Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By guitar1036
#4813869
I honestly don't know... I'm trying to take the majority or recent news with a bunch of salt. Reboot = horrible idea! There's no need. I'm a millennial (technically - 29 y/o) and the first one is a classic. Just because there's a bunch of kids born in the 90's fwd. that don't know the franchise... ugh. The name and property alone deserve more respect than banging out a 3rd film featuring whoever's big at the moment. All girls would = crap. I don't want cameos by the true GBs, I want a proper 3rd movie. Sadly, while I was originally not a fan of Murray holding up the project moving fwd. in the past (there's gotta be a legit reason and not just him being an ass). From everything I can gather I think the 2nd film really did change directions from what was originally intended and this left a sour taste in the mouths of many. However, the wounds should have healed by now. Alas - no bill on board, ramis (rip), reitman dropping down a few pegs.... this whole thing seems like a horrible idea. How much more can hollywood bleed my childhood? Prob. shouldn't ask. Sigh.

If no one is going to try and do it right then scrap the whole thing and invest every dollar in a more badass video game. I'm still waiting on DLC.. but if that never happens... think a map/world that never ends with hundreds of hours of gameplay. Lots of it would be side missions and just catching ghosts... but over time you'd have to put the story together yourself. Imagine a choose the adventure book but as a video game with amazing graphics.
gold333 liked this
By vgirl
#4816505
one of my fears is that somebody in the cast will die before the movie will come out!
Seriously...Harold is 65....a man of his age and weight could easily have a heart attack... I hope this will not happen not only for GB3 sake but because i really LOVE these guys!
Quick, somebody test this guy for precognitive abilities, that is one great coincidence there!

My list is so long and said so often, you guys could probably copy & paste it here. lol
By gold333
#4836263
If throughout 1990-2010 you would have told me this picture was what finally ended up being GB3, I would have probably laughed at your attempt at humor.

Image
User avatar
By DefenderDarko
#4836296
This was pretty much my greatest fear. A poor director with a dumb vision and money to blow on bad actors.

No real Ghostbusters in the movie? Check. No Ray, no Egon. No freaking Janine?

The jumpsuits are okay. The pack is dumb looking.

Let's hope the car is just as bad, I guess.
User avatar
By Heroic35
#4836297
Spent a whole viewing of the original movie to write up my thoughts on this:

http://whoyagonnacollect.blogspot.com/2 ... .html#more
By gold333
#4836306
Spent a whole viewing of the original movie to write up my thoughts on this:

http://whoyagonnacollect.blogspot.com/2 ... .html#more
Agree completely.

The worst is how aggressively feminist this movie is. Truly equal gender would have been a movie like Gravity, where the strong lead female draws emotional strength from the equally strong lead male.

This GB3 just spits on and demeans men throughout like a bad 70's mysogynistic cop show but the mysandric equivalent.

A hunky, muscle bound male subserviant secretary. No male Ghostbusters, The proposed final scene with traditional primarily male figures of authority, the Army and Police force doing a possessed helpless synchronised goofy dance routine while the girls save the day, etc.

It's so misandric it would be shot down if the roles were reserved. But it's 2015 and you can say what you want about men, it's the in thing nowadays. A better movie would have featured men and women GB's equally.

I'm just surprised that not more people realize how sexist this movie is while claiming the opposite.
User avatar
By DefenderDarko
#4836307
I think my fear is having to deal with teenagers who will only think of the new film. The real Ghostbusters movies will be seen as some 80s stuff that's outdated.

But honestly, that might have happened if the cast had some funny actors mixed in instead of Feig's usual pandering. No one in this movie is popular with any demographic. McKinnen is funny, but she's in SNL hell right now. Whig's career is sloping down. No one knows who Leslie Jones is and everyone is sick of McCarthy and her dumb airhead cousin and her dumb anti-vaccine books.

If this movie had starred Pratt and some women, it would have set records. As it is now, it's going to fair about as well as the A-Team remake, maybe even worse.

The target audience for this movie is Paul Feig.
gold333, Smeghead, Mighty Morphin GB and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By Martin McFly Sr.
#4837139
My biggest fear is that the non-supporters of the new film (like me) are going to be slandered like hell for not supporting it due to the female cast, and an entirely new plot/universe. I'm speaking from a bit of an odd point of view here as a few of my family members are feminist and believe that the whole female thing is all original, totally acceptable, and anyone who doesn't support it is a sexist. This is in all part due to the fact that people like this certain family member have NOT been exposed to anything past the 2 films, and don't even know about the other female characters like Janine and Kylie. I don't think it'd make that much of a difference if said family member knew though, as I've found them to be quite thick-headed.

This really pisses me off.

Why you may ask? Cause it seems to me that these folks don't know their facts and make assumptions about us fans, (and don't want to accept the facts in my case.)

I personally believe that instead of hating on people who support the new movie and them hating on us for not supporting it, we should let them know about the characters from the comic books, cartoons, etc. They should be told about them if they don't know already so maybe they'd understand why a lot of us do not agree with certain elements of this new take on a franchise we all care about so much. It's just here to cash in on a beloved franchise, and people don't agree with it. Simple as that.

I do not plan on going to see the movie, it'll probably end up on Netflix, TV, or something like that in a couple of months and I can watch it for free then instead of wasting my money. I don't expect the film to fail either, the demographic it's aiming for is quite large and will end up getting a following of it's own. I do hope it fails though, however it doesn't taint the originals so I don't really care what happens. Whether they use this film to start up a new line of sequels, kill off the franchise, or kick-start a sequel/spin-off to the old films (the most unlikely thing to occur, but hey I can dream can't I?), it will NEVER change or top what the first two movies did for me and the fans here. Not gonna lie though, seeing production photos, the film seems to have decent production values.

In regards to the car, it looks pretty cool in it's own right (except the absolutely hideous yellow beach bucket on top. Why not a light-bar guys?), but definitely NOT the car I was expecting. Granted I think the reason they went with this car is that it's a car from around 25-30 years ago, which was the same case for the '59 Miller-Meteor in 1984.
I think my fear is having to deal with teenagers who will only think of the new film. The real Ghostbusters movies will be seen as some 80s stuff that's outdated.

But honestly, that might have happened if the cast had some funny actors mixed in instead of Feig's usual pandering. No one in this movie is popular with any demographic. McKinnen is funny, but she's in SNL hell right now. Whig's career is sloping down. No one knows who Leslie Jones is and everyone is sick of McCarthy and her dumb airhead cousin and her dumb anti-vaccine books.

If this movie had starred Pratt and some women, it would have set records. As it is now, it's going to fair about as well as the A-Team remake, maybe even worse.

The target audience for this movie is Paul Feig.
Your fear actually happens quite often. Me being younger than most people here, I've noticed this fear of yours occurring within franchises like the marvel universe. I've gotten into fights over which spider-man is better, cause most people my age only think of the recent reboot and usually make the claim of these films being much more modern and superior cause it's from their generation or cause the old ones are outdated like you said. I imagine it will be the same with this new reboot coming out too.
User avatar
By DefenderDarko
#4837144
The difference is that if Ghostbusters 3 looked like a quality film that might actually capture the hearts of a generation, I would agree.

As it is, the original film is still untouchable. It's too perfect on it's own, from the era it's in. I don't need 'new' because there's no such thing, really.
AMC78 liked this
User avatar
By MageGrayWolf
#4837451
My worst fear is that this reboot outright kills the franchise or even though it turns out horrible it somehow finds a niches similar to the Transformers movies and we just get butt-loads of of horrible squeals based on the reboot. Either way it could result in the original continuity never being touched again.
User avatar
By kevinj319
#4838042
Everything that is happening now is actually beyond my worst fears. Previously, I was convinced Ghostbusters was safe from a reboot because of its unique status of being owned by the principal actors/creators and not just the studio. Surely, I thought, my old heroes would protect this franchise. Turns out I was quite wrong. Dan is happy just to get anything going, Reitman is going along to avoid getting even further pushed out, Harold is sadly gone, and Bill is just glad he isn't being asked to be in it. I never thought we would get here.
By skankerzero
#4838118
Everything that is happening now is actually beyond my worst fears. Previously, I was convinced Ghostbusters was safe from a reboot because of its unique status of being owned by the principal actors/creators and not just the studio. Surely, I thought, my old heroes would protect this franchise. Turns out I was quite wrong. Dan is happy just to get anything going, Reitman is going along to avoid getting even further pushed out, Harold is sadly gone, and Bill is just glad he isn't being asked to be in it. I never thought we would get here.
This is actually a very rational breakdown of the interests of all those involved.
Thank you.

You could have easily just been, 'FEIG HATES US!@#!!!'
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
#4838650
The difference is that if Ghostbusters 3 looked like a quality film that might actually capture the hearts of a generation, I would agree.
Aykroyd's idea for the third film sounded terrible. Worse than anything that's leaked from the Feig reboot.

My worst fear is that this reboot outright kills the franchise
Aykroyd's dumb plot for GB3 would have killed the franchise in all likelihood.
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
#4838654
What was Aykroyds idea?

I've read about Alive Again and it sounded generic and lame. Is that the same thing you're talking about?
New York transforms into Hell or the Ghostbusters go to a Hellish version of New York. That just sounds pedestrian but there was more I can't remember that sounded actively bad.

Actually, I didn't care for the plot of the video game, either. And that was supposedly canon for the "new"
Ghostbusters 3 which never happened. I hate the following things about the video game:

1) Bringing back Gozer/Marshmallow man and casually dispatching of her/it/them.

2) Making Peck the boss of the Ghostbusters. Been done before, and always a BAD idea.

3) The stuff with Shandor. He should be a (deceased) servant of Gozer, period.

4) The back-story of the librarian. Trite and dumb.

The best thing about the video game plot was the Juvenile Sloar. I'm serious, IMO that was the best thing in the game. I would have designed a plot around the appearance of a juvenile Sloar in New York city and jettisoned all that other crap.
User avatar
By kevinj319
#4838801
Not to get too far off topic, but the reason that Stay Puft, Slimer, and the Library Ghost were all busts in the game is as a service to the fans. It was done to give players a chance to step into the original movie a bit, since the franchise basically had only shitty games up until that point. It wasn't done because it was necessarily the best story to be rehashing all that, but because it would be fun for the player.
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
#4838802
Not to get too far off topic, but the reason that Stay Puft, Slimer, and the Library Ghost were all busts in the game is as a service to the fans. It was done to give players a chance to step into the original movie a bit, since the franchise basically had only shitty games up until that point. It wasn't done because it was necessarily the best story to be rehashing all that, but because it would be fun for the player.
Hmmm...I hadn't considered that. Makes me look at it in a different light. In that way I guess it seems better.

Thanks for that info.
User avatar
By LandoSystem
#4838803
Not to get too far off topic, but the reason that Stay Puft, Slimer, and the Library Ghost were all busts in the game is as a service to the fans. It was done to give players a chance to step into the original movie a bit, since the franchise basically had only shitty games up until that point. It wasn't done because it was necessarily the best story to be rehashing all that, but because it would be fun for the player.
Agreed.
Which kind of goes to what Ivo Shandor was just talking about. Fine video game but not the best Ghostbusters 3.

I really enjoy the game. Great designs on the ghosts, the car looked great, character models were great, I liked the new pack designs (up until the slime blower upgrade, didn't care for it after that). Lots of good stuff in there.

But it's not a film. I can't say "this is the real Ghostbusters 3 to me." Even if I did, it wasn't much of an ending for the series. It had a lot of great additions to the universe but it wasn't an ending.
By skankerzero
#4838817
Yeah. The game story is what happens when you cater to fans heavily. It was the first (and only) chance fans had to actually go along for the ride, so naturally people really wanted to experience things like Stay Puft, the grey lady, slimer, etc.

Internally, we always treated it as Ghostbusters 2.5. We were working with the Hollywood talent to try and revitalize the franchise. If the game did well, it would have helped pave the way to a real GB3. The game would function as a 'reminder' to the general public about GB and could serve as an introduction for the newer generations.
It wasn't until after the game's release that we found out that any possibility for GB3 was pretty much dead and that our game was going to be as close to GB3 as anyone was going to get.

If the game franchise would have continued, we were ready to explore many different and new stories, but in order to attract as many people as possible to the game, we had to appeal to as many people as we could with the first one, and that meant hitting familiar story beats with the game. The game's development was a mess due to the publisher juggling that happened and Atari spent a lot of money purchasing the game from Activision, so there wasn't much of a marketing budget left.

I wasn't very happy with the direction we went with the story, but for what it was, it was solid. It kind of tied up the Gozer stuff neatly and put it all to rest. In the end of the day though, it was always supposed to be GB 2.5.
mrmichaelt, gold333 liked this
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
#4838819
Yeah. The game story is what happens when you cater to fans heavily. It was the first (and only) chance fans had to actually go along for the ride, so naturally people really wanted to experience things like Stay Puft, the grey lady, slimer, etc.

Internally, we always treated it as Ghostbusters 2.5. We were working with the Hollywood talent to try and revitalize the franchise. If the game did well, it would have helped pave the way to a real GB3. The game would function as a 'reminder' to the general public about GB and could serve as an introduction for the newer generations.
It wasn't until after the game's release that we found out that any possibility for GB3 was pretty much dead and that our game was going to be as close to GB3 as anyone was going to get.

If the game franchise would have continued, we were ready to explore many different and new stories, but in order to attract as many people as possible to the game, we had to appeal to as many people as we could with the first one, and that meant hitting familiar story beats with the game. The game's development was a mess due to the publisher juggling that happened and Atari spent a lot of money purchasing the game from Activision, so there wasn't much of a marketing budget left.

I wasn't very happy with the direction we went with the story, but for what it was, it was solid. It kind of tied up the Gozer stuff neatly and put it all to rest. In the end of the day though, it was always supposed to be GB 2.5.
Cool, thanks for the inside info.

I know there are two versions of the game, Realistic and Stylized, for different game systems, right? And the juvenile Sloar only appears in the realistic version, I believe.

I think the developers should have left it out altogether, because in my opinion it could have been a great "end boss" in another Ghostbusters game. Like I said earlier it was my favorite part of the video game plot.
By skankerzero
#4838820
Yeah, the Wii version was derived from our version. People can look at the Wii version however they want, but in the end, they adapted the story that best fit the mood of their game and those changes did not come from the Hollywood sources.

One of the original Sloar ideas was for it to be a giant 'living level'. The idea was that the library (I believe) was on the Sloar's back as it was flying. There are some concepts for this idea, but it was shelved as we wouldn't have had time to get it working properly.
The idea of what a Sloar actually was was very vague. It was just a throwaway sentence in part 2 I believe, so we had a lot of freedom to do what we wanted with it. Honestly, I was not a fan of the final approved concept. It could have been a much more creative design but we were strapped for time so certain design elements had to be there in order to make it as easy to integrate as possible. (Mainly the humanoid physique)

I agree the whole plot of a Sloar being birthed would have made a great story for a stand alone game.
mrmichaelt liked this
By xxbrankxx
#4838905
The difference is that if Ghostbusters 3 looked like a quality film that might actually capture the hearts of a generation, I would agree.
Aykroyd's idea for the third film sounded terrible. Worse than anything that's leaked from the Feig reboot.

My worst fear is that this reboot outright kills the franchise
Aykroyd's dumb plot for GB3 would have killed the franchise in all likelihood.
Maybe so, but at least it was HIS to destroy. Reminds me of when Sylvester Stallone was asked if Rocky Balboa (Rocky 6) was going to be any good, he said, "If I'm going to go down in flames, I want to be in the cockpit."
Mighty Morphin GB liked this
By Stantz1981
#4838926
My worst fears are coming true. Not necessarily that this is a reboot but that there is not a shred of originality & a complete rip off/insult to the original. The cast is an uninspired gender swap. The packs must have taken all of 5 minutes to design & don't get me started on the Ecto which is just hideous. At least if your going to do a reboot, put some thought & imagination into it. Feig-busters is a prime example of the Hollywood money making machine in full flow
Mighty Morphin GB liked this
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
#4838952
My worst fears are coming true. Not necessarily that this is a reboot but that there is not a shred of originality & a complete rip off/insult to the original. The cast is an uninspired gender swap. The packs must have taken all of 5 minutes to design & don't get me started on the Ecto which is just hideous. At least if your going to do a reboot, put some thought & imagination into it. Feig-busters is a prime example of the Hollywood money making machine in full flow
The new Ecto-1 is sharp. Hideous? Wow, no accounting for taste.

Of all the things leaked/shown from the reboot set, the Ecto-1 is clearly the one that sucks least.
80sguy liked this
User avatar
By galeap
#4839007
From what I have seen leaked of the new film all I can feel is sadness. And I fear that this will set back the development of a truly good new ghostbusters film another 10 years or more, which will probably be needed to let the dust from this upcoming train wreck to settle before anyone is prepared to put money behind the franchise again.

With that all said, it is obviously just my opinion based off the bits and pieces I have read across the web.
But there seems to be a consistent set of issues emerging:
1. Concept of all female team. I would have thought in 2015 a mixed sex team would have better conveyed modern values of the broadest possible audience. (Note that I have no specific criticism over the acting ability of any of the female leads, as I honestly don't recognize them from any other movies.)
2. Props and costumes appear to be lacking in commitment that the original movies displayed. The process of scratch building a proton pack makes you truly appreciate the shape and thought that went into the original design. Sure there is tubing attached to resistors, but in my mind this is far more acceptable than using bulk amounts of copper plumbing components mixed in with a stack of mesh all tangled together. I'm thinking that they will be trading very very heavy on digital after-effects in this film, way more so than the originals.
3. If the discussed sorry concepts is correct, this is the biggest disappointment of the lot. No significant originality... sounds like accountants at Sony might be driving this one from a spreadsheet. Recycled story lines seem to be a safer financial bets for studios these days. I think their motto is 'make money not classics!'

I truly hope to be proven wrong, but unfortunately I feel this will be one of those rare times where I will be right.
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
#4839008
From what I have seen leaked of the new film all I can feel is sadness. And I fear that this will set back the development of a truly good new ghostbusters film another 10 years or more, which will probably be needed to let the dust from this upcoming train wreck to settle before anyone is prepared to put money behind the franchise again.
I'm afraid I must agree with you, the new movie will most likely suck. Maybe 10 years is a bit long, however. Even a terrible reboot will probably make money and re-kindle interest in the franchise.
I have no specific criticism over the acting ability of any of the female leads, as I honestly don't recognize them from any other movies.
Really? That's one I haven't heard before. You've never seen Bridesmaids or any other Melissa McCarthy movie? She's in a ton of them. The others aren't as well-known, Kirsten Wiig has been in a few movies, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones have only appeared on SNL not on the big screen as far as I know. Kind of surprised you've never come across McCarthy though...she is fairly well-known.

3. If the discussed sorry concepts is correct, this is the biggest disappointment of the lot. No significant originality... sounds like accountants at Sony might be driving this one from a spreadsheet. Recycled story lines seem to be a safer financial bets for studios these days. I think their motto is 'make money not classics!' I truly hope to be proven wrong, but unfortunately I feel this will be one of those rare times where I will be right.
Yeah, the leaked plot points don't exactly scream "great idea". I'm hoping some of them are re-worked or just junked before the final version is put together.

Today my feeling is that there is a 35% chance this film isn't awful. I will settle for mediocre.
User avatar
By galeap
#4839009

Really? That's one I haven't heard before. You've never seen Bridesmaids or any other Melissa McCarthy movie? She's in a ton of them. The others aren't as well-known, Kirsten Wiig has been in a few movies, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones have only appeared on SNL not on the big screen as far as I know. Kind of surprised you've never come across McCarthy though...she is fairly well-known.
Sheltered life maybe. And in all honesty I may have seen them in movies that I have watched on tv or at the movies, more than likely in something my wife convinced me to see. Just none of them are particular draw cards for me.

Being a kid of the early 70's I grew up loving movies like, Indiana Jones, Starwars, Ghostbusters (obviously), BTTF, The Terminator, Blues Brothers and tv shows and cartoons like Star Trek, Galaxy Rangers, Transformers, Battlestar Galatica, and similar.
To this day, any extension of these movies or series makes me pay attention. Any new movies/shows off similar action, adventure or comedy gains similar attention.

I catch SNL every now and then, never became a staple for me as it didn't air on our networks in Australia when I was younger. Now we have cable, and I enjoy the show it still hasn't become a staple.

So as I said sheltered nerdy life I guess.

P.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

https://media3.giphy.com/media/xT5LMpxVYaWvK0JvEY[…]

Real Ghost Detecting PKE Meter

LED lights installed https://i.imgur.com/HMXGoa9.[…]

Any GB's from SC?

Just moved back to Columbia! Awesome! Hit […]

Hello all, I've made a few posts to some of the fo[…]