Discuss the new Ghostbusters movie to be released in 2016, directed by Paul Feig.
By RichardLess
#4894403
JurorNo.2 wrote:Everyone...feel free...no, obligated, to give this video all the down votes you like. :twisted:



Oh god. That video. Kill me now! Thanks for sharing that Juror. What a bunch of idiots. Yeah Dan wanted the money lol he could never make another movie again and be fine. He doesn't care. And Bill Murray never shredded a script, he totally denied doing that. I just hate when people rehash rumours like they are facts. Who are they to be telling Dan Aykroyd that his baby, that he effing created, that he can't comment on it? And he wasn't shitting on the movie! He's said he loves the film! It's just too bad it tanked. That's what his comment was. He wasn't hating on the movie! Did they even read what he said?
God that gets my blood boiling. The first guy to speak, ugh, I dislike him. I want to punch him in the face lol "this isn't 1978" so he could've said this in 1978 and you would've been cool with it? Idiot.

Ugh.. Ugh!!!
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4894412
RichardLess wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:Everyone...feel free...no, obligated, to give this video all the down votes you like. :twisted:



Oh god. That video. Kill me now! Thanks for sharing that Juror. What a bunch of idiots. Yeah Dan wanted the money lol he could never make another movie again and be fine. He doesn't care. And Bill Murray never shredded a script, he totally denied doing that. I just hate when people rehash rumours like they are facts. Who are they to be telling Dan Aykroyd that his baby, that he effing created, that he can't comment on it? And he wasn't shitting on the movie! He's said he loves the film! It's just too bad it tanked. That's what his comment was. He wasn't hating on the movie! Did they even read what he said?
God that gets my blood boiling. The first guy to speak, ugh, I dislike him. I want to punch him in the face lol "this isn't 1978" so he could've said this in 1978 and you would've been cool with it? Idiot.

Ugh.. Ugh!!!


I was reminded of something my parents reflected on the other day. When they were kids, the older comedians were always still around, on TV, etc. You know, still given a lot of respect. But now the culture is so much more new-oriented*, and just relishes pulling the "has been" card. For that guy to elevate Feig's career over Aykroyd's was ridiculous, and I say that with no animus to Feig. Aykroyd was a child prodigy in comedy, like Eddie Murphy. He doesn't have to justify his legacy now to twats like Collider.

*(Of course, that can partly be blamed on my parents' generation and the "Don't trust anyone over 30" thing ;) )

Plus, you know, Aykroyd doesn't have much of a filter, and frankly, that type of personality can make some people nervous. ;) I think that explains Collider's behavior here. I mean, Aykroyd's jab at Feig was polite compared to Collider's bizzare rant about it, lol. Really strange, why do they even care?
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on June 8th, 2017, 6:52 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4894414
Dan probably made an honest mistake with the numbers, no need to go to that lengths of ridicule and hyperbole to demonise him in a video.
While I can completely understand Feig for wanting to hold the reigns on this one, I can also understand Dan is annoyed because of that, especially after such a long way of not getting a GB movie out and when they finally manage to squeeze one out, it underperforms.
User avatar
By Lee FW
#4894416
In light of ATC very likely not getting a sequel due to underperformance vs budget, its going to be very interesting to see how The Mummys performance affects it's whole dark universe thing.

I mean they've already announced multiple movies but it's predicted to take 10 million less than ATC on opening weekend and was only around 15 million cheaper, couple that with it being almost universally panned and I wonder if the conversations will be the same as ATC....somehow I very much doubt it though...a bunch of middle aged dudes playing action hero in an underperforming rebooted movie will always be given a second chance...
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4894444
lol...his face...he looks right at the camera for that last part.

Image
By pferreira1983
#4894559
Yikes, sorry I'm late.

Yeah I'm not surprised Dan had a go about the budget and Feig's handling of it. You guys know I've been confused as to where the money for the film went. I mean they spent so much money on it but only half on it looks like it's on screen. Maybe Melissa McCarthy's pay took up a quarter of the budget? She did get paid the largest amount for a film I remember reading. It probably would have helped had Feig spent some of that money shooting more in New York and less money spent on pointless dance numbers. But I guess that's what happens when you put Mr Pool in charge of the film. :roll:

Alphagaia wrote:I know you two have history, but maybe you both turn it down a notch?
History? Is he her ex boyfriend or something? :mrgreen:

timeware wrote:Did you get any super powers as a result?
A telepathic link no doubt like in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. :lol:

Kingpin wrote:I love Dan... but I admittedly can't help but feel his reaction/response in this interview is maybe a tad hypocritical, given how his own original proposal for Ghostbusters (prior to re-writes by Harold) was deemed too expensive to film.
I somehow think it would have resulted in a better movie.

Alphagaia wrote:I'd love to see that version!
You can find that material on the blu-ray extras along with an extra hour of more redundant material.

JurorNo.2 wrote:Everyone...feel free...no, obligated, to give this video all the down votes you like. :twisted:
Thanks for the heads up. Downvoted. :wink:

SpaceBallz wrote:LOL the feminists are on Dan's twitter post being unfavorable towards him. I tried to chime in but since I'm a man I'm not allowed to comment or its considered "mansplaining."
Paul Feig fans no doubt.

SpaceBallz wrote:Because they were the only ones attacking me for defending Dan's comments (which he has every right to say considering Ghostbusters is his baby). I don't have to "proclaim" anything, go see for yourself.
I think you're trying to reason with Alpha who is a feminist... :-|

JurorNo.2 wrote:Lol, ah irony is fun. The reboot supporters are annoyed at me for even remotely defending Aykroyd's comment. They can't seem to comprehend that someone can like a movie while still acknowledging that behind the scenes drama existed.
Shame on you! You're letting the side down! :lol:

JurorNo.2 wrote:Especially when they're most likely millenials. ;)
Juror we were born in 1983, we are millenials. If we were born a couple of years earlier we wouldn't be.

JurorNo.2 wrote:Yeah thanks a lot, Kathy Griffin, you ruined everything! ;)
That was bang out of order what she did. I think we can all agree this is the type of comedian we don't need in the business.

JurorNo.2 wrote:Just goes to show, never be part of a group. Both sides will turn on you at the slightest hint of independent thought.
ATC was made to provoke a response depending on your disposition and politics. Us fans have been arguing with each other for over a year now, I think it's fitting we let Dan and Feig argue for a while. :-D
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4894562
pferreira1983 wrote:Thanks for the heads up. Downvoted. :wink:


:cool: :crunch:

JurorNo.2 wrote:Shame on you! You're letting the side down! :lol:


It's OK, I've been in this situation many a time. Never let people think they've got you all figured out. ;)

Juror we were born in 1983, we are millenials. If we were born a couple of years earlier we wouldn't be.


We don't have to be, we can go back to being Generation Y. :-D

JurorNo.2 wrote:That was bang out of order what she did.


Speaking of Kathy Griffin, Aykroyd's been in the news a lot lately! :-D
By pferreira1983
#4894573
JurorNo.2 wrote:It's OK, I've been in this situation many a time. Never let people think they've got you all figured out. ;)
I get what you mean cough Kingpin cough. Sorry, nasty cough. :-D

JurorNo.2 wrote:We don't have to be, we can go back to being Generation Y. :-D
Huh? But we are Generation Y.

JurorNo.2 wrote:Speaking of Kathy Griffin, Aykroyd's been in the news a lot lately! :-D
Is it because of a new movie or Crystal Skull vodka?
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4894574
pferreira1983 wrote:Is it because of a new movie or Crystal Skull vodka?


Well this particular clip is about Kathy Griffin's photo. But he is also narrating a History Channel series The World Without Canada, and a documentary movie called Good Fortune. Plus I just heard the Blues Brothers are performing at a July 4th event on PBS.
User avatar
By timeware
#4894586
So yeah, I couldn't make it through this video half way. Apparently Paul isn't to blame for the mediocre success of 2016 but Dan is huh? Give these dudes a I heart Paul t-shirt. When was the last time these critics were in a movie? Ever? call me when Paul finally makes a movie that gets past the $300 million dollar mark then you can complain about Dan.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4894587
pferreira1983 wrote:It probably would have helped had Feig spent some of that money shooting more in New York and less money spent on pointless dance numbers.


It honestly wouldn't have made a difference in the end result, the majority of the cinema-going public probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between New York and Boston if a landmark isn't involved, I'd wager.

pferreira1983 wrote:I somehow think it would have resulted in a better movie.


I like the film we got versus Aykroyd's original treatment, the whole time travelling and crossing dimensions thing of his original proposal just seemed a bit too out there. Could be it might've been fine, but could also be it could've ended up being a flash box office bomb.
User avatar
By Demon Vice Commander
#4894610
pferreira1983 wrote:It probably would have helped had Feig spent some of that money shooting more in New York and less money spent on pointless dance numbers.


Location shooting in New York is extremely expensive. Massachusetts also has some very useful film production incentives, which Paul Feig explained was the main reason for their filming in Boston in the first pace:

http://www.mafilm.org/fast-facts/
User avatar
By Sav C
#4894619
As far as I'm aware New York is very friendly to independant and small productions, however I'm not sure if a movie the size of the reboot could be pulled off efficiantly there.
User avatar
By timeware
#4894624
Demon Vice Commander wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote:It probably would have helped had Feig spent some of that money shooting more in New York and less money spent on pointless dance numbers.


Location shooting in New York is extremely expensive. Massachusetts also has some very useful film production incentives, which Paul Feig explained was the main reason for their filming in Boston in the first pace:

http://www.mafilm.org/fast-facts/


Being near Mass and filming they could have touched on the Revolutionary War a bit. An uppity British soldier would have been a much better villain then Rowan. You could have had some funny scenes of the girls getting drunk in some famous actual haunted pubs.
By pferreira1983
#4894768
Kingpin wrote:It honestly wouldn't have made a difference in the end result, the majority of the cinema-going public probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between New York and Boston if a landmark isn't involved, I'd wager.
Well I can tell you the New York in this movie doesn't look like New York. :-|

Kingpin wrote:I like the film we got versus Aykroyd's original treatment, the whole time travelling and crossing dimensions thing of his original proposal just seemed a bit too out there. Could be it might've been fine, but could also be it could've ended up being a flash box office bomb.
I can't honestly say this film did anything for the general audience or the fans. This film in it's state should never have been released.

Demon Vice Commander wrote:Location shooting in New York is extremely expensive. Massachusetts also has some very useful film production incentives, which Paul Feig explained was the main reason for their filming in Boston in the first pace:
It basically has to do with allocation of money. Don't spend like a quarter of your budget of a haphazardness comedian and spend extra money on reshoots and dance numbers. There's only so much money you can throw at a script to make it funny. Of course it costs to shoot in New York but Feig's handling of the budget was absolutely terrible.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4894773
pferreira1983 wrote:Well I can tell you the New York in this movie doesn't look like New York. :-|


And you'd be in a minority, because as I said in the section you quoted, most of the public wouldn't know the difference.

pferreira1983 wrote:Don't spend like a quarter of your budget of a haphazardness comedian and spend extra money on reshoots and dance numbers.


Do we know how much McCarthy was paid for her role, or are we still spitballing? The reshoots obviously wouldn't have been a factor in Boston being chosen over New York for the location filming.
By pferreira1983
#4894780
Kingpin wrote:And you'd be in a minority, because as I said in the section you quoted, most of the public wouldn't know the difference.
Probably because they weren't even aware it was supposed to be set in New York.

Kingpin wrote:Do we know how much McCarthy was paid for her role, or are we still spitballing?
After the film came out Melissa McCarthy was reported as the highest paid actress in Hollywood. You can probably Google what she got paid for the reboot. From what I remember it was too much.

Kingpin wrote:The reshoots obviously wouldn't have been a factor in Boston being chosen over New York for the location filming.
I think they could have done more days filming in New York had they had more money. As I said good budgeting was required from a good director.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4894781
What a shock. Pferreirra is disagreeing with something again regarding GB:ATC. That has not happened for months already.

Ow wait.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4894784
pferreira1983 wrote:Probably because they weren't even aware it was supposed to be set in New York.


Even if a person hadn't seen the original, the various full-length trailers show the Empire State Building, Times Square, NYPD squad cars, and that misleading caption in the first trailer, the public would've had enough clues between the trailers, and watching the actual film that it was set in New York.

pferreira1983 wrote:I think they could have done more days filming in New York had they had more money.


Could've? maybe, but between Boston offering alluring incentives, and the budget being shaved, whether it could be done and whether it should've been done are two different things.
By pferreira1983
#4894786
Alphagaia wrote:What a shock. Pferreirra is disagreeing with something again regarding GB:ATC. That has not happened for months already.

Ow wait.
What a shock. Alpha disagrees with me on the reboot. Opinions eh? :roll:

Kingpin wrote:Even if a person hadn't seen the original, the various full-length trailers show the Empire State Building, Times Square, NYPD squad cars, and that misleading caption in the first trailer, the public would've had enough clues between the trailers, and watching the actual film that it was set in New York.
Perhaps but the fact is the reboot doesn't get that feeling of New York down properly. To be fair not all directors are good at portraying the magic of New York on film but you don't have to be Ivan Reitman, Sam Raimi or Woody Allen to at least do a good job there. Maybe they should have hired one of those directors?

Kingpin wrote:Could've? maybe, but between Boston offering alluring incentives, and the budget being shaved, whether it could be done and whether it should've been done are two different things.
Okay it should have been done. Feig should have handled the budget better and not spent money needlessly.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4894788
pferreira1983 wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:What a shock. Pferreirra is disagreeing with something again regarding GB:ATC. That has not happened for months already.

Ow wait.
What a shock. Alpha disagrees with me on the reboot. Opinions eh? :roll


It's not the opinion that's the problem. You can dislike every frame for a different reason, and I would not be surprised if you actually do, hehe.

The problem I have your opinion seems to be stuck and on a loop. You are back to discussing Boston/New York? That's the third time now?
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4894797
pferreira1983 wrote:Perhaps but the fact is the reboot doesn't get that feeling of New York down properly. To be fair not all directors are good at portraying the magic of New York on film but you don't have to be Ivan Reitman, Sam Raimi or Woody Allen to at least do a good job there. Maybe they should have hired one of those directors?


I love New York, but if it's less cost effective to film the majority of the on-location material in Boston than it is in NYC, then that's possibly a problem with New York not offering good enough incentives. That being said, I think you've gotten a little stuck in the fact it's Boston rather than New York. Television series have to make do with LA doubling for London, Paris, or the far east... and the concessions in depicting those cities are worse than the depiction the reboot had of Manhattan.

pferreira1983 wrote:Feig should have handled the budget better and not spent money needlessly.


Were it as easy as that.
By Dr.D
#4894810
So...my unsolicited opinion on the matter...

I work as a construction assistant on a network TV show. One of our set designers worked on Ghostbusters in Boston. Like...he was there every day consulting with Feig. From what he's told me alot of the crew were not fans of filming in Boston. It all had to do with was the millions in subsidies they received from the state(which are jut now coming into public view). From what he assertained both through interaction with Feig and the crew, was that Feig didn't really care what he was doing. There was an atmosphere of "Don't worry this will work because the cast and because it's Ghostbusters". Now, I wasn't there personally, but out Set Designer knows I'm a huge GB fan and we've talked about his set experience in depth many times.

This is beyond just the budget inflating, this was a movie on which no one really knew what they were making. When Aykroyd came out and said Feig was negligent in his filming I asked if there was any truth to that. What I was told is Feig was more concerned with forcing his actresses to improvise as many jokes into a scripted scene as possible rather than focus on whether or not the story was progressing. See, Feig isn't really a cinematic director and he's part of a movement in comedy that I am really not a fan of. Alot of his movies along with people like Jud Apatow, Seth Rogen, and Adam McKay...well they aren't movies. They are lightly directed improv skits. What do I mean by that you ask? Well...think about how Ghostbusters ATC looked. Most of the film is brightly lit, static medium-shots designed to keep focus solely on the actor because "they're funny". While the action sequences are cinematic, the majority of the film is shot not much more dynamically than a network sitcom.

Compare this to the original Ghostbusters, which had a legendary cinematographer at the helm. The movie is filled with unique lighting set-ups, camera movement, and beautiful cinematography. See, the movie wasn't filled like a comedy, it was intentionally filmed like a thriller/drama. It feels big and cinematic, and that amplifies what's on screen.

Now is it fair to compare László Kovács work to whoever the hell filmed ATC? Well...yeah. See I don't think at any point did Feig think about making his movie to look cinematic. I think he was more concerned with forcing as many jokes into scenes as he could because his directing style lacks any kind of subtlety. Everything is so broad and over the top. Which goes back to my point about the movie not being a real movie. The original Ghostbusters may have had a few over the top moments, but the moments that really stand out are the subtle ones. Egon's hand signals to Venkman for example. When you're constantly forcing your actors to improvise, they become more worried about making jokes than coming across as genuine on screen. This is why I think the actresses didn't seem to have any real chemistry together. It's not that they were bad performers, it's that the director focused on the wrong aspect of their performances.

What does all this have to do with the original point about the budget?

Well it's simple. I think when they went to cut the film together, it was probably a total mess. From what I hear, the first cut was so bad Sony almost pushed the release back (now this is again from my source who worked on the production and something that was never made public so take that as you will). I mean, look at the infamous dance number, a six-figure budget scene that was completely cut from the movie. My guess is because it makes no sense other than to try and make the audience go "oh...he's making them dance now. That's funny I guess". Cutting something that expensive is a sign that maybe the wrong aspects of the story were focused on. So while I don't believe the reshoots cost as much as Dan says, I guarantee they were more expensive than what Sony reported. Movies film reshoots all the time, it is normal. What isn't normal is for a film to RELY on reshoots to fix story issues, which is what I think (based on both what was reported in public and again what my friend told me) happened.

At the end of the day, this kinda stuff is just childish fingerprinting after the fact. Dan is the Executive Producer and Ghostbusters is really important to him. It's his baby, and I think when all was said and done he was really unhappy with how the movie turned out. But because Sony is still keen to making Ghostbusters a big franchise again and Aykroyd definitely wants to keep these movies going, he's gonna attack the one element that can't really come back to bite him in the ass, which is the director who was unpopular with a lot of the fans from the start.
User avatar
By Demon Vice Commander
#4894829
Dr.D wrote:So...my unsolicited opinion on the matter...


The above post is honestly the most mature and intelligent criticism of the movie that I've read. While I feel ATC is certainly an entertaining film, the humor is kind of all over the place at times; the technique of improvising a lot of forced humor in a scene and hoping something sticks is probably the film's greatest weakness. You then have the very expository scenes with Rowan or the mayor that seem to try too hard to catch the audience up with the main plot of the movie.

I still think that it was very unprofessional of Dan to throw Paul under the bus like that - all it accomplished was drumming up more drama and making the Ghostbusters brand look bad.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4894846
I still say this was so much clickbait. Mostly because Feig never did respond. And you know him, he rarely misses an opportunity. ;)
By Dr.D
#4894847
Feig didn't respond because there's no correct response.

Call out Aykroyd and it's sour grapes. Agree with him and he's accepting his own incompetence.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4894853
There was no correct response to the trolls. There was no correct response to Piers Morgan. Didn't stop him then. If he can respond to utter nonsense, he could certainly respond to a question concerning the business of film making.

But anyway, people will take from it what they will.
User avatar
By DarkSpectre
#4894855
I get the feeling that with the beating he took all last year that his people were probably like just ignore it and move on. and Dr. D. you're spot on with the humor/cinematography assessment. When I was editing down my cut of ATC, I exorcised alot of the "line-o-rama" stuff as most times it went on too long.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4894856
DarkSpectre wrote:I get the feeling that with the beating he took all last year that his people were probably like just ignore it and move on.


You don't think he was given that advice before?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
best proton pack to buy

They are good people. I handled on of their packs[…]

It's more that if it is the same writer he is a hy[…]

The Actual Review is here https://www.youtube.com[…]

you search for 60% , 80% or Fulllsize? He build f[…]