Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4894931
I would've rather had a terrible GB3 than a good reboot.
Huh, that's an interesting quandary there. I mean, of course, film is subjective, blah blah blah, so the whole "terrible/good" thing is kinda nebulous. But that aside, all things being equal, I'd certainly prefer to see the G1* Ghostbusters crew again in a sequel. Even if a sequel is "terrible," it's still fun seeing the familiar characters in another adventure; seeing what's happened to them over the years, etc. And you don't really lose anything. I mean Godfather 3 is pretty terrible, but it doesn't especially affect my enjoyment of the first two. I know a lot of fans have trouble getting past that, but that's their loss I suppose.

*Btw, yeah, I'm borrowing from the Transformers franchise and calling the first two movies "G1 Ghostbusters" (And RGB can be G2 if you like, etc.). For three reasons:

1. I'm tired of saying "the original." The word "original" is too often synonymous with words like "primitive" or "rudimentary," and those are the last words I'd use to describe Ghostbusters (1984).

2. I'm also tired of saying "the '80s" or "the 1984 version." It reminds me of the fallacy in geek culture that movies didn't exist before they personally were born (Star Wars being the lone, tired exception).

3. IMO, the Transformers franchise has been the model of how to juggle multiple continuities. Sure, some fans don't like Bayformers, other fans resent G1's revered status. But at the end of the day, it's understood that they're all separate continuity families and don't have to affect each other in any way, unless you want them to. It's not a perfect model, but it's by far the best one I've experienced.
Yeah, whenever I say Ghostbusters, I'm tired to say the original, so I think I'll do what most do and refer to the reboot as ATC
Sav C, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4894934
I would've loved a good Ghostbusters III, however I'm not sure with the time passage if it would've fit with the first two. It could've been great if done right, though.
We had a good Ghostbusters III, it was the video game. By throwing in the Rookie they still could have had the all female team and had brief cameo's from the GB's. The rookie would have been in his mid thirties, early forties and could have filled in the gap between what happened at the end of the video game up until now.
Sav C, JurorNo.2, GBPaulRivera and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4894935
That's a good point, honestly I've never seen the video game front to back, however I have been meaning to. It's on Youtube so next time I get an hour or so to spare I'll have to check it out.

I tried watching Ghostbusters earlier today, but stopped it about twenty minutes in. I just wasn't in the mood for it. I never like that feeling when I start a movie, TV show, or song and then don't feel like finishing it. Some other time, I guess.
GBPaulRivera liked this
#4894956
The problem isn't just that they reboot one of the most classic comedies ever made, the problem is that it exists instead of GB3. There was zero reason to reboot this franchise.
Technically speaking, Ghostbusters 2 didn't have to exist. The original doesn't have to exist, but it does, and we got GB3 in a video game, which since 2009, the platform has been outdoing movies for a lot of times. To say there is zero reason is kinda contradictory to a universe where reasons exist. Does it need to have a reboot? No. But does anything need to be rebooted? Superhero movies, for instance, delight in reboots: Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Hulk, I could go on forever. Star Trek is in a reboot phase, as you mentioned. The new Star Wars are sequels, but have the hallmarks of reboots. Even James Bond has rebooted itself. Part of the fun is seeing how someone adapts the same concepts into a new story. Or if you want to think about it this way: does anyone need to make yet another film about the life of Jesus? No. But it’s going to keep happening, because people like it. And Hollywood is in the business of making things people will pay to see. Even after HAROLD RAMIS DIED ... people wanted another movie, but at that point were willing to sacrifice a character we deeply loved when it would of reminded us that THIS IS IT. This is THE END of the Ghostbusters we loved growing up. I didn't want that, I'm happy remembering them from the first two movies and video game and comics.
Even the Stark Trek reboot isn't technically a reboot since Abrams and company knew how big of a shit storm that would have caused. And this isn't a retelling of a story, so I don't buy that comparison.
You don't buy it, fine, but it technically is a re-telling. The purpose of a reboot, story wise, not studio, is to return to a property and offer a re-imagining while keeping core elements either visually or plot and characters. Again, the issue with the reboot it is that it went for familiar and different. Sadly that is its faults more than anything, but I still enjoyed it for being different enough.
This was so far removed from what made Ghostbusters a classic. The easiest part of Ghostbusters is what? The actual Ghostbusting. Anyone can do that. The original films were barely interested in showing the GBs bust ghosts. Was it cool? Yes. But other things were more important. Like characters and comedy.
Again, that's just personal taste. For some, they got that too, comedy and characters. I mean, I love the fan-films we've gotten and they suck at CGI and practical effects for the most part, but they have the heart of independent movies and you can overlook the ghost busting or lack of it in some because the story matters most. In this movie, the story mattered. Sadly, the story couldn't be totally fleshed out in 2 hours and 15 minutes, but it gave me what I wanted: A comedy about people catching ghosts.
You know what I just realized? And I guess this says more about me than anything but I would've rather had a terrible GB3 than a good reboot. That's how against reboots of classic films I am. Who knows when we will get something GB related again after the reboot bombed. I think this showed Hollywood not to screw with movies audiences really love. Has Hollywood reboot a film as successful as GB? I'm trying to think but I don't think so.
Personal tastes will vary, but as I've said here before, I'd rather have a good reboot or a poor reboot over a terrible GB3, because even though that may mean it'll be a while before we see another film, it at least means the classic franchise and its characters are untarnished.
I'm with Kingpin on his response. That is quite the devotion, and something I'd mostly associate with say theologians and philosophers and scientists and historians and mathematicians and engineers ... but for Ghostbusters? Again, I respect your point, but getting a bad film that will disappoint harder than a reboot just because it has the originals ... alright then. I've said my peace on that.
Context is important. When I say there was no reason to reboot the GB franchise I'm saying it as someone who has been following the development of a potential GB3 since the mid '90s. I know Harold passed away but Gb3 with the surviving members would've been possible(think Extreme Ghostbusters). There was no reason to reboot the movie when a sequel could've easily been made, even without Bill Murray. Of course we here on this board have been over that debate a million & 9 times. But that's what I mean when I say there is zero reason for the reboot.

As for the re telling thing. Beyond the staple of a group of people catching ghosts like exterminators(an idea that was around waay before GB84) this reboot retold nothing. I didn't see terror dogs, Mr. stay Puft, Gozer etc. It was more of a re imagining than a re telling, if you want to get literal about it.

As for getting a bad GB3 over a good reboot? Here's a reason I said that. A bad GB3 means they can still try again, a good reboot means that continuity is over. It means I will never see those characters again. Obviously I don't have proof of this, but I suspect a bad GB3 would've made more money in two weeks than the reboot we got did in it's entire run. A bad GB3 that still made money means it's possible a 4th film that's quality could've been made.

Also? It just pains me to no end that they reboot the franchise I care about most. I know some of you will completely disagree with me on this, but a reboot seems almost disrespectful somehow. Please just keep in mind how often and how close we were to getting that third movie. Some of you will say I'm just a but hurt fanboy that didn't get his way. And sure that's partly true. It hurt. I was so sure I would see those characters again. Then when Harold died it's almost like Sony danced on his grave. I know that's harsh that's just how it felt. To me at least.

We each love this franchise in our own way but I just can't even tell you all how important Ghostbusters was to me as a kid growing up. It was..I can't even explain it. Magical. As a small kid I knew there was no reason to fear Ghosts. Why? Ghostbusters. Sounds stupid I know, but it's true.

From 2007-2014 we got GB3 news like never before. It's like Indiana Jones. I never thought I'd see Indy up on that screen again. And sure the movie sucked but it was a trip and a thrill seeing Harrison play Dr Jones again. And guess what? We are getting a 5th Jones adventure. They didn't reboot. They were smart. They knew audiences would pay to see an old friend back on the big screen. And he'll be back again. Wish I could say the same about Ghostbusters.
deadderek liked this
#4894957
Eh, for me the Reboot was a safe out. Since it stood outside canon they had the opportunity to either create a sequel for it while they were figuring out a way to finally continue the old canon, which was in limbo for so long.
If it failed the original canon was not tainted, but they could always connect everything like they are doing now.
Sav C, GBPaulRivera liked this
#4894958
Eh, for me the Reboot was a safe out. Since it stood outside canon they had the opportunity to either create a sequel for it while they were figuring out a way to finally continue the old canon, which was in limbo for so long.
If it failed the original canon was not tainted, but they could always connect everything like they are doing now.
I don't think we will see another live action Ghostbusters movie in a looong time. That's just my own feeling. If that reboot had succeeded it would've killed any chance at seeing the old canon. We would've had more stories told in the reboot canon, with other possible GB franchises popping up. But I doubt we would ever see Ray, Winston or Peter again. Not with the cameos the original guys made.

Edit: clarified which canon I was talking about
deadderek liked this
#4894959
I know there was a pitch during the negotiating of Feigs movie from a friend of Feig that talks of a huge multi-verse. So they (not Feig) at least seem to still want to establish some kind of multi-verse, but now with the ATC movie connected to that.

I have high hopes of the animated movie being a continuation/connection to the original canon. If the ATC has (small) roles in that I don't know.
Last edited by Alphagaia on June 25th, 2017, 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sav C liked this
#4894976
Ivan mentioned during GBday they still have a few buns in the oven, right? Perhaps the disappointing BO of ATC meant they need more time to complete them for budget spreading and/or story reasons. They will probably delay them untill a new magic GBcelebrations number marks the Calendar before creating some new marketing buzz.
Sav C, GBPaulRivera liked this
#4894985
The Godfather is a great film, but it's based on a book and can be told in a new way. Scarface has been re-told one, better too, but it can do so too. Saying it didn't need to isn't a reason not to as that does limit people on thinking there is a way to re-tell it without losing the message and spirit. The formula to Ghostbusters allows for re-imaginings.
Making reboots or remakes takes away from the uniqueness of the original. It also shows a complete lack of creativity. If someone wants to do an adaptation of The Three Little Pigs sure because it hasn't really been done before on the big screen but restarting again and again is not only confusing but also takes away a sense of achievement the original version made.
In defense to Paul Fieg, his cast and crew, his team, and himself was being harassed.
But harassed by whom? Feig had this insecurity, this need to prove something that didn't need proving before Ghostbusters: ATC even was announced. Who is he trying to convince, feminists? People who felt that we need to prove women can be funny need to understand this.
Yeah A lot of modern comedies don't serve women or men (I switched it up to be fair, lol ;)) because they're made with the over improvisational, too fast, too raunchy, too much attitude because, and this is my opinion, people are so desensitized and live with a sarcastic view and are too connected to the grueling reality of today's post-9/11 world that you need a lot to make people laugh. We're too politically correct or too politically insensitive and being in the middle isn't enough for audiences, so comedies go for insensitivity and that can go either way. 40 Year Old Virgin, The Hangover, The Heat, and Bridesmaids are modern classics, and they really hits the bars on insensitivity for male and female humor, proving that both have unique perspectives on the same subjects of comedy.
I totally agree. Writing in film and TV, not just comedy suffers from two extremes as I've mentioned in a previous post. You need balance but modern day films and TV mistake balance for lack of realism or self reference. It's overcompensation, it's the problem of trying too hard. Of course to play devil's advocate you could say that this type of cynical humour is great and sells tickets but then that's a problem with society today due as to what you say 9/11 as such.
I would've loved a good Ghostbusters III, however I'm not sure with the time passage if it would've fit with the first two. It could've been great if done right, though.
We could have got a third movie back in 2008/2009 had everyone got their act together.
We had a good Ghostbusters III, it was the video game.
That's what we ended up with but we could have got so much more and I said at the time if the video game in it's present state had been adapted to a movie it would have been worse quality than the second movie.
The problem isn't just that they reboot one of the most classic comedies ever made, the problem is that it exists instead of GB3. There was zero reason to reboot this franchise.
I agree here. Missed opportunity.
Ghostbusters Day has come and gone, i'm starting to doubt the existence of Ecto force at all. We got a fraking poster for ATC. Not even a poster for the ATC original GB's IDW cross over. At this rate Atlantis will be discovered before we get any concept art, or trailers. :sigh:
It'll arrive I just don't like what I'm hearing about it. I've seen a couple of franchises moved to a future setting and those were awful.
#4895005
Cassidy, Milo, numerous anonymous posts from YouTube, it wasn't all experienced solely in his head.
I'm talking about before the movie was greenlit. Why the insecurities as though he needed to prove something? Milo wasn't there. Cassidy wasn't there. In this case Feig can't blame anyone but himself. He wanted feminist points maybe by needing four funny women in the film? Go back to my previous comment, I'm not talking about just the backlash after the film was announced, I'm talking about the events leading up to the film being greenlit.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4895018
I'm talking about before the movie was greenlit.
Rivera's point which you responded to was clearly in regard to Feig, Jones and other various members either being abused on twitter, or on YouTube during the production of the film. To the extent of my knowledge I'm not aware of any significant abuse he received before it was announced he'd be helming the project, so I'm not really sure why you're bringing up that era - other than possibly to undermine the sympathy for him for the abuse he, his cast and his crew received, and to assign more blame to his own actions than may necessarily be deserved.
User avatar
By timeware
#4895024
But harassed by whom?
Cassidy, Milo, numerous anonymous posts from YouTube, it wasn't all experienced solely in his head.
Don't forget the feminist bloggers also stoked the internet wars on you tube. They were just as vicious as Cassidy and Milo were. Feig was warranted to some kind of response I would have preferred them having appointed a spokesperson to defend the cast rather then him engaging at all.
pferreira1983 liked this
#4895027

Context is important. When I say there was no reason to reboot the GB franchise I'm saying it as someone who has been following the development of a potential GB3 since the mid '90s. I know Harold passed away but Gb3 with the surviving members would've been possible(think Extreme Ghostbusters). There was no reason to reboot the movie when a sequel could've easily been made, even without Bill Murray. Of course we here on this board have been over that debate a million & 9 times. But that's what I mean when I say there is zero reason for the reboot.

As for the re telling thing. Beyond the staple of a group of people catching ghosts like exterminators(an idea that was around waay before GB84) this reboot retold nothing. I didn't see terror dogs, Mr. stay Puft, Gozer etc. It was more of a re imagining than a re telling, if you want to get literal about it.

As for getting a bad GB3 over a good reboot? Here's a reason I said that. A bad GB3 means they can still try again, a good reboot means that continuity is over. It means I will never see those characters again. Obviously I don't have proof of this, but I suspect a bad GB3 would've made more money in two weeks than the reboot we got did in it's entire run. A bad GB3 that still made money means it's possible a 4th film that's quality could've been made.

Also? It just pains me to no end that they reboot the franchise I care about most. I know some of you will completely disagree with me on this, but a reboot seems almost disrespectful somehow. Please just keep in mind how often and how close we were to getting that third movie. Some of you will say I'm just a but hurt fanboy that didn't get his way. And sure that's partly true. It hurt. I was so sure I would see those characters again. Then when Harold died it's almost like Sony danced on his grave. I know that's harsh that's just how it felt. To me at least.

We each love this franchise in our own way but I just can't even tell you all how important Ghostbusters was to me as a kid growing up. It was..I can't even explain it. Magical. As a small kid I knew there was no reason to fear Ghosts. Why? Ghostbusters. Sounds stupid I know, but it's true.

From 2007-2014 we got GB3 news like never before. It's like Indiana Jones. I never thought I'd see Indy up on that screen again. And sure the movie sucked but it was a trip and a thrill seeing Harrison play Dr Jones again. And guess what? We are getting a 5th Jones adventure. They didn't reboot. They were smart. They knew audiences would pay to see an old friend back on the big screen. And he'll be back again. Wish I could say the same about Ghostbusters.
I think I need to say this again, but Richard, I didn't grow up on Ghostbusters in its heyday, and I think it had a great impact on my childhood like it did for you. I wasn't afraid of Ghosts because ... well, I didn't believe in them (more of a monsters outside my window kid), but heroes like the Ghostbusters taught me not to be scared of what is and isn't real. Like anything a child sees, my perception of reality and primarily towards entertainment was affected by Ghostbusters. I'm a bit of a cynic thanks to Ghostbusters and other comedies like it. I'm skeptical and go through reasoning as much as faith, heck it gives my faith a strong ground. I want to make it perfectly clear with you that my reaction to you wanting a bad GB sequel over the reboot, whether good or bad, was simply confusion? Not anything wrong. I grew up wanting a Ghostbusters 3 as well because for a long time, I only had those two movies. I guess what happened in my case is that I was a kid and teen when the Ghostbusters franchise was dead and a third resurgence occurred thanks to the hype of the video game. Like I said in my first reply to the question, I discovered a lot of GB material via the internet and the new talk of a third movie at the tail end before the game's release and years after were fun ... but I got off quickly enough to not put my hope in Dan or anyone saying it was coming. The rumor, in my opinion, fed hopes that were futile and it wasn't our fault. Frankly, it seems that ever since I was 14, Ghostbusters has been back, and the reboot's reminded me of its place in pop culture, even though I loved it. It's okay to be hurt. Frankly speaking, a lot of us are a little hurt that we won't get a continuing sequel, but I can't blame the reboot's director and studio when to be even more honest, we all know that the fault lies in the original creative people who simply couldn't agree on what they wanted another story to be. Yes, Hellbent and many of those leaked scripts were great, but we have to understand and respect their prespective that they wanted to give their best. Some wanted Hellbent, some wanted the video game on the big screen, and sadly time ... couldn't allow that to come. I still have to disagree on some things, such as the zero reason bit, the GB3 could of made more money, and that a sequel won't be made. Harold's death was a sad event for comedy in general as much as Ghostbusters, but remember Dan was still pushing for a movie ... so, hey, one of our heroes technically was too. Ivan and Dan gave it to Paul. They also danced on his grave then too. Sony was wanting a GB3 as far back as the 90s too. Again, Ivan has expressed his ideas of trying to tie the universes together on film. Sadly, this might mean animation, but Ghostbusters is acceptable in that format because it has touched animation.
Alphagaia liked this
#4895029

Cassidy, Milo, numerous anonymous posts from YouTube, it wasn't all experienced solely in his head.
Don't forget the feminist bloggers also stoked the internet wars on you tube. They were just as vicious as Cassidy and Milo were. Feig was warranted to some kind of response I would have preferred them having appointed a spokesperson to defend the cast rather then him engaging at all.
True, but here's what I think in regards to these feminists who in my opinion, make up that annoying 1% of the feminist movement ... they're control freaks. These are people who drank the kool aid too much and they jumped on defending the actors simply because they're women. Now I'm a feminist, hell, anyone who sees equal rights for both genders are feminist too, but their responses were just over the top. Fieg in my opinion didn't slash back because he was like them, but simply to defend his friends. If I attacked your friends, and I had an army attacking your friends, it's only human to represent yourself to take on me and the others I'm with. Let's face it, he had every right because 1. he's human, 2. his friends/stars and his crew were being mistreated 3. he didn't have to make this, but did so because he's a fan of these movies and the stars and 4. this was his first time facing a great public outcry that was normal and more appropriate for a senator and corporate company than a Hollywood director. I agree that some stuff he said were out of line, and a representative from the crew and Ghost Corps could of handled it better. However, I think the line was drawn long ago and went overboard when some racist assholes hacked Leslie's private messages on twitter and released her private nudes for a boyfriend ... I hate to bring that up, but to me, there was no longer any side, it wasn't about politics, it was an evil I can only associate to devil fueled passionate hatred dedicated to hurting someone, to humiliating someone. So, both sides were wrong, but I think the reminder game about both ends ... comes to a stop when I or someone has to remind everybody what damage was done. At this point, we must move on, and be happy Ghostbusters is getting a surge again thanks to the 2009 game and reboot bringing in new fans my age or younger who take a chance on the movies and cartoons.
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2 liked this
#4895030
The Godfather is a great film, but it's based on a book and can be told in a new way. Scarface has been re-told one, better too, but it can do so too. Saying it didn't need to isn't a reason not to as that does limit people on thinking there is a way to re-tell it without losing the message and spirit. The formula to Ghostbusters allows for re-imaginings.
Making reboots or remakes takes away from the uniqueness of the original. It also shows a complete lack of creativity. If someone wants to do an adaptation of The Three Little Pigs sure because it hasn't really been done before on the big screen but restarting again and again is not only confusing but also takes away a sense of achievement the original version made.
But The Fly, The Thing, The Blob, Scarface ... they're remakes, and they do not take away the uniqueness of the originals. They show how different they are while still going through the basic skeleton of the original premise. ATC kinda does that too. Did it surpass the original? No, and I think that's because remaking a B-Movie is easier than an A-Movie. ATC proves that and to me it's an A- or B+ reboot, but that is down to tastes. I even admitted in my earlier post that it gave more to the achievement of the original. Also, I'd be incredibly interested in a Three Little Pigs movie, and it'd be perfect for a stop-motion 18th/19th century setting due to the fairy tale quality magic of stop motion.
In defense to Paul Fieg, his cast and crew, his team, and himself was being harassed.
But harassed by whom? Feig had this insecurity, this need to prove something that didn't need proving before Ghostbusters: ATC even was announced. Who is he trying to convince, feminists? People who felt that we need to prove women can be funny need to understand this.
Yeah, I'll just refer to KingPin because I was talking about abused towards this GB-era of Paul's career and not prior.
Yeah a lot of modern comedies don't serve women or men (I switched it up to be fair, lol ;)) because they're made with the over improvisational, too fast, too raunchy, too much attitude because, and this is my opinion, people are so desensitized and live with a sarcastic view and are too connected to the grueling reality of today's post-9/11 world that you need a lot to make people laugh. We're too politically correct or too politically insensitive and being in the middle isn't enough for audiences, so comedies go for insensitivity and that can go either way. 40 Year Old Virgin, The Hangover, The Heat, and Bridesmaids are modern classics, and they really hits the bars on insensitivity for male and female humor, proving that both have unique perspectives on the same subjects of comedy.
I totally agree. Writing in film and TV, not just comedy suffers from two extremes as I've mentioned in a previous post. You need balance but modern day films and TV mistake balance for lack of realism or self reference. It's overcompensation, it's the problem of trying too hard. Of course to play devil's advocate you could say that this type of cynical humour is great and sells tickets but then that's a problem with society today due as to what you say 9/11 as such.
Honestly, the whole 9/11 thing ... it's strange to me because to a degree, I tear up whenever I see footage of that day, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I laughed at some bad memes that would be related to it or some other dark events. I'm a bit of jerk in that sense, but it seems unfair that I'm a monster to life itself by some because its a dark subject, a sensitive ones. I'll admit, I don't have a deep relationship to certain things that yeah, it allows me to take a laugh, but to be frank, I think everyone at some point in this post-9/11 world need to let go of atrocities in due time because then the enjoyment of life is sucked out by overlooking bad past moments. Not to forget them, remember them, but don't let them rule you. And sadly some rule over society in the sense that I want to take care of how you think because even thinking is dangerous ... when its only dangerous in the wrong hands. Extremism ruins a lot of things, including comedy, when over exposed.
Last edited by GBPaulRivera on June 26th, 2017, 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2, 80sguy liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4895034
9/11 wasn't just a thing. People lived it, and still suffer the loss of loved ones from it. I remember there was a day when no planes flew, when the country was actually united for a change. People seem to forget that 3000 lives were lost that day. This isn't shit you forget, and some people aren't going to let it go for comedic reasoning. No matter how much time passes by.

I'm not trying to paint you as being insensitive there's a reason why 9/11 is a sensitive topic for people.
GBPaulRivera liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4895035
Humor is a way of coping with such realities for some, just like grief. Distance helps, ofcourse.
It's not for people who lost friends or family during Desert Storm, in North Korea, WW2, etc. Most of the times humor is used to point out how ludricously extreme viewpoints and situations can become, while realising these events all actually happened in this 'mature' world.
JurorNo.2, deadderek, GBPaulRivera and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895055
I tried watching Ghostbusters earlier today, but stopped it about twenty minutes in. I just wasn't in the mood for it. I never like that feeling when I start a movie, TV show, or song and then don't feel like finishing it. Some other time, I guess.
"So you put on the TV and you're watching Johnny Carson
Segwaying right into the Tomorrow show
But that don't got the go so you turn it off ya turn on the radio,
The radio don't seem to get the click so you say
'Hey Man, I can't lickety split'"
Ghostbusters Day has come and gone, i'm starting to doubt the existence of Ecto force at all. We got a fraking poster for ATC. Not even a poster for the ATC original GB's IDW cross over. At this rate Atlantis will be discovered before we get any concept art, or trailers. :sigh:
It's a bit frustrating, that's for sure. In the mean time I've decided I will be catching up on RGB.
Ivan mentioned during GBday they still have a few buns in the oven, right? Perhaps the disappointing BO of ATC meant they need more time to complete them for budget spreading and/or story reasons. They will probably delay them untill a new magic GBcelebrations number marks the Calendar before creating some new marketing buzz.
That makes sense.
I would've loved a good Ghostbusters III, however I'm not sure with the time passage if it would've fit with the first two. It could've been great if done right, though.
We could have got a third movie back in 2008/2009 had everyone got their act together.
Believe me I know. I was checking on an almost daily basis for Ghostbusters III related news.
#4895207
Rivera's point which you responded to was clearly in regard to Feig, Jones and other various members either being abused on twitter, or on YouTube during the production of the film. To the extent of my knowledge I'm not aware of any significant abuse he received before it was announced he'd be helming the project, so I'm not really sure why you're bringing up that era - other than possibly to undermine the sympathy for him for the abuse he, his cast and his crew received, and to assign more blame to his own actions than may necessarily be deserved.
If you read back what I was talking about I'm clearly referring to prior to the film's announcement, i.e. what started all this? And no he doesn't deserve any sympathy. Feig's insecurities to win feminist points and not wanting to come out of his comfort zone is what put him and everyone else in this mess to begin with.
I hadn't forgotten about them, but as far as I was aware, they hadn't been attacking him, which was the subject of that particular part of discussion.
Well of course they're not going to attack him, they're on his side, he made this movie for them! :roll:
Don't forget the feminist bloggers also stoked the internet wars on you tube. They were just as vicious as Cassidy and Milo were. Feig was warranted to some kind of response I would have preferred them having appointed a spokesperson to defend the cast rather then him engaging at all.
Social media is mostly one sided and the left always prevail. Nobody can question the left it seems and get criticism for it. That's how stupid something like Twitter is. Anita Sarkeesian for example is as much a troll as Milo is but she has the backing of countless people who feel 'victimised' in life. The difference between them both is Milo isn't a con artist, Anita is so it's easier to just criticise Milo as he doesn't have his own charity organisation funded by the so called 'snowflake' community she's helped flourish.
But The Fly, The Thing, The Blob, Scarface ... they're remakes, and they do not take away the uniqueness of the originals. They show how different they are while still going through the basic skeleton of the original premise.
I mentioned before that nearly always reboots or remakes are inferior to the original. You've just listed the films that are an exception so I stand by my original point that 95% remakes take away from the uniqueness of the original.
Also, I'd be incredibly interested in a Three Little Pigs movie, and it'd be perfect for a stop-motion 18th/19th century setting due to the fairy tale quality magic of stop motion.
So would I but it would be something original because it hasn't been remade three times before. Heck, they're going to remake Scarface a second time which proved my point Hollywood is out of ideas and is reliant on pilching the past iterations of something. We don't need this and I don't know anyone who welcomes remakes of popular movies.
I think everyone at some point in this post-9/11 world need to let go of atrocities in due time because then the enjoyment of life is sucked out by overlooking bad past moments. Not to forget them, remember them, but don't let them rule you. And sadly some rule over society in the sense that I want to take care of how you think because even thinking is dangerous ... when its only dangerous in the wrong hands. Extremism ruins a lot of things, including comedy, when over exposed.
Well mate then TV and film would be changed. Not everything would be edgy, not everything desaturated, not everything would be going for exact realism, it would be okay to blow up or level buildings in movies (i.e. Independence Day) without studios feeling remorse, the world as we know it would become less politically correct and more like the 90s. I'd love to see that happen as well. Unfortunately we don't yet live in that world. The blockbuster movie as we know it doesn't exist any more and hasn't since the late 90s. Most TV drama is dedicated to criminal murder and terrorism. That is what people like. Is society sick, well yeah of course. But people like that. I miss going to the cinema for escapist fun, now films go for so much realism take one look at a superhero movie today either by DC or Marvel and witness how 9/11 has sucked the fun out of entertainment. More 70s Battlestar Galactica, less awful remake Galactica please.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895228
I thought movies were more grounded in the 90s, and their realism has decreased over time. Look at Bullitt, Dog Day Afternoon, they're about as realistic as cinema gets I'd say.

The first Die Hard was made in 89, right? Each one keeps getting more and more outrageous, at far as I'm aware. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't that the opposite of what you're saying?
GBPaulRivera liked this
#4895233
I thought movies were more grounded in the 90s, and their realism has decreased over time. Look at Bullitt, Dog Day Afternoon, they're about as realistic as cinema gets I'd say.

The first Die Hard was made in 89, right? Each one keeps getting more and more outrageous, at far as I'm aware. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't that the opposite of what you're saying?
Yeah I gotta agree with Sav C on that. Realism is relative and limited to the scope of cinema at a technical and human level. Heck, besides for budget reasons, didn't Ivan bring Harold in to make Ghostbusters a little more ... realistic? :cool: Also, a lot of movies in the past decade have done realism and still work as great escapist cinema experiences.
Sav C, 80sguy liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895234
Yeah, Harold certainly grounded Ghostbusters from what I've heard. From my personal observations many movies seem to be getting more and more outrageous, but there are definitely great films still being made with a sense of realism. At the same time so many different things can be done now, not even color grades have to be realistic. I know they've played with colors in the past, but now films can have amazingly intricate looks that couldn't be replicated by putting on a pair of tinted sunglasses, if you know what I mean. :)

Perhaps that detracts from what they could do in the past, I know they really played with hues at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey. They were definitely capable, it's just gotten easier is what I'm saying.
GBPaulRivera liked this
#4895235
Yeah, Harold certainly grounded Ghostbusters from what I've heard. From my personal observations many movies seem to be getting more and more outrageous, but there are definitely great films still being made with a sense of realism. At the same time so many different things can be done now, not even color grades have to be realistic. I know they've played with colors in the past, but now films can have amazingly intricate looks that couldn't be replicated by putting on a pair of tinted sunglasses, if you know what I mean. :)

Perhaps that detracts from what they could do in the past, I know they really played with hues at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey. They were definitely capable, it's just gotten easier is what I'm saying.
Yeah, that's one point of realism I'm kinda fed up with: Color. Like, guys, I don't want a rainbow burning my eyes or that weird yellow-tinted grunge filter from many mid-late 2000s movies (seriously, what is up with that?) ... but some liveliness would be nice. I will say, the colors in the reboot were pretty dynamic, even if I'm used to the smokey kinda filter from the original, but hey LIGHT! COLOR! I can see their outfits and not wait for lightning in the sky to see Superman's red cape :|
Sav C, JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895236
The color grade in the reboot was pretty good I thought. The trailer had me worried a bit, but it ended up looking pretty nice. The only scene I wasn't huge on was at the concert where the red light was so...unnatural looking, for lack of a better way to put it. I'd say it was washed out, but I'm not sure if that fits the definition in this case. The rest of the color I enjoyed. Like with the cape example, I'm not big on straining my eyes to see something on the screen.

I think that kind of happened with the Harry Potter series. I loved the warm look of the first two films, but then the rest of the movies that followed sometimes were a little too dark.

Agreed on that yellow grunge filter, by the way.
GBPaulRivera liked this
#4895237
The color grade in the reboot was pretty good I thought. The trailer had me worried a bit, but it ended up looking pretty nice. The only scene I wasn't huge on was at the concert where the red light was so...unnatural looking, for lack of a better way to put it. I'd say it was washed out, but I'm not sure if that fits the definition in this case. The rest of the color I enjoyed. Like with the cape example, I'm not big on straining my eyes to see something on the screen.

I think that kind of happened with the Harry Potter series. I loved the warm look of the first two films, but then the rest of the movies that followed sometimes were a little too dark.

Agreed on that yellow grunge filter, by the way.
I have to agree. I get that the red light was to go with the sort of metal rock and red is sometimes a color associated with hell, evil, the devil (subjects of metal rock), but it was overly bright and warm and bounced off of people's faces that it would make sense if it was on a ghost, an unnatural being making unnatural light. Besides that, the colors were really well done in a lot of places.

Thinking about it, I think that's possibly one subtle reason I stopped watching them. The magic and life of the first two movies were gone as time went on because of visual cues. Including that warm look to the them. I think I excuse the third film because it was that point the series started getting darker, but not enough to make me dislike it.

A lot of movies were using it and I joked with my friends saying, "Who told the director it's okay to piss and throw mud on the lens?" Don't get me wrong, SOMETIMES it worked in some cool movies. Bad Boys 2 was action packed and wild and high on energy that the filter matched that insanity. And heck, the GREEN tinted grunge was perfect for Fight Club and The Matrix, but it was overused. Personally, I understand that when you film digitally, color is hard to capture, and I don't get how some low-budget films can simply get the point of Color can still work for realism and high budget films can't. I think that's why I'm looking forward to the new Spiderman movie too. It's very colorful like GOTG and Dr. Strange compared to the rest.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895244
That's a good point about the association of red and heavy metal. Perhaps if they had turned the lights down just a tad it eould've been better.

There was really something special about the world created in the first couple of movies. I remember the feeling of excitement reading the Philosopher's Stone for the first time, in the part where Harry goes to diagonon alley for the first time. Great stuff. I haven't read the newest book, Fantastic Beasts I think, and probably won't see the movie until I've read it.

I really enjoyed the Tobey Mcguire Spidermans, the new one looks good too. Still haven't seen the Amazing Spiderman series.
GBPaulRivera liked this
[SPOILERS] NEW GB MOVIE SUMMER 2020!

I had this idea, but of course its just going of[…]

Hello from Washington State!

There's a few of us!

Dan Schoening finished pencils on TF/GB #5. https[…]

Please help! Does anyone know whether Anovos are s[…]