Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4886574
timeware wrote: They are using hatred against men to promote their cause.
If a feminist had said such a thing about "hatred against women," I doubt you'd have much patience for it. ;)
#4886578
Kingpin wrote:
Here's a few:
Ok ok, I'm giving in before I get a headache. Although what we got in the end wasn't exactly good.
Kingpin wrote:Why not Ghostbusters? Would you be arguing this strongly on this point if it wasn't a franchise you held closely to your heart?
What I'm asking is why did Sony pick this franchise to bring their agenda forward? Why did it have to be Ghostbusters and not another franchise like a currently popular one Sony has? It's a part rhetorical question, part query. I mean I give Sony a pat on the back for unpredictability, I really wasn't expecting them to bring the film franchise back that way but I have to ask why choose Ghostbusters of all things to give women bigger wages in the industry?
Styrofoam_Guy wrote:Maybe we will next have a director that will only with with height challenged actors and we will have something like the time bandits.
As Cleese would say "jolly good". Ha, ha! :lol:
Styrofoam_Guy wrote:It could be held on a different planet and the Ghostbusters can hunt alien ghosts.
Ah that would be interesting.
Commander_Jim wrote:The movie could certainly have been a lot worse than it turned out to be - imagine we got the movie that the trailers were promising? <shudder>
It was different? :mrgreen:
Skyknight wrote:Well, Battlestar was different. She was playing the same character only genderbent and let's not forget, Boomer was genderbent too! It's like making a GB reboot with Petra Venkman, Raine Stantz, Wilma Zeddemore and Edda Spengler!
It was a complete joke what they did. The irony of their left wing politics is that in reversing people's characters they made Colonel Tigh a white character when in the original he was black which was great having a black character in a 70s series in a high position. I don't care what people say they totally bungled it. It's Battlestar in name only.
Skyknight wrote:But that's not the reason I think the BSG reboot sucks. It's because the whole "Every character, even the main ones could be an enemy sleeper agent, who doesn't even know he's not human and everyone suspects everyone to be the traitor" scenario that at the time already had been done to death in countless other shows and movies. I think the new BSG is just another clone of Lost, but in space with the whole Battlestar theme shoehorned in! It didn't feel like Battlestar to me, so I stopped watching. I can always watch the old Battlestar again! Same with Ghostbusters and Star Wars(watch it without the prequels)!
Totally agree on this as well. I finally got around to watching Space: Above and Beyond and it's fair to say the remake Battlestar is a complete rip-off that series except not as good. Space wasn't perfect but at least it was about World War II, a time in history that while terrible offers amazing and interesting stories. Battlestar is a reaction to 9/11 with the war in Iraq and there's absolutely nothing interesting about all of that.
JurorNo.2 wrote:
We've seen the ugly side of being protective this year. ;)
Strange because I've also seen how bad left wing politics can get.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Well, heh, Eddie Murphy certainly did in much of his sketches, which he wrote himself. About what was expected of him as the one black person on the show, as well as general societal perceptions. Interesting tidbit, he was warned his Mr. Robinson sketch might be "too racist." Thankfully, he didn't listen. Nowadays, it's Leslie Jones that gets the ridiculous racist label.
Not to the extent of now though right? There wasn't a whole "Black Lives Matter" thing going on was there.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Good thing the leads in GB16 just happened to be women and there was no big feminist lecture. Sadly, too many fans had already decided to see an agenda behind every corner, whether it was there or not.
I'm glad you feel that way but... :roll:
JurorNo.2 wrote:That statement says more about you than any hypothetical movie.
Ok so all of the constant media attention to it being necessary, all the stuff of Feig promoting women being superior and funny to men was all my imagination. Actually I think it says more about you being in denial if you think there wasn't an agenda.
Alphagaia wrote:Stop trying to depict him like he is some evil mastermind. He only made a movie you happened to dislike.
Yeah I'm guessing Ghostbusters isn't your favourite movie of all time.
timeware wrote:You point out him retweeting, he could have taken the time to say something. He couldn't or didn't care to. I totally find it possible Feig or Sony used bloggers to rile up the actual misogynists. Look at what they did to the video game nerd. You cant tell me that incident didn't scream conspiracy.
Couldn't agree more. I've been exposed quite a bit to Anita Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency. She's a complete idiot and I can't believe people have been giving her money for the stuff she does. Apparently her boyfriend was writing her scripts and playing the games. The way I see it there are three types of feminists: the good feminist like Christina Hoff Summers who actually knows what they're talking about, Anita Sarkeesian who believes in white males shaming, getting rid of religion (basically reverse Nazism) and Emma Watson who doesn't know what she wants but decides she needs to look for problems where there are none i.e. she's completely lost the plot. Paul Feig is kind of between Sarkeesian and Watson in how he behaves. I hope that helps. :)
Alphagaia wrote:Now who could I accuse for creating a controversy based on those two remarks? You!
Boy did I think I was stubborn. I understand you like Feig's movies but you can't defend the guy when he did everything apart from print a huge sign in the Hollywood Reporter stating "WOMEN ARE FUNNY, GET OVER IT!" There was controversy to begin with from fans who wanted a proper sequel, Sony and Feig misunderstood this and immediately left on the misogynistic bandwagon putting every fan who didn't want the reboot into that pile. They made a big thing about it, there isn't one interview where Feig or someone else makes a big thing about it. Alpha you can't really call people out on here for creating controversy themselves when Sony and Feig started all that themselves.
RichardLess wrote:Yep. Studios SHOULD listen to fans. Had they listened they may not have ended up with another major box office disaster. Look what happens when studios don't listen, we get movies like Batman & Robin, X-Men 3, X-Men origins Wolverine, Superman Returns, Ghostbusters ATC. When studios do listen? We get movies like Iron Man, The Avengers, Deadpool, Batman Begins, Star Wars Episode 7(which I wasn't big on, but audiences loved it and reinvigorated Star Wars & made a boat load of cash).
Well it works and it doesn't. Listening to fans is why The Force Awakens is so terrible and uninspired. Answer The Call had the opposite problem which is that no one listened to the fans at all. There needs to be a balance. Both movies I mentioned did it wrong.
80sguy wrote:That's ridiculous. There's no guarantee a real GB3 would've been much better. Just because THIS movie didn't turn out as good as it could have, doesn't mean one something with another director couldn't.
Actually a Ghostbusters movie would have been directed again by Ivan Reitman had Harold Ramis not died and Sony looking for a reason to push Reitman out so yes a third film could have been as good if not a little better than the sequel.
#4886588
pferreira1983 wrote:I have to ask why choose Ghostbusters of all things to give women bigger wages in the industry?
Because Ghostbusters is a brand name, because you'd definitely be introducing it to a new generation of people and potential fans, because a new film was going to grab attention and because it's a franchise that appeals to both adults and children.

If I had to hazard a guess, it might've been picked because it was a property enjoyed by a wider spread of the general public than a lot of other titles in Sony's portfolio.
pferreira1983 wrote:all the stuff of Feig promoting women being superior and funny to men was all my imagination.
Not imagination, but could we acknowledge the possibility of some exaggeration? Some negative things seem worse in our memory than they actually were, likewise some good things. I don't think Feig went on about his preference for actresses over actors nearly as much as some like to think - especially considering how some articles regurgitate other articles.
Alphagaia, 80sguy liked this
#4886594
RichardLess wrote:Making a reboot as quickly as possible wasn't the answer.
I dunno, waiting for 25 years does not sound like it was a decision made on the fly. They really gave all parties involved a chance to get a sequel going before they looked at alternatives to rekindle the franchise.
RichardLess wrote: Look I'm ticked off at Murray for waiting so long we lost Harold, which in turn spawned the reboot. But i think he would've come around.
And when he does, it can still happen. The reboot stand in it's own, so they can continue canon with it or without it, no problem at all.

Let's just hope he comes around before he or another GB actor/actrice passes away, as they are dropping like flies, sadly enough.
Sav C liked this
#4886599
Alphagaia wrote:
RichardLess wrote:Making a reboot as quickly as possible wasn't the answer.
I dunno, waiting for 25 years does not sound like it was a decision made on the fly. They really gave all parties involved a chance to get a sequel going before they looked at alternatives to rekindle the franchise.
RichardLess wrote: Look I'm ticked off at Murray for waiting so long we lost Harold, which in turn spawned the reboot. But i think he would've come around.
And when he does, it can still happen. The reboot stand in it's own, so they can continue canon with it or without it, no problem at all.

Let's just hope he comes around before he or another GB actor/actrice passes away, as they are dropping like flies, sadly enough.
No you misunderstood. I mean they moved very quickly on the reboot after Harold passed away. They took the first "name" director that said yes and catered to his every whim. Reitman felt like Sony pulled a fast one on him as he originally did not want a reboot. I think Shane Black would've been a great choice. Ghostbusters just isn't in Feig's wheelhouse. He's a much more R rated raunchy kind of guy. They should have waited for the dust to settle.
pferreira1983 liked this
#4886600
Do we even know if Shane Black was available for the timeslot?

I agree things moved faster after the deal, but Feig was not the first to say yes, he was the only one to say yes. After months of hearing no from all kinds of directors for a sequel, which Feig had no interest in either.
And even then, Ivan and Feig sat round a table before it could all go forward.

Don't wave away those 25 years where a lot of scenarios were being considered, with a few scripts getting close, but it all fell down. Time and time again.

To finally see the stars align for a GB movie after so many failed attempts I can understand they jumped at the opportunity. Especially one that made it easy to continue the old canon without changing any of it.
#4886601
Alphagaia wrote:Do we even know if Shane Black was available for the timeslot?

I agree things moved faster after the deal, but Feig was not the first to say yes, he was the only one to say yes. After months of hearing no from all kinds of directors for a sequel, which Feig had no interest in either.
And even then, Ivan and Feig sat round a table before it could all go forward.

Don't wave away those 25 years where a lot of scenarios were being considered, with a few scripts getting close, but it all fell down. Time and time again.

To finally see the stars align for a GB movie after so many failed attempts I can understand they jumped at the opportunity. Especially one that made it easy to continue the old canon without changing any of it.
Let's not kid ourselves here. Active development on GB3 didn't start in earnest until what? 2007? Maybe 2009? Yeah Dan and Harold did a Ghostbusters in Hell script in the 'mid-late '90s, but it wasn't commissioned by Sony.

If you read the Sony emails you'd know that there were quite a few directors who wanted the Ghostbusters gig. Jake Kasdan is one. The guy who directed Zombieland sent an email to Amy Pascal saying he would do the job for free. Check the Sony leaks. There's another guy who I'm forgetting. Was it Lord/Miller? No! The Russo Bros! The Russo bros wanted the gig but Sony didn't want to wait for them to finish up with Cap 2. So that's just not true that Feig was the only one to say yes. AND we had Drew Pearce waiting in the wings to write the thing.

They took the first guy available with box office success under his belt(even though I'm pretty sure he didn't write Bridesmaids, his biggest hit. Plus The Heat, while successful, was awful--which I think he co wrote with the same woman he did GB16 with)

The Russo brothers would've been a great choice. Their work on Community plus Cap 2 made them perfect. Sony just couldn't be patient.
#4886604
I've read the leak a lot of times, but I must confess it's been a while.
I should clarify by saying Feig was the only one to say yes that was on a short list. While it's true Ruben Fleischer (the guy from Zombiland) showed interested Ivan and Sony had no interest in him and there is an email floating around where they question if he is able enough to take on such a big movie while his last movie tanked.

The Russo Bros were writing scripts that looked promising, but only wanted to produce and not direct, and came in too late as they almost had the deal with Paul done, wuth Sony wary everything would fall apart again. Since the Russo and Paul were friends, they did not want to step on each his toes and even offered he could direct the other movie. All parties considered this for a moment, but just as many other tries it led nowhere, with only Pauls movie going forward:

So… in a curious turn of events - the Russos and Channing want to develop Ghostbusters as a vehicle for Channing and Chris Pratt to do together. The Russos, Channing and Reid have been brainstorming ideas and want to create a whole new mythology that would support multiple movies (the way that Nolan reinvented Batman). To be clear - the Russos want to produce (not direct) and while Channing and Chris are looking for a movie to do together they haven't mentioned this to him yet because they weren't sure how we'd react. They want to make it simultaneously super scary while also super funny. They love the idea that they are mortal heroes who are believers in the paranormal and the only people who can defend mankind from a paranormal threat. I know we're mid negotiations with Paul. I'm not sure whether we'd ever develop two different versions simultaneously. Joe Russo is open to the idea that both movies could be developed in partnership so they compliment one another within the same Ghostbusters universe. Apparently the Russos are very close to Paul and Joe suggested Paul could be attached to direct both. Personally I think it's possible for the female version to co-exist with this other version so maybe they're not mutually exclusive. Anyway - too juicy a package not to take seriously in my opinion. Let's discuss when you guys have a moment.
#4886608
Kingpin wrote:
Because Ghostbusters is a brand name, because you'd definitely be introducing it to a new generation of people and potential fans, because a new film was going to grab attention and because it's a franchise that appeals to both adults and children. If I had to hazard a guess, it might've been picked because it was a property enjoyed by a wider spread of the general public than a lot of other titles in Sony's portfolio.
Yeah that's why it's a part rhetorical question I asked. I know the reasoning behind it but it still doesn't make any sense to me. It's such a random franchise to pick from the past regardless if it has brand awareness. They would have been better off picking another franchise, something more recent if they were so desperate to give more leading roles to women. The more I think about all this the more I remind myself that Amy Pascal's decision making was crazy and it's impossible to figure out what went on in her mind when she made that decision.
Kingpin wrote:Not imagination, but could we acknowledge the possibility of some exaggeration? Some negative things seem worse in our memory than they actually were, likewise some good things. I don't think Feig went on about his preference for actresses over actors nearly as much as some like to think - especially considering how some articles regurgitate other articles.
I don't know, I mean I've read and seen interviews with him saying he prefers working with women so what's been exaggerated? He wrote a whole blog about why women are funny and men aren't. It isn't a conspiracy, the proof is available if you look for it.
Alphagaia wrote:I dunno, waiting for 25 years does not sound like it was a decision made on the fly. They really gave all parties involved a chance to get a sequel going before they looked at alternatives to rekindle the franchise.
But they didn't really did they? They had they're idea and Harold Ramis dying allowed them the chance to go ahead with it. Had Sony worked with them properly and did more to keep them on track we could have had a third movie back in 2008 or 2009. Sony still could have gone ahead with their alternate universe as a spin-off idea. There was room for both.
SpaceBallz liked this
#4886610
pferreira1983 wrote:Yeah that's why it's a part rhetorical question I asked.
All due respect meant, you didn't make it clear you were being rhetorical.
pferreira1983 wrote:It's such a random franchise to pick from the past regardless if it has brand awareness. They would have been better off picking another franchise, something more recent if they were so desperate to give more leading roles to women.
But as I and others have elaborated on, it isn't that random a pick. And if not Ghostbusters, then what other franchises in the Sony collection would've been a better choice?

James Bond - given the historical significance of women in the Bond franchise, we're probably not going to see a huge improvement in things, although some trends with the Bond girls have fallen by the wayside, and Judi Dench being chosen to play M did shake things up a little.

Spider-Man - some potential, although likely reduced with the studio and Disney starting things from scratch again.

Men in Black - some potential, especially with the inclusion of Emma Thompson as O, Z's replacement, although I think they lost some ground when Linda Florentino/L didn't return for the first sequel.

Bad Boys - likely little room for the advancement of women's rights, though I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised. You'd probably have more progress if the franchise had remained dormant after the second film, and we eventually say a "Bad Girls" reboot.

Grown Ups - another franchise that probably wouldn't offer much room for improving the visibility of women, or women's rights.

21 Jump Street - given the frat boy aspect of the two lead characters, it's unlikely we'd see progress with this franchise.

Bad Teacher - apparently there's a sequel in the works, although the first film (whose lead was a female teacher) was obviously not a good example of someone in that profession.

I believe there are a few more offerings, but I think we get the general point: the Ghostbusters reboot offered an opportunity that would establish a new chapter in the franchise, while attracting a lot of attention (and hopefully interest). I think the reasons why they went for Ghostbusters over their other properties are pretty clear.


The more I think about all this the more I remind myself that Amy Pascal's decision making was crazy and it's impossible to figure out what went on in her mind when she made that decision.
pferreira1983 wrote:I mean I've read and seen interviews with him saying he prefers working with women so what's been exaggerated?
I didn't say he didn't say that, just that I think people might've been unintentionally exaggerating how frequently he actually said it.
pferreira1983 wrote:Had Sony worked with them properly and did more to keep them on track we could have had a third movie back in 2008 or 2009.
Hah! How about you try get Bill Murray to stay on track with anything. :)
Sav C, Alphagaia liked this
#4886612
Alphagaia wrote:I've read the leak a lot of times, but I must confess it's been a while.
I should clarify by saying Feig was the only one to say yes that was on a short list. While it's true Ruben Fleischer (the guy from Zombiland) showed interested Ivan and Sony had no interest in him and there is an email floating around where they question if he is able enough to take on such a big movie while his last movie tanked.

The Russo Bros were writing scripts that looked promising, but only wanted to produce and not direct, and came in too late as they almost had the deal with Paul done, wuth Sony wary everything would fall apart again. Since the Russo and Paul were friends, they did not want to step on each his toes and even offered he could direct the other movie. All parties considered this for a moment, but just as many other tries it led nowhere, with only Pauls movie going forward:

So… in a curious turn of events - the Russos and Channing want to develop Ghostbusters as a vehicle for Channing and Chris Pratt to do together. The Russos, Channing and Reid have been brainstorming ideas and want to create a whole new mythology that would support multiple movies (the way that Nolan reinvented Batman). To be clear - the Russos want to produce (not direct) and while Channing and Chris are looking for a movie to do together they haven't mentioned this to him yet because they weren't sure how we'd react. They want to make it simultaneously super scary while also super funny. They love the idea that they are mortal heroes who are believers in the paranormal and the only people who can defend mankind from a paranormal threat. I know we're mid negotiations with Paul. I'm not sure whether we'd ever develop two different versions simultaneously. Joe Russo is open to the idea that both movies could be developed in partnership so they compliment one another within the same Ghostbusters universe. Apparently the Russos are very close to Paul and Joe suggested Paul could be attached to direct both. Personally I think it's possible for the female version to co-exist with this other version so maybe they're not mutually exclusive. Anyway - too juicy a package not to take seriously in my opinion. Let's discuss when you guys have a moment.
No that's not true they wanted to direct a GB film. That article isn't using correct info. Pratt denied that this ever happened.

It was all very preliminary. Sony couldn't wait for them to finish with Marvel so it was all shot down. I also think Seth Rogen's idea of Gore Verbinksi would have been AMAZING. We would've had the most beautiful looking Ghostbusters movie of all time. *that* man can frame a shot. Feig on the other hand has a very bland, generic visual style(which is true of most comedy filmmakers these days. Reitman's work of the last 25 years included).

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have a new Ghostbusters movie out and hating 95% of it. The people who like the reboot are lucky. You've got another GB adventure to watch. I get a headache just thinking about it. I envy you, truly. Most of you guys think I love crapping all over the movie and it couldn't be further from the truth. It hurts to see a Ghostbusters movie run down like this one has. The franchise was just seeing new found love and respect for GB2 and then we get this lump of coal in our stocking. I've rewatched the movie 4 times and each time I hope, no I pray, that I can see something that redeems it. Cause that's happened to me before. I've disliked a movie and then give it another chance and boom! I see something that wasn't there(Tron Legacy was the last time that happened I think). But nope. I gets more painful everytime.

The pro reboot crowd should put their selves in our shoes. We waited so long, read every new article. First the '90s and the Will Smith/Ben Stiller/ Chris Farley rumours, Then the mid 2000s & beyond. I've been a GB fan since I could walk and I hated a new Ghostbusters movie?!? How is that even possible? Then it bombs at the box office which means it could be another God knows how long until another GB movie comes along. Plus it reboots all we've come to love about the franchise and starts all over? It's hard man. It really is. I hate that I hate GB16. I can't stress that enough.
#4886618
It's not incorrect: one of the Russo's offering to direct was after Paul turned down doing two movies at once, something Sony were doubting to do as well.

Pratt denied it because he was not asked to do it yet, as we can read from the above quote. The Russo bros wanted to know what Sony and Paul thought before they would inform Pratt.

So in short, your idea was considered, but it fell through because they could not make it work and it was not much more then an idea at that point, while the reboot was almost definitely going forward. It would be to risky (and costly) to start anew for the X amount of time, with everything grinding to an halt again.
#4886622
RichardLess wrote:The pro reboot crowd should put their selves in our shoes. We waited so long, read every new article. First the '90s and the Will Smith/Ben Stiller/ Chris Farley rumours, Then the mid 2000s & beyond. I've been a GB fan since I could walk and I hated a new Ghostbusters movie?!? How is that even possible? Then it bombs at the box office which means it could be another God knows how long until another GB movie comes along. Plus it reboots all we've come to love about the franchise and starts all over? It's hard man. It really is. I hate that I hate GB16. I can't stress that enough.
I hear you. And to add insult to injury we, people who've been fans for years, even decades, and have invested time into discussing the films get to be lectured to by people who arent even fans of GB that we have no right to express an opinion on GB now because we are woman hating, misogynist basement dwelling fanboys. That is what really got to me, after being a fan of GB for 30 years and investing time and money into that fandom, some feminist-come-lately is going to lecture me about GB??
Its why the James Rolfe thing got to me, Ive watched his videos for ten years and know what a huge GB fan he has always been, and when he made his video it was like he was speaking for the long time, sensible minded GB fans who thought the trailer was bad and didnt want a reboot. So to see the feminists raise him to the internet's worst monter was maddening.
SpaceBallz, RichardLess, HunterCC and 1 others liked this
#4886624
It was maddening when fans called this movie an "abomination" before it was even written. It was maddening to see trailers become more important than the movies themselves (in the case of both GB16 and Suicide Squad, though in different ways). It was maddening to be called a "shill" or accused of having no taste if you didn't join the fan hive mind. It was maddening to see GB "fans" vandalizing their own Facebook page with vomit emoticons and other such crap on a daily basis. It was maddening to see fans defending GBII, meanwhile complete missing its message about constant negativity. It was maddening to see the name Ghostbusters forever linked to the hacking of a woman's privacy. It was maddening that several of Rolfe's "fans" thought they were defending him by saying he wasn't a critic. Meanwhile, if he had reviewed the movie, they would have been praising his expert commentary, lol. Lots of madness going around this year.
#4886626
And speaking of madness here's a little bit from the Extreme Feminist's. Is this concrete evidence? You can decide that but it's interesting at least!

As I mentioned earlier the phrase follow the money rings true with Feminist Frequency.
While some legitimate misogyny is warranted to be picked at not every single male is part of the he-man woman haters club.

Some new questions, new trails had been uncovered while doing research on them.

The you tube trailer: How many had voted the dislike button were all Misogynists?

Did Femenist Frequency post comments and create you tube accounts to knowingly stir things up and continue down voting to push the issue of misogyny being behind the dislike of this trailer?

Was Sony aware of Feminist Frequency?

You need to look at the owner of FF. Anita Sarkeesian has a you tube channel and kick starter page. She has been accused of stealing fan art and not fulfilling campaign promises. The founding members. They have no men working for them. They all share the same political believes and all like to plug their bosses kick starter campaign. I could post more twitter pages but it really is kind of redundant and repetitive.

I have found more articles but they read the same as the Ashley Lynch's breakdown of 2016.

https://feministfrequency.com/2016/07/1 ... 16-review/


https://feministfrequency.com/about/


https://medium.com/@ashleylynch/bustin- ... .h6e90kdsq


https://twitter.com/ashleylynch

This group was clearly invested in the successful showing of GB2016. Are these articles evidence of this group latching onto the controversy in order to enrich themselves and gain new membership? Blogs and newspaper sites had regurgitated a lot of their articles. I believe the phrase Sexist Man Baby had originated from FF.

It doesn't help that Paul advertised their kick starter campaign which is funding for her you tube channel.

I wouldn't call her you tube series an example of amazing work. Something like donating to cancer research that' s what I would call amazing.
HunterCC, pferreira1983 liked this
#4886627
RichardLess wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:Do we even know if Shane Black was available for the timeslot?

I agree things moved faster after the deal, but Feig was not the first to say yes, he was the only one to say yes. After months of hearing no from all kinds of directors for a sequel, which Feig had no interest in either.
And even then, Ivan and Feig sat round a table before it could all go forward.

Don't wave away those 25 years where a lot of scenarios were being considered, with a few scripts getting close, but it all fell down. Time and time again.

To finally see the stars align for a GB movie after so many failed attempts I can understand they jumped at the opportunity. Especially one that made it easy to continue the old canon without changing any of it.
Let's not kid ourselves here. Active development on GB3 didn't start in earnest until what? 2007? Maybe 2009? Yeah Dan and Harold did a Ghostbusters in Hell script in the 'mid-late '90s, but it wasn't commissioned by Sony.

If you read the Sony emails you'd know that there were quite a few directors who wanted the Ghostbusters gig. Jake Kasdan is one. The guy who directed Zombieland sent an email to Amy Pascal saying he would do the job for free. Check the Sony leaks. There's another guy who I'm forgetting. Was it Lord/Miller? No! The Russo Bros! The Russo bros wanted the gig but Sony didn't want to wait for them to finish up with Cap 2. So that's just not true that Feig was the only one to say yes. AND we had Drew Pearce waiting in the wings to write the thing.

They took the first guy available with box office success under his belt(even though I'm pretty sure he didn't write Bridesmaids, his biggest hit. Plus The Heat, while successful, was awful--which I think he co wrote with the same woman he did GB16 with)

The Russo brothers would've been a great choice. Their work on Community plus Cap 2 made them perfect. Sony just couldn't be patient.
You forgot the part where Amy Pascal thought the idea of an all-female reboot was great and favored Paul Feig to direct it since she's a huge fan of his movies.
#4886637
Commander_Jim wrote:
RichardLess wrote:The pro reboot crowd should put their selves in our shoes. We waited so long, read every new article. First the '90s and the Will Smith/Ben Stiller/ Chris Farley rumours, Then the mid 2000s & beyond. I've been a GB fan since I could walk and I hated a new Ghostbusters movie?!? How is that even possible? Then it bombs at the box office which means it could be another God knows how long until another GB movie comes along. Plus it reboots all we've come to love about the franchise and starts all over? It's hard man. It really is. I hate that I hate GB16. I can't stress that enough.
I hear you. And to add insult to injury we, people who've been fans for years, even decades, and have invested time into discussing the films get to be lectured to by people who arent even fans of GB that we have no right to express an opinion on GB now because we are woman hating, misogynist basement dwelling fanboys. That is what really got to me, after being a fan of GB for 30 years and investing time and money into that fandom, some feminist-come-lately is going to lecture me about GB??
Its why the James Rolfe thing got to me, Ive watched his videos for ten years and know what a huge GB fan he has always been, and when he made his video it was like he was speaking for the long time, sensible minded GB fans who thought the trailer was bad and didnt want a reboot. So to see the feminists raise him to the internet's worst monter was maddening.
Exactly. It's maddening. In the end, all that stuff about the awful trailer, the Twitter rants, the hacked Photos and the feminist thing; it's all just noise. In the end we are still left with the worst movie I've seen in a loong time, and that movie is a Ghostbusters movie. Everything else will be forgotten. It's the final film that failed us. How is it possible that a cartoon like Extreme Ghostbusters can be better than a 150 million dollar film? It's like Batman the Animated series. No Batman movie has come close to the level of greatness that show had.

It's so weird to see GB16 embraced by fellow GB fans. Granted they are a seemingly small minority but still, it's odd. It shocks me that someone can love GB84 and then watch GB16 and come away thinking it was a good Ghostbusters movie. Didn't you see what was on the screen? Did we see the same movie?

And yet... I wonder if it will last. When Indiana Jones 4 came out, I loved it. It was so great to see Indiana Jones back up on the screen in a new Adventure. But then it came out on blu ray and I watched it quite a few more times and I realized something: I had waited so long and wanted this movie so bad that it blinded me to just how awful it really was. Now it's nowhere near the travesty that GB16 is but still, when Indy 4 first came out I was in love. Now it's just collecting dust. So I wonder how many of the pro GB16 crowd fall into that category. It just serves as a reminder that each and everyone of us views Ghostbusters differently. Some view it as just a comedy, and therefore, if they weren't busting a gut laughing, it failed. Others view it as a Sci Fi film in a similar vein as men in black, this crowd is happy so long as Ghosts are getting nuked. They are in it for the spectacle. Some just want a competent film that takes their minds off the miserable real world for 2 hours.
It reminds me of The Sopranos oddly enough. Viewers of The Sopranos were vastly different audience members. Some were there just for the whacking, the violence and sexuality. The mob stuff. Others were in it for the rich character work. Rewatching the Sopranos you realize how funny it actually was & how tame the violence was compared to shows now.
SpaceBallz, HunterCC liked this
#4886643
The thing is thought. It's hard to believe alot of the "oh no we saw it we just hated it" audience. I believe some will be telling truth and that is fine. But how few people saw it and how hated the trailer was means most didn't give it a try.

GB ATC is funny , it had cool ghosts and great characters. When they said "reboot" could happen there was less negativity then when they announced cast.

Also I find really disappointing and disheartening that there are GB fans who think the movie deserves all the negativity. That negativity bullied the cast. That negativity had it where the girl I saw film with loved it and it made her watch the original but when she talked about that online she got harassed and ran out of the fandom.

Doesn't matter if you don't like GB ATC , personally I didn't like GB2 that much but if someone likes GB2 I don't judge them yet all I see is people acting like "real fans" hate it.

I have loved ghostbusters all my life. The films , the cartoons , the comics ect... But because I dared like the film with females I'm not a fan? That is dumb.

Ghostbusters fandom use to be about anyone can be a ghostbuster, now its about only males who hate the women can be fans.

To put this perspective even wrestling has embraced women. Letting them main event and be treated equal. Yet GB fans can't.

I am not insulting anyone here. If you legally watched the new film and didn't like it that is 100% fine I don't judge you. But if you are hating or judging them for liking the film then you are just as bad as the ones bullying people over a movie
Razorgeist liked this
#4886644
SSJmole wrote:The thing is thought. It's hard to believe alot of the "oh no we saw it we just hated it" audience. I believe some will be telling truth and that is fine. But how few people saw it and how hated the trailer was means most didn't give it a try.

GB ATC is funny , it had cool ghosts and great characters. When they said "reboot" could happen there was less negativity then when they announced cast.

Also I find really disappointing and disheartening that there are GB fans who think the movie deserves all the negativity. That negativity bullied the cast. That negativity had it where the girl I saw film with loved it and it made her watch the original but when she talked about that online she got harassed and ran out of the fandom.

Doesn't matter if you don't like GB ATC , personally I didn't like GB2 that much but if someone likes GB2 I don't judge them yet all I see is people acting like "real fans" hate it.

I have loved ghostbusters all my life. The films , the cartoons , the comics ect... But because I dared like the film with females I'm not a fan? That is dumb.

Ghostbusters fandom use to be about anyone can be a ghostbuster, now its about only males who hate the women can be fans.

To put this perspective even wrestling has embraced women. Letting them main event and be treated equal. Yet GB fans can't.

I am not insulting anyone here. If you legally watched the new film and didn't like it that is 100% fine I don't judge you. But if you are hating or judging them for liking the film then you are just as bad as the ones bullying people over a movie
I'm not even sure what your opening graph it's trying to say. You don't believe people saw and disliked the movie? Say what?

No one is saying you aren't a GB fan if you liked the reboot. I don't know where you are getting that from. There are new GB fans that probably ONLY like the reboot. So what?

It's your opinion that the movie is funny. I have the opposite opinion. You didn't like Ghostbusters 2, I love it. You're just as much a GB fan as me. We just happen to like different movies.

I personally find it bewildering that anyone could find GB16 funny, but that doesn't mean they aren't proper fans. I think the movie sucks but so what? You like it. Good for you.
SSJmole, timeware, SpaceBallz and 1 others liked this
#4886645
RichardLess wrote:
SSJmole wrote:The thing is thought. It's hard to believe alot of the "oh no we saw it we just hated it" audience. I believe some will be telling truth and that is fine. But how few people saw it and how hated the trailer was means most didn't give it a try.

GB ATC is funny , it had cool ghosts and great characters. When they said "reboot" could happen there was less negativity then when they announced cast.

Also I find really disappointing and disheartening that there are GB fans who think the movie deserves all the negativity. That negativity bullied the cast. That negativity had it where the girl I saw film with loved it and it made her watch the original but when she talked about that online she got harassed and ran out of the fandom.

Doesn't matter if you don't like GB ATC , personally I didn't like GB2 that much but if someone likes GB2 I don't judge them yet all I see is people acting like "real fans" hate it.

I have loved ghostbusters all my life. The films , the cartoons , the comics ect... But because I dared like the film with females I'm not a fan? That is dumb.

Ghostbusters fandom use to be about anyone can be a ghostbuster, now its about only males who hate the women can be fans.

To put this perspective even wrestling has embraced women. Letting them main event and be treated equal. Yet GB fans can't.

I am not insulting anyone here. If you legally watched the new film and didn't like it that is 100% fine I don't judge you. But if you are hating or judging them for liking the film then you are just as bad as the ones bullying people over a movie
I'm not even sure what your opening graph it's trying to say. You don't believe people saw and disliked the movie? Say what?

No one is saying you aren't a GB fan if you liked the reboot. I don't know where you are getting that from. There are new GB fans that probably ONLY like the reboot. So what?

It's your opinion that the movie is funny. I have the opposite opinion. You didn't like Ghostbusters 2, I love it. You're just as much a GB fan as me. We just happen to like different movies.

I personally find it bewildering that anyone could find GB16 funny, but that doesn't mean they aren't proper fans. I think the movie sucks but so what? You like it. Good for you.

I was not saying no one didn't like. But look at how much money it made compaired to how many people online claim to have "seen and hate" it doesn't add up. I'm saying some not all of the people are the ones who just hated from the beginning and are claiming to see.

More people hate it online than saw it. That's all. Like I said if you saw and genuinely don't like it. I can respect that. But look online millions claim "saw it and hated" but the box office numbers don't match.
#4886646
RichardLess wrote:No one is saying you aren't a GB fan if you liked the reboot.
Well, they kinda are. I had to express my love for the orginal quite a few times, and still this sort of remarks are happening:
pferreira1983 wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:Stop trying to depict him like he is some evil mastermind. He only made a movie you happened to dislike.
Yeah I'm guessing Ghostbusters isn't your favourite movie of all time.
If anything, this whole endless debate proofs one thing: we are all passionate GBfans. We just happen to like different parts of the franchise.

This happened before, with the cartoons and comics, only with a new movie I can understand people act up when it's not something they were holding out hope for, as a new movie is such a big deal for the GB franchise. So I can understand people getting upset after waiting. so. long.

Add a leak that seemed to point towards Feig and Pascal singlehandedly throwing a wrench in that desired sequel and there will be pitchforks. I understand it's hard to ignore something you don't like, but people decided to go trolling, warp news, invent elaborate theories and misinterpret the leak to fuel themselves and others to hate on the movie, while picking on people who dared to support it despite it not being a sequel.

The leak was a big problem as people used it as evidence thinking this movie stripped away the old with force, while a few of the big claims were VERY open to interpretation or just missing information. Like hearingonly one end of a phonecall. Just look at Richardless recent examples of Zombiland and the Russo Bros. It's very easy to forget small details and warp the reason why something did not happen another way. We can clearly see they looked and explored all those angles, but they just did not pan out.

In short: yeah, it sucks we are all waiting on a GB3, but they managed to squeeze this movie out, and while not perfect, it did not deserve the prejudge-mental hate-war it got for not being exactly what we wanted, as it apparently is VERY hard to get anything done regarding the old crew.

This does not mean the likers love anything with a GB logo on it it as well, another thing that gets thrown in our faces a lot. We just accepted it's taking even longer to get a proper sequel and wanted to give this a fair chance.
I for one seem to think they really tried getting a sequel done, and I understand Sony acting on a 25 year old deal that was not working out. Seeing as Ivan and Dan are still heavily involved in all things GB, I don't believe the new deal is as bad as people think.
SSJmole, Sav C liked this
#4886651
Original fans didn't deserve being called misandrists for not liking the idea of the reboot. This community didn't deserve a feminist director sicking Feminist Frequency after us. I actually liked the movie a little once I saw it. the political stuff got way out of hand.
#4886662
timeware wrote:Original fans didn't deserve being called misandrists for not liking the idea of the reboot. This community didn't deserve a feminist director sicking Feminist Frequency after us. I actually liked the movie a little once I saw it. the political stuff got way out of hand.
*misogynists (misandry means prejudice against men)

That's so weird how I never even knew those terms existed until after this film began production.
pferreira1983 liked this
#4886677
Alphagaia wrote:
RichardLess wrote:No one is saying you aren't a GB fan if you liked the reboot.
Well, they kinda are. I had to express my love for the orginal quite a few times, and still this sort of remarks are happening:
pferreira1983 wrote: Yeah I'm guessing Ghostbusters isn't your favourite movie of all time.
If anything, this whole endless debate proofs one thing: we are all passionate GBfans. We just happen to like different parts of the franchise.

This happened before, with the cartoons and comics, only with a new movie I can understand people act up when it's not something they were holding out hope for, as a new movie is such a big deal for the GB franchise. So I can understand people getting upset after waiting. so. long.

Add a leak that seemed to point towards Feig and Pascal singlehandedly throwing a wrench in that desired sequel and there will be pitchforks. I understand it's hard to ignore something you don't like, but people decided to go trolling, warp news, invent elaborate theories and misinterpret the leak to fuel themselves and others to hate on the movie, while picking on people who dared to support it despite it not being a sequel.

The leak was a big problem as people used it as evidence thinking this movie stripped away the old with force, while a few of the big claims were VERY open to interpretation or just missing information. Like hearingonly one end of a phonecall. Just look at Richardless recent examples of Zombiland and the Russo Bros. It's very easy to forget small details and warp the reason why something did not happen another way. We can clearly see they looked and explored all those angles, but they just did not pan out.

In short: yeah, it sucks we are all waiting on a GB3, but they managed to squeeze this movie out, and while not perfect, it did not deserve the prejudge-mental hate-war it got for not being exactly what we wanted, as it apparently is VERY hard to get anything done regarding the old crew.

This does not mean the likers love anything with a GB logo on it it as well, another thing that gets thrown in our faces a lot. We just accepted it's taking even longer to get a proper sequel and wanted to give this a fair chance.
I for one seem to think they really tried getting a sequel done, and I understand Sony acting on a 25 year old deal that was not working out. Seeing as Ivan and Dan are still heavily involved in all things GB, I don't believe the new deal is as bad as people think.
Someone questions whether or not Ghostbusters is your favourite movie and you see that as you having express your love?? Since when did favourite mean fan? I'm a fan of plenty of movies that aren't my favourite. It's that sort of thinking that's caused problems. You see it as an attack where as I see it a harmless comment. He didn't say "you must hate ghostbusters" did he? He just used the word favourite. So what? You are on a site called GBfans, I'm fairly certain everyone knows people here are fans(unless they are trolls). It's not a given Ghostbusters is your, or anyone here, favourite film.
#4886679
Hmmm, let's just say I know him longer then you do, so I'll probably have a better grasp at what he implies when he comes around for his weekly diss of the movie.

I have been called a Sony shill, a Feig worshipper (I have not even seen all his movies) and a non GBfan on this very Forum. Multiple times, simply because I questioned some of the claims you see in my signature.

I agree that's just stupid and I just laugh it off as either tinfoilworthy or misinformed, but it's there, Richardless. If you want to believe it or not.
JurorNo.2, SSJmole liked this
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 23

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]

I read Back in Town #1. Spoilers : Hate to b[…]

I'd really like to see the new t-shirt unlocks tra[…]