[JurorNo.2]

Here's what it's really about:


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-ameri ... er-n677706

You know, I disapprove of the censorship, but if you're saying China banned GB16 because politics, I can almost sympathize them wanting to avoid the internet ****storm. Lol.

Fine, but if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gotta make it with anyone anyhow.

[JurorNo.2]

You don't think fans would have a major problem if Force Awakens had Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill playing "wink wink cameo" characters instead of their original characters?

A. Such fans do indeed have a major problem. It's all about keeping things in perspective. Would we all prefer a sequel? Yes. Did fans overreact, like, a hell of a lot? Um, yeah.

B. Star Wars isn't a comedy. GB84 was going to have Murray and Aykroyd showing up as two homeless guys commenting on the action. If that had been included, nitpicky fans today would be complaining that it "takes them out of the movie," lol.

[Kingpin]

nitpicky fans today would be complaining that it "takes them out of the movie," lol.

I believe remarks in that general sentiment were made back when the test screenings were taking place, that members of the audience were a little confused wondering if they were meant to be Venkman and Stantz in disguise. It was too obvious that it was Murray and Aykroyd, and their "bum" characters added nothing to the film.

[Sav C]

complaining that it "takes them out of the movie," lol.

Wait a minute, that's like my number one complaint about movies... But yeah I can be pretty nitpicky sometimes.

[JurorNo.2]

nitpicky fans today would be complaining that it "takes them out of the movie," lol.

I believe remarks in that general sentiment were made back when the test screenings were taking place, that members of the audience were a little confused wondering if they were meant to be Venkman and Stantz in disguise. It was too obvious that it was Murray and Aykroyd, and their "bum" characters added nothing to the film.

I completely understand it being confusing in execution. I'm talking more about the type of movie goers who are unable to ever suspend disbelief (assuming the scene had actually worked), or need their blockbusters to be serious and downplay the humor.

[JurorNo.2]

complaining that it "takes them out of the movie," lol.

Wait a minute, that's like my number one complaint about movies... But yeah I can be pretty nitpicky sometimes.

Don't get me wrong, I've said it before too, lol. I've just heard it once too often from movies that didn't deserve it, you know?

[Sav C]

Wait a minute, that's like my number one complaint about movies... But yeah I can be pretty nitpicky sometimes.

Don't get me wrong, I've said it before too, lol. I've just heard it once too often from movies that didn't deserve it, you know?

I hear ya. On a kind of different subject, I've gotten the impression that everything left on the cutting room floor for the first movie probably was right to leave out. For instance the full version of Ray's Dream Sequence scene didn't sound like it fit with the movie. The hotel guests who see Slimer also seemed like they would've been out of place.

[pferreira1983]

Misleading thread title. Should be "The *movie* we should have gotten" . Having the original ghostbusters cast in the movie as their characters could have been great.

I totally agree although it still wouldn't of been their film like it should have been would it?

I believe remarks in that general sentiment were made back when the test screenings were taking place, that members of the audience were a little confused wondering if they were meant to be Venkman and Stantz in disguise. It was too obvious that it was Murray and Aykroyd, and their "bum" characters added nothing to the film.

That's interesting. I knew they took out that scene because of your above reason but I didn't know it was due to a test screening. I had no idea it was shown to an audience, I just thought Reitman made that choice on his own accord. Learn something new every day.

[HunterCC]

You know, I disapprove of the censorship, but if you're saying China banned GB16 because politics, I can almost sympathize them wanting to avoid the internet ****storm. Lol.

Fine, but if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gotta make it with anyone anyhow.

What do you mean by "carrying pictures of Chairman Mao"?

Considering that GB16 *didn't* make it with people, that's another reason China banning the movie isn't that important in itself.

Would have been nice if the movie described in the OP trailer had gotten made by people who respected the fans, like Disney and Marvel, and not the toxic director, cast and company that did. Buzz over a Ghostbuster 2016 film, including this forum, would be a lot different.

[Kingpin]

I think it was a test screening, it'd make sense that it were a test screening, but it's been a while since I read that anecdote.

[HunterCC]

Misleading thread title. Should be "The *movie* we should have gotten" . Having the original ghostbusters cast in the movie as their characters could have been great.

I totally agree although it still wouldn't of been their film like it should have been would it?

Yeah, but the OGB (Original GB) blew that by never getting GB3 done before they got too old. It pretty much had to be a "passing the torch" movie at this point.

[HunterCC]

nitpicky fans today would be complaining that it "takes them out of the movie," lol.

I believe remarks in that general sentiment were made back when the test screenings were taking place, that members of the audience were a little confused wondering if they were meant to be Venkman and Stantz in disguise. It was too obvious that it was Murray and Aykroyd, and their "bum" characters added nothing to the film.

Seen anywhere online to see deleted scenes of GB84? My DVD doesn't have them.

[Sav C]

Seen anywhere online to see deleted scenes of GB84? My DVD doesn't have them.

I: http://www.theraffon.net/~spookcentral/gb1_deleted.htm
II: http://www.theraffon.net/~spookcentral/gb2_deleted.htm

The deleted scenes for II are on the Bluray, but Spook Central doesn't seem to have the clips.

When I got the GBII Bluray I remember being super excited to see the deleted scenes, especially the Slimer/Louis subplot, but like the first movie it felt like all of the scenes were better left out. Except possibly for the scene in Miss Liberty's crown, there was some funny dialogue there, although it wasn't of the caliber of the stuff they left in.

With that in mind, there's definitely some good stuff there.

This Post Contains Spoilers

[Kingpin]

Odd, I think the "Bums" deleted scene was on the 1999 DVD.

[JurorNo.2]

Fine, but if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gotta make it with anyone anyhow.

What do you mean by "carrying pictures of Chairman Mao"?

Lol, sorry, it's from the Beatles song "Revolution." I'm just saying you not liking the movie (that you haven't seen) isn't a good reason to sympathize with China.

[Sav C]

Lol, sorry, it's from the Beatles song "Revolution." I'm just saying you not liking the movie (that you haven't seen) isn't a good reason to sympathize with China.

Hey, since you brought them up, have you seen the new Ron Howard documentary on the Beatles called Eight Days a Week? It's really good, and focuses mainly on their touring years. Also Sigourney Weaver's in it.

[HunterCC]

Seen anywhere online to see deleted scenes of GB84? My DVD doesn't have them.

I: http://www.theraffon.net/~spookcentral/gb1_deleted.htm
II: http://www.theraffon.net/~spookcentral/gb2_deleted.htm

The deleted scenes for II are on the Bluray, but Spook Central doesn't seem to have the clips.

When I got the GBII Bluray I remember being super excited to see the deleted scenes, especially the Slimer/Louis subplot, but like the first movie it felt like all of the scenes were better left out. Except possibly for the scene in Miss Liberty's crown, there was some funny dialogue there, although it wasn't of the caliber of the stuff they left in.

With that in mind, there's definitely some good stuff there.

This Post Contains Spoilers

This is awesome! Thanks!

Can't watch the actual clips on this tablet, will try later, but the scenes of Louis and the muggers, and Louis asking Dana, while unneccesary, would have fit in IMO.

[HunterCC]

What do you mean by "carrying pictures of Chairman Mao"?

Lol, sorry, it's from the Beatles song "Revolution." I'm just saying you not liking the movie (that you haven't seen) isn't a good reason to sympathize with China.

Juror, I didn't say me not liking the movie was a good reason for China to ban the movie. I said that the politics around it, and went on to mention the toxic makers of GB16, were almost good enough reason to support banning it.

And the fact GB16 didn't connect with the general public. There's no reason to think GB16 would have been a box office hit if China hadn't banned it.

[JurorNo.2]

Juror, I didn't say me not liking the movie was a good reason for China to ban the movie. I said that the politics around it, and went on to mention the toxic makers of GB16, were almost good enough reason to support banning it.

.....China banned it because they want to control what their people see and believe. THAT is true toxicity. And it is not worth defending just because you didn't like a marketing campaign.

[Sav C]

This is awesome! Thanks!

Can't watch the actual clips on this tablet, will try later, but the scenes of Louis and the muggers, and Louis asking Dana, while unneccesary, would have fit in IMO.

You're welcome, Spook Central is really a great resource for GB related stuff!

Yeah, they probably would've fit. In my opinion though, even a short scene can impact the tone/flow of the movie in a large way.

Let's say they left the Nobel Prize scene in. It has some pretty funny dialogue in it, but at the same time it gives away the fact that Pete, Ray, Egon are being kicked off campus. The way it is in the movie, the three meet the dean, but the audience is like a forth member. Yeager is not only telling Pete, Ray, and Egon they are fired, but also the audience. If the deleted scene were to have been left in, all of a sudden the audience knows what is happening. We don't discover along with the three, instead we have the knowledge of Yeager instead, which serves to distance us from the busters. It's quite possible that that would be the extent of impact, but who knows, it could've affected the entire movie.

The scene with Louis and the muggers probably could've been left in, but it's possible it made the flow of the movie feel more "episodic".

I remember Reitman saying the scene with Louis asking Dana if they did it was cut to make the ending faster so that it didn't diminish the high caused by defeating Stay Puft, and from Dana being alive and OK.

But yeah, good scenes are often cut not because of their content, but because of how they affect other scene's content.

Although you probably shouldn't take what I say too seriously, often times I act like I know more than I really do about editing, etcetera.

[JurorNo.2]

Lol, sorry, it's from the Beatles song "Revolution." I'm just saying you not liking the movie (that you haven't seen) isn't a good reason to sympathize with China.

Hey, since you brought them up, have you seen the new Ron Howard documentary on the Beatles called Eight Days a Week? It's really good, and focuses mainly on their touring years. Also Sigourney Weaver's in it.

You know I've been a bad fan this year and I haven't been able to check it out yet. Thanks for the reminder!

[JurorNo.2]

Let's say they left the Nobel Prize scene in. It has some pretty funny dialogue in it, but at the same time it gives away the fact that Pete, Ray, Egon are being kicked off campus. The way it is in the movie, the three meet the dean, but the audience is like a forth member. Yeager is not only telling Pete, Ray, and Egon they are fired, but also the audience. If the deleted scene were to have been left in, all of a sudden the audience knows what is happening. We don't discover along with the three, instead we have the knowledge of Yeager instead, which serves to distance us from the busters. It's quite possible that that would be the extent of impact, but who knows, it could've affected the entire movie.

Good point! Also I don't like Venkman saying to the student "You don't say 'Hi'?" That pushes him too far into creep mode, lol. Plus it works better that he doesn't know what to say when he finds out they've been kicked out. He has no defense against Yeager's assertion that he's a poor scientist. It's our first indication that he's at least capable of some insight and humility.

[Sav C]

Hey, since you brought them up, have you seen the new Ron Howard documentary on the Beatles called Eight Days a Week? It's really good, and focuses mainly on their touring years. Also Sigourney Weaver's in it.

You know I've been a bad fan this year and I haven't been able to check it out yet. Thanks for the reminder!

That's fine. To be honest, I've never watched the Anthology all of the way through, and what I did watch was so long ago I've forgotten it.

Good point! Also I don't like Venkman saying to the student "You don't say 'Hi'?" That pushes him too far into creep mode, lol. Plus it works better that he doesn't know what to say when he finds out they've been kicked out. He has no defense against Yeager's assertion that he's a poor scientist. It's our first indication that he's at least capable of some insight and humility.

Peter couldn't stand all of these people nowadays who never look up from their phones. That's a good point about him having no defence. It's ironic how he's the poorest scientist of the three, yet he's also the one who is most eager to say he's a scientist.

[HunterCC]

.....China banned it because they want to control what their people see and believe. THAT is true toxicity. And it is not worth defending just because you didn't like a marketing campaign.

Nope, the toxicity from the internet trolls (which Feig, Sony,and company encouraged) and from the films supporters (go see this movie or you are a misogynist) is self evident.

toxicity - the degree to which something poisons or damages something

censorship - to suppress or ban something

These are two different things. And GB16 was toxic. Even had the internet controversy included in the movie.

In listing reasons the movie really isn't worth defending , the marketing campaign is part of GB16's toxicity, but I was talking about the toxicity itself when discussing how China might see it.

[JurorNo.2]

And GB16 was toxic.

Ehhhh, no, this is toxic:

"You are, quite literally, the most retarded person i have ever encountered on the internet. It's hard to believe that somebody like you exists. That somebody can be as naive and as ignorant as you are is astounding. Face facts. The new movie was no damn good and was a complete failure. It will be remembered in the same breath as the Star Wars Holiday Special as one of the worst atrocities ever committed against a franchise."--Reddit Troll's message to me

And don't even think about critiquing how I handled the situation, lol.

Even had the internet controversy included in the movie.

Which my theater audiences loved. Lighten up.

[GBPaulRivera]

For once, a trailer that doesn't bash the new team, but combines old and new. Can't wait for GB 101 in March

[pferreira1983]

Odd, I think the "Bums" deleted scene was on the 1999 DVD.

It's on mine as well, I'm sure it's on the blu-ray as well.

[Sav C]

I know it's on both the 2005 DVD and 2014 Bluray.

[HunterCC]

And GB16 was toxic.

Ehhhh, no, this is toxic:

"You are, quite literally, the most retarded person i have ever encountered on the internet. It's hard to believe that somebody like you exists. That somebody can be as naive and as ignorant as you are is astounding. Face facts. The new movie was no damn good and was a complete failure. It will be remembered in the same breath as the Star Wars Holiday Special as one of the worst atrocities ever committed against a franchise."--Reddit Troll's message to me

And don't even think about critiquing how I handled the situation, lol.

I agree that person was toxic to you. There was plenty both sides on the GB16 controversy. But what I said earlier about what was toxic including GB16 and its makers is still true.

Even had the internet controversy included in the movie.

Which my theater audiences loved. Lighten up.

Evidently not funny enough to save the movie. And 1) Sounds petty and butt-hurt, 2) Kinda hard for them to complain about the flamewar when they kept stoking it.

[Peter33vr]

Let's play Guess what: this trailer is a good example of a live action Ghostbusters 101.

Speaking of this: let's assume that another live action is in the cards, do you think the crossover wil be and has to be referenced and how?