Alphagaia wrote: 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?
You have problem with everything I say and the reason I go on about it the Boston filming is because I was responding to someone. Like I said opinions, everybody has them.
Kingpin wrote:Were it as easy as that.
It probably could have been easy had Feig been a competent director.
Dr.D wrote: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.
Oh yeah, really good points. The original was cinematic hybrid of comedy, sci-fi and fantasy, the reboot is a modern day sitcom. Feig took no care to to create excitement and make it unique. I'm not surprised the crew didn't like working on the movie, sounds very disorganised from a script point of view.
Demon Vice Commander wrote: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.
I think someone in power needed to say something. Feig has been getting all this fake praise it's great finally
someone associated with the franchise stated the truth. It's just a throwaway thing he said anyway, Dan didn't make a huge speech about it.
JurorNo.2 wrote:You don't think he was given that advice before?
Hasn't he been quiet on Twitter for a while? When the whole thing blew up on social media I know he's said before that he couldn't resist participating in the bickering.
Dr.D wrote:Feig didn't respond because there's no correct response.
He doesn't have a response because he knows he's in the wrong. The only thing he could come back with is "at least I had funny women in my movie".
SpaceBallz wrote:Very good points, now I wonder what an Edgar Wright Ghostbusters film would have been like...
A good film?
Dr.D wrote:From what I hear, there are A LOT of people who worked on the movie really unhappy with Feig. At one point the crew tried to convince the producers just to set the movie in Boston given how extensive the shoot was there. But Sony (specifically Pascal) were adamant that because the original was set in New York, this one had to be too.
He should have just filmed more in New York and spent that money there. I mean you're supposed to representing New York but you're shooting in Boston?
Dr.D wrote:One of my biggest beefs with the movie was Sony's decision to actively stoke the hate flames on social media. I think it speaks to their general anxiety about the movie and rather than just let the marking do the job, they kept pushing this angle because it kept the movie front page news. Yes, people shat all over this for the wrong reasons, but some people just didn't like the overall direction the franchise was headed in and couldn't speak their criticisms without being labeled a sexist or misogynist. And I won't pretend this was Feig's decision, he definitely made things worse with his inflammatory tweets and statements in the press. I honestly think he shares some of the responsibility for some of the horrible things said to Leslie Jones. By acknowledging the crazies, you're giving them a platform. Like I said before, I just generally think Feig was the wrong guy.
I know. The studio messed up with their obsession with casting women just because. You don't just make a guys movie just because. It doesn't work like that. So as a result anyone who thinks differently gets the blame or gets called a troll.
Dr.D wrote:When you have a whole movie full of comic relief, there's no tension and like everything else in films when tropes are overused they become boring. I don't care how much CGI crap you shove on screen, if I don't care about your goofy cartoon characters of a cast it's just boring. See, in the final battle with Gozer in Ghostbusters didn't have the cast all being comic relief. For the most part it's played straight because that's where the comedy comes from. It's funny to see these guys scared to death of a giant marshmallow and react as if it's totally real. We didn't need to see them shoot Stay Puft in the dick to understand it was funny.
I think this is a case of 'what would happen if you made Ghostbusters today?'. Making movies is different today like for instance in comedy. Every film needs to be packed full of fake CGI, signposted funny zingers like everybody is a comedian, desaturated picture quality etc. I created a thread here not long ago asking whether it would be possible to make a Ghostbusters film today with the movie making techniques of the 80s or perhaps I just have to lump it all. The end result of Feig's film isn't too surprising.
I think I speak for everybody here when I say that Answer The Call suffered from being smothered to death either from die hard feminists or right wing misogynists. Every decision from it's conception felt boneheaded and every decision was either met with OTT praise or downright insulting language. Meanwhile people like me are generally concerned by what's going on with this movie as it's one I never wanted in it's present state. Between two political sides the film had no space to breathe. Speaking away from both those sides Pascal, Feig and Dippold (who seems to get forgotten about when there's criticism as she's as much to blame) bumbled the whole thing from it's conception. Nobody says we need a film with four funny men to please one political side, let's make a multi-million dollar movie and come up with the script at a latter date to support this idea. It's like wanting to film in another country and contriving an excuse in the script to support that. The three instigated all this hate between both sides and both sides really came out attacking although from what I've seen the left have got the most support so even that has been one sided. Had Sony left the franchise to more grounded individuals who knew what they were doing we may have got a better movie
featuring women as Ghostbusters not a movie
about women as Ghostbusters.