". That's what really gets me angry is that here we are, 25+ years since the last GB films. All the waiting. All the false starts. All the promises. And...ugh

Sorry for the rant. I just can't even..


LOL! Believe me Richardless you are not alone. I need to be careful of what I say as well because I don't want to upset or start an argument with anyone that loved the movie. Maybe I can give you some insight on why you feel the way you do. I was extremely disappointed with the Reboot. For a time I was wondering what was wrong with me. So many of my fellow Ghostheads were able to walk out of the theatre with a smile on their face after watching this movie. Why am I so disappointed and to certain extent annoyed? Well the more times I read the opinions of those that saw the Reboot in a positive light, the more I started to understand why I felt the way I do. You see There is nothing wrong with the way I feel towards the Reboot, just like there is nothing wrong with those who enjoyed the Reboot.

I had said this in a previous thread so forgive me if you heard this before, but I came to the realization that my expectations for another Ghostbusters film were so high that when they decided to remake Ghostbusters instead of making a sequel it hit me pretty hard. Then when the movie was less than groundbreaking it just annoyed me. My attitude was that if you were going to reinvent the wheel with a new crew you better be doing something amazing. The movie was by no stretch of the imagination the worst Remake ever made, for me that Honor goes to Leprechaun Origins. ;).

This is my take on it. I was 4 years old when the first movie came out and as it happens it is the first movie I ever saw. Already it holds a very special place in my heart. Then you could imagine just how excited I was when the The Real Ghostbusters came out. Then when Ghostbusters 2 came out I was as happy as a child could be. Many people were disappointed with how the sequel turned out because of it being a watered down version of the original. Not me though I was already used Ghostbusters being watered down because I was watching the cartoon religiously. After the hype of Ghostbusters died down in the 90s my love for it never deminished I just figured there would be a third movie some day. When Extreme Ghostbusters came out in 1997 I was disappointed in that too. Man I was incredibly hard on that series. For a time I hated the new characters, I hated the new equipment, I hated the darker tone. I was in High School and I just wasn't ready for a new team of Ghostbusters. I still continued to watch it though to see where the show was going to go. Then when Egon would occasionally strap on a proton pack to help the new crew my feelings toward the series started to soften. I came to really embrace the series when the rest of the original Ghostbusters showed up at the end of the series. After that I felt that another film in the series with the original crew passing the torch could work real well. So my excitment for another film grew. The hype for another film would continue to grow until Ghostbusters The Video Game came out and just blew me away. The 360 Version, Wii and DS. I found things to enjoy on all 3 versions. The Realistic version being my personal favorite. ;) Now in my mind after how much enjoyment I got from the Video Games there was no excuse for another movie to not be as equally breathtaking.

So in a nutshell my expectations for another film were so high I doubt even a mediocre sequel would have satisfied them. Now even though I felt a bit burned by the Reboot I am still extremely excited for those future Ghostbusters films. Even if the next film is set in the world of the Reboot, at least we don't have to sit through another origin story. Now I need to apologize for my rant. :) :) :)


Originally the hype and not being a sequel were my biggest complaints. I mean how could it ever be as good? Of course it couldn't. Everything was just so poorly done. The villian, the plot, the characters and the cameos. I almost start getting angry myself. Like, how can I not find a single redeeming quality here. Not 1? But it's everything. From the cinematography, to the production design to the music & editing. It's so vanilla and generic and poorly done. The first two had some all time behind the scenes legends working on them. Both films. Elmer Bernstein, Bo Welch, John De Cuir, Michael Chapman, Lazlo Kovac, Richard Edland, Dennis Murren, Bernie Wrightson, Randy Edelman. That's a friggin all star line up right there. A veritable whose who of film legends.

Again, this isn't my attempt to start an argument all over again about Gb'16 Vs '84. Ultimately these are my own hang ups. I'm not trying to mock anyone for liking the reboot or anything like that. I'm just ranting is all. Apologies if you feel otherwise. Again, I swear on my father's grave that I wish I could like this movie.
TK5759 liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4897564
Hey Richard, no harm no foul.

I have absolutely no problems with people disliking the reboot, I only have problems with people who go out of their way to troll in the part of the forum dedicated to the new movie. Luckily I think most people have passed on or a blocked on this part now, but in the end it's sad the fanbase got so up in arms on this.
JurorNo.2, TK5759, deadderek and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By TK5759
#4897570
RichardLess wrote:
Originally the hype and not being a sequel were my biggest complaints. I mean how could it ever be as good? Of course it couldn't. Everything was just so poorly done. The villian, the plot, the characters and the cameos. I almost start getting angry myself. Like, how can I not find a single redeeming quality here. Not 1? But it's everything. From the cinematography, to the production design to the music & editing. It's so vanilla and generic and poorly done. The first two had some all time behind the scenes legends working on them. Both films. Elmer Bernstein, Bo Welch, John De Cuir, Michael Chapman, Lazlo Kovac, Richard Edland, Dennis Murren, Bernie Wrightson, Randy Edelman. That's a friggin all star line up right there. A veritable whose who of film legends.

Again, this isn't my attempt to start an argument all over again about Gb'16 Vs '84. Ultimately these are my own hang ups. I'm not trying to mock anyone for liking the reboot or anything like that. I'm just ranting is all. Apologies if you feel otherwise. Again, I swear on my father's grave that I wish I could like this movie.


Nailed my thoughts exactly. I walked out of the theater wondering what I had just seen and how it related to Ghostbusters at all other than use of the IP. It didn't "feel" right and a lot of that came down to the humor in the movie. Gb '84 was a lot more natural where it didn't feel like the actors were trying to make a joke but instead had a natural flow that felt more like we were watching a day out of their lives. GB'16 by contrast, felt like potty humor for shock value's sake and that just ruined the movie for me. I had my reservations about Melissa McCarthy after seeing her in Identity Thief (loved her in The Heat to be fair) and my gut instinct was correct. She doesn't have depth as an actress--all of her characters are played the same way in every film.

Alphagaia wrote:Hey Richard, no harm no foul.

I have absolutely no problems with people disliking the reboot, I only have problems with people who go out of their way to troll in the part of the forum dedicated to the new movie. Luckily I think most people have passed on or a blocked on this part now, but in the end it's sad the fanbase got so up in arms on this.


Dude.

This response made me smile this morning. I would like to think that most of the people who got so vile over the reboot are no longer here and this forum is better for it. I left for a while only checking in occasionally to see if anything was for sale.
To see someone sharing honest thoughts about the reboot and somebody not tearing them down or calling them sexist for doing so is a huge step in the right direction. Probably not the first time that's happened but it's the first time I saw it here and it was nice to see. :cool:
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4897571
At the risk of sounding like an 80s kids show, life would be pretty boring if we all liked the same things. The problem was only when the hate got so out of hand.

Even if the next film is set in the world of the Reboot, at least we don't have to sit through another origin story.


Thank goodness for that, because with so many comic book movies lately, I am completely done with origin stories, at least ones that take up so much of a movie.
Alphagaia, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4897572
TK5759 wrote:Gb '84 was a lot more natural where it didn't feel like the actors were trying to make a joke but instead had a natural flow that felt more like we were watching a day out of their lives. GB'16 by contrast, felt like potty humor for shock value's sake and that just ruined the movie for me.


Ehhh, I just feel like it's more complicated on both accounts. Of course they are trying to make jokes in GB84. It's not a documentary, it's a comedy. I understand what you're saying, I just feel like there's a different way to put it. Stand by on that one. ;) And it's simply not true that GB16 is dominated by potty humor or shock value.

all of her characters are played the same way in every film.


Murray always plays the bad boy who finds redemption in his movies. Heck, can you ever imagine Eddie Murphy playing a shrinking violet? (and if you say Nutty Professor, you prove my point. :walterpeck: )

But yes, glad we can finally come close to a pleasant back and forth regarding ATC. :)
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on August 30th, 2017, 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By TK5759
#4897573
JurorNo.2 wrote:Ehhh, I just feel like it's more complicated on both accounts. Of course they are trying to make jokes in GB84. It's not a documentary, it's a comedy. I understand what you're saying, I just feel like there's a different way to put it. Stand by on that one. ;) And it's simply not true that GB16 is dominated by potty humor or shock value.


I'm not really reading that deep into the subtexts of the movie, mostly comparing the humor on a surface level. The jokes in '84 felt more cerebral whereas '16 felt like it was practically slapping me in the face with them. But don't get me wrong, I actually like those kinds of movies sometimes--The Jerk is one of my all-time favorites. You don't really need to have a doctorate to understand the humor in that one! :) There's a time and a place for slapstick and '16 didn't feel right to me.

JurorNo.2 wrote:Murray always plays the bad boy who finds redemption in his movies. Heck, can you ever imagine Eddie Murphy playing a shrinking violent? (and if you say Nutty Professor, you prove my point. :walterpeck: )

But yes, glad we can finally come close to a pleasant back and forth regarding ATC. :)

I concur but what do you mean by a "shrinking violent"?
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4897575
TK5759 wrote:But don't get me wrong, I actually like those kinds of movies sometimes--The Jerk is one of my all-time favorites. You don't really need to have a doctorate to understand the humor in that one! :) There's a time and a place for slapstick and '16 didn't feel right to me.


Yeah I think that's really what it comes down to. A lot of comedies have goofy, slapstick humor and we obviously enjoy them. But because Ghostbusters I and 2 (yes, and 2) were a cut above let's say, we have higher expectations for a reboot. That makes sense. I just don't get as furious over movies as I used to. Life is too short, and there is something positive to find in any movie (except Cat in the Hat).

I concur but what do you mean by a "shrinking violent"?


Oh typo, lol, I meant shrinking violet, like a shy person.
User avatar
By TK5759
#4897576
JurorNo.2 wrote:I just don't get as furious over movies as I used to. Life is too short, and there is something positive to find in any movie (except Cat in the Hat).


Word. I've decided that I simply don't like '16 and that's it. Just don't get me started on the abortion that is Episode 7--we don't have that kind of time. ;)
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4897579
That brings up an interesting thought... Ghostbusters is an origin story in that we meet the characters for the first time and see them set up shop, but at the same time the first five minutes are just the introductory scene, and then by around 35 minutes in their business is established, leaving really only half an hour's worth of origin story. Many things, such as the logo, just appear with no backstory. Thay show up to the first bust and the proton packs and trap are in full working condition, even though they haven't had a full test, and no prior reference to them onscreen. With that in mind, can Ghostbusters be considered an origin story?
JurorNo.2, Lee FW, Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4897582
Sav C wrote:That brings up an interesting thought... Ghostbusters is an origin story in that we meet the characters for the first time and see them set up shop, but at the same time the first five minutes are just the introductory scene, and then by around 35 minutes in their business is established, leaving really only half an hour's worth of origin story. Many things, such as the logo, just appear with no backstory. Thay show up to the first bust and the proton packs and trap are in full working condition, even though they haven't had a full test, and no prior reference to them onscreen. With that in mind, can Ghostbusters be considered an origin story?


Good question. I personally wouldn't consider it an origin story the way, say, Spiderman tends to be. Because like you said, introductions are over pretty quickly. How they got their equipment or why they even care about ghosts in the first place isn't all that important to the story overall.
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on August 30th, 2017, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lee FW, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By TK5759
#4897583
Sav C wrote:That brings up an interesting thought... Ghostbusters is an origin story in that we meet the characters for the first time and see them set up shop, but at the same time the first five minutes are just the introductory scene, and then by around 35 minutes in their business is established, leaving really only half an hour's worth of origin story. Many things, such as the logo, just appear with no backstory. Thay show up to the first bust and the proton packs and trap are in full working condition, even though they haven't had a full test, and no prior reference to them onscreen. With that in mind, can Ghostbusters be considered an origin story?

I would say no it's not an origin story and not every franchise needs one. Look at Star Wars. The prequels took away a lot of the mysticism and ruined the mythology and fantasy for a lot of people. Yeah, I said it: the prequels made Star Wars worse. Ghostbusters didn't/doesn't need an origin story because that stuff is filler. Yeah it's cool to see in some stories but you can't deny that it's mostly filler. Backstory on the logo probably wasn't used because it just wasn't needed.
Now, this is my personal standpoint but wouldn't a montage of testing the equipment have taken away from the comedic tension of the elevator scene?
Lee FW, JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Lee FW
#4897584
Sav C wrote:That brings up an interesting thought... Ghostbusters is an origin story in that we meet the characters for the first time and see them set up shop, but at the same time the first five minutes are just the introductory scene, and then by around 35 minutes in their business is established, leaving really only half an hour's worth of origin story. Many things, such as the logo, just appear with no backstory. Thay show up to the first bust and the proton packs and trap are in full working condition, even though they haven't had a full test, and no prior reference to them onscreen. With that in mind, can Ghostbusters be considered an origin story?


Technically by the dictionary definition yes it is, especially if we're just talking about actually becoming Ghostbusters. However I'd say there's more to an origin for me than just the going into business part. Egon, Peter and Ray have clearly been doing this a while if not the actual physical act of trapping Ghosts. We never actually find out how or why they got into the paranormal which for me is what would define an origin.
JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4897586
TK5759 wrote:Now, this is my personal standpoint but wouldn't a montage of testing the equipment have taken away from the comedic tension of the elevator scene?


Man...this is where I wish I was born a bit earlier, because I can never watch GB84 the way the original audience did. The logo and the uniforms were so familiar to me growing up, I can't fully appreciate the first big reveal scene at the hotel.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4897587
Lee FW wrote:
Technically by the dictionary definition yes it is, especially if we're just talking about actually becoming Ghostbusters. However I'd say there's more to an origin for me than just the going into business part. Egon, Peter and Ray have clearly been doing this a while if not the actual physical act of trapping Ghosts. We never actually find out how or why they got into the paranormal which for me is what would define an origin.


Yeah, an origin story would probably be how Peter, Egon, and Ray met in college in the first place.
By RichardLess
#4897604
TK5759 wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:I just don't get as furious over movies as I used to. Life is too short, and there is something positive to find in any movie (except Cat in the Hat).


Word. I've decided that I simply don't like '16 and that's it. Just don't get me started on the abortion that is Episode 7--we don't have that kind of time. ;)


Yeah Episode 7 is another example of how it just feels "off". I always point to the Rathtar scene as an example of how Un-Star Wars it is. The creature design feels like a left over design from Men in Black plus this is how they introduce Han Solo & Chewie?
Unlike GB'16 though there are parts and moments I enjoy. I wish Poe Dameron was a main character, he's easily the best thing in the movie. say what you want about the prequels(I'm a fan. I view episodes 1-6 as a complete story and love each and every episode) but they at least had imagination on display and felt like Star Wars.
Episode 7 had so little imagination. Not one memorable action sequence! Again, the prequels at least gave us Pod Racing, the Clone Wars and cool light sabre duels. The original films had one iconic scene after another. Episode 7 had generic planets and generic action. Nothing stood out. It was all so bleh. And where was the "Star War". There's barely any sequence set in outer space. Uggh. I could go on and on( Really? another Death Star? That's how Han Solo goes out? Luke Skywalker doesn't have a single line of dialogue, why is the first order even a thing? Who is Snoke? What kind of stupid name is "Snoke" anyways? Why is Leia the leader of a resistance when the rebellion won? Jesus Christ why do we have to wait until the sequel for answers? The first Star Wars works as a stand alone film. The reason the "I am your father" twist works is because we didn't see Vader as anything but a villian. Lucas wasn't trying to set up all these damn mysteries. It's J.J Abrams and his stupid "mystery Box" story telling device)
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4897713
JurorNo.2 wrote:Good question. I personally wouldn't consider it an origin story the way, say, Spiderman tends to be. Because like you said, introductions are over pretty quickly. How they got their equipment or why they even care about ghosts in the first place isn't all that important to the story overall.

Even the car and firehouse don't have much backstory, even though we see them before and after. We see them buying the firehouse, but then the next we see of it the place has been fixed up and they are putting the sign up out front. The car drives up, Ray gives a run down of what it needs, and besides seeing him working on it in that one shot, the next we see of it the car has been completely transformed. I guess there are origin stories there in the sense that we see some progression, but it doesn't take up subplots or anything--they are just there for the audience to piece together.
TK5759 wrote:I would say no it's not an origin story and not every franchise needs one. Look at Star Wars. The prequels took away a lot of the mysticism and ruined the mythology and fantasy for a lot of people. Yeah, I said it: the prequels made Star Wars worse. Ghostbusters didn't/doesn't need an origin story because that stuff is filler. Yeah it's cool to see in some stories but you can't deny that it's mostly filler. Backstory on the logo probably wasn't used because it just wasn't needed.

That's a good point. Ghostbusters itself really flows smoothly as a story, it doesn't need extra stories weighing it down. Everything ties in really well, adding origins stories would probably make it feel disjointed.
Lee FW wrote:We never actually find out how or why they got into the paranormal which for me is what would define an origin.

I heard a rumour around a year ago that they would be making a ghostbusters prequel. Obviously it was bunk, but I suppose that's what it would've delved into had it become a reality.
JurorNo.2 wrote:
TK5759 wrote:Now, this is my personal standpoint but wouldn't a montage of testing the equipment have taken away from the comedic tension of the elevator scene?


Man...this is where I wish I was born a bit earlier, because I can never watch GB84 the way the original audience did. The logo and the uniforms were so familiar to me growing up, I can't fully appreciate the first big reveal scene at the hotel.

It probably would've. By having them come out of the gates with the proton packs working, it really creates a lot of energy.

I first saw both movies when I was five. I remember some parts better than others. In particular the library ghost really sticks with me, I swear to god it is the only time I've ever screamed at a movie. I don't think I remember the big reveal, so while the scene is great, I don't know if I can fully appreciate the reveal scene either.
User avatar
By TK5759
#4897833
JurorNo.2 wrote:Man...this is where I wish I was born a bit earlier, because I can never watch GB84 the way the original audience did. The logo and the uniforms were so familiar to me growing up, I can't fully appreciate the first big reveal scene at the hotel.

You and I both missed it in the theaters. I was born in '84 and didn't see it for the first time until the late 80's when my dad spent a stupid amount of money on a VCR and recorded it for me off CBS. Think I might still have that tape somewhere in all of its glorious edited-for-television greatness...
JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this

Nice, looking good! The thrower is a motivating p[…]

CountDeMonet, thanks. Yeah, if I do end up stripp[…]

Question

Is there anyone on this forum, capable of answer […]

GBFans Shop Feedback

Just a quick update. The Clippard valves were deli[…]