Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By deadderek
#4895146
There's no such thing as a blockbuster anymore. Extinct... just like the video chain.
Actually there's still a few Blockbuster stores around.
By Commander_Jim
#4895158
I just read that (the excellent) Wonder Woman had a budget of $150m, which was less than this film. That was an epic film filled with action, effects and huge period and fantasy sets. Really makes you wonder what Feig did with all the money.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4895159
Let's be fair: GB:ATC budget was 144 and it also contained a lot of practical and special effects.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4895178
effects and huge period and fantasy sets.
While they weren't period, the reboot had some substantial set builds for the production:

The restaurant interior (with a significant replication of part of the exterior)
The Firehouse interior and roof.
The Subway station (ticket booth, platform and tunnel)
The Mercado Hotel (Lobby, corridor and basement)
A largish section of Times Square.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4895179
And let's not forget the ghosts where mostly real people, with make up and masks glued on their faces, on wires and or on lifts to make them float, the packs where sometimes digital to keep movement and stunts easier, the creepy puppet had a stand in, Slimer first was puppet but it did not work out, there a lot of props, music rights, the list goes on.
User avatar
By JTysonLambert
#4895181
Really makes you wonder what Feig did with all the money.
I'm sure that Aykroyd pocketed a nice amount from the budget for his role as executive producer, of which he's publicly stated that he did little real work on the film.
An executive producer's role is to finance the film. They basically fund the production and/or make sure it doesn't go over budget. EPs usually make around $1mil on a movie. Dan probably made more for his forced cameo, and certainly makes more in royalties and merchandising. I doubt he would be shoveling the movie's budget into his pockets while rubbing his hands together, seeing as how he helped fund the thing to begin with, and obviously was hoping the movie was a success.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4895182
I wish we could all just stop pointing fingers to either Feig or Dan as only seeing this as a paycheck.
By Dr.D
#4895183
The only person who really was in this for a paycheck was Amy Pascal. Part of her deal with Sony to leave was that they let her finish this movie. Again, I really believe that Dan loves Ghostbusters and thought this would push it back into the spotlight in a big way and when it didn't he felt hurt.

Alot of people in Hollywood are cynical and only interested in money, but I honestly don't think Dan is like that. He genuinely loves this property because it's his baby. I think he was a little desperate to get a Ghostbusters move into theaters and thought this was a unique way of doing that since to him a direct sequel went out when Harold passed. Dan is honestly one of the good ones, a bit out there sure, but he's that rare breed of honest you don't see in the industry too much.
User avatar
By Lee FW
#4895184
While I think the budget probably wasn't handled that great, comparing it to Wonder Woman isn't really a fair side by side comparison as the majority was shot over here in the UK which is considerably cheaper especially as our £ has been shot to bits for a while now + the cast certainly isn't as well know.

You'd be better comparing to Suicide Squad, similar scale of effects, pretty well known ensemble cast. I know it was shot in Chicago and Toronto which isn't Boston and LA but certainly not cheaper than London at the mo.
Last edited by Lee FW on July 2nd, 2017, 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895185
Now this is interesting, ABC7NY news mentioned Dan Aykroyd's birthday this morning on Facebook, and referred to him as "one of the original Ghostbusters." Maybe ATC has left its mark after all. ;)

Oh yeah, there was also some bitter Pecker in the comments calling him "liberal scum," lol. Ah, social media. :walterpeck:
By pferreira1983
#4895206
You don't work in the Hollywood industrial machine, so it's understandable if decisions like filming in Boston over New York don't make as much sense to you as they did to Feig, Sony or the beancounters. Still, it's not a fact that's going to change so it's time really to make your peace with that decision.
I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems. There's no reason just to film because it's cheaper, it's about utilising the budget effectively. I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.
Scripts mean very little in the grand scheme of filmmaking, especially once active production begins. And this is coming from a guy who is a screenwriter and wants to write for a living.
I'm also a budding screenwriter and I'd like to think that production doesn't come first and a script second. That's a terrible mentality to have. If you have a good script that has requirements you make it work!
I don't think anyone here will dispute that.
I'm sure the people who liked ATC will defend the soundtrack as being great. :mrgreen:
It's a real flaw in the Hollywood formula that movies are so reliant on their initial box office. It's far too Old School when you think about it, harkening-back to the 1930s when the only place to see movies was a theater. There are so many movies throughout history that didn't make money initially, but then became huge favorites later on, on TV or home video. Those movies deserve sequels as much as anything else, but will never get them, purely because of an out dated formula.
Well you know my opinions on ATC so it doesn't bother me it failed but to add to what you're saying what I dislike is Hollywood's lack of treatment of older films based on original Box Office revenue. It seems as though we get proper treatment of a film on blu-ray only if it was successful at the Box Office which to me is a joke. I guess I won't be getting that extras packed blu-ray of Stay Tuned this year. :cry:
Drama has a way of showing up on screen, if that makes sense.
But that's just it, no drama appeared in screen but poor comedy.
You should read IDW's GB101 comic!
I've heard the writers had big trouble making the ATC team likable next to the original team so might give that one a miss. :lol:
Perfect example is what just happened with the Han Solo movie. Producers suddenly saw the finish line of production and realized it wasn't the product they wanted.
To be honest I don't think it's a film anybody wanted. :wink:
ATC wasn't treated like a blockbuster. It was treated like a comedy.
ATC was pretty much treated like every other Paul Feig film which is a gross-out movie with pretentious comedy. That gets Box Office revenue if the budget is small but on a large scale of course it's going to flop.
Really makes you wonder what Feig did with all the money.
He spent the rest of the money on more pointless dance numbers and improvisational comedy it seems. :-|
I wish we could all just stop pointing fingers to either Feig or Dan as only seeing this as a paycheck.
I haven't heard from anyone saying that. Who do you speak of? I'm sure Feig and Dan believed in it but it's how Feig went about reviving the franchise that was misguided.
Now this is interesting, ABC7NY news mentioned Dan Aykroyd's birthday this morning on Facebook, and referred to him as "one of the original Ghostbusters." Maybe ATC has left its mark after all. ;)

Oh yeah, there was also some bitter Pecker in the comments calling him "liberal scum," lol. Ah, social media. :walterpeck:
I don't get it Juror. He is one of the original Ghostbusters along with Ernie, Murray and Harold. So what's to get upset about?
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895210
I don't get it Juror. He is one of the original Ghostbusters along with Ernie, Murray and Harold. So what's to get upset about?
No you misunderstood, that part was fine.There I was just observing that pop culture seems to be acknowledging ATC's existence. :) I was only upset about that commentor's "liberal scum" remark." And not even upset, just bemused at the insanity that is social media.
By pferreira1983
#4895211
No you misunderstood, that part was fine.There I was just observing that pop culture seems to be acknowledging ATC's existence. :) I was only upset about that commentor's "liberal scum" remark." And not even upset, just bemused at the insanity that is social media.
Yeah but I don't understand why they made that liberal scum comment. If your quote is accurate and complete it makes sense as Dan is one of the originals. What you quoted makes no reference to ATC so not sure how that could offend anybody. In other words I don't get what triggered them.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895213
No you misunderstood, that part was fine.There I was just observing that pop culture seems to be acknowledging ATC's existence. :) I was only upset about that commentor's "liberal scum" remark." And not even upset, just bemused at the insanity that is social media.
Yeah but I don't understand why they made that liberal scum comment. If your quote is accurate and complete it makes sense as Dan is one of the originals. What you quoted makes no reference to ATC so not sure how that could offend anybody. In other words I don't get what triggered them.
Ohhhh, ok. Well I can't be positive, but it just felt like the typical "Hollywood celebs are all libs and I hate libs" blah blah blah.
By pferreira1983
#4895216
Ohhhh, ok. Well I can't be positive, but it just felt like the typical "Hollywood celebs are all libs and I hate libs" blah blah blah.
It is a bandwagon Hollywood celebs recently have been quick to jump on rather easily. On the other hand from what you've said I see no reason for them to be triggered like that especially since ATC isn't even mentioned. There's stuff that celebs do that is reason to get frustrated. What you said doesn't sound like one of those times. :)
User avatar
By deadderek
#4895221
I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems. There's no reason just to film because it's cheaper, it's about utilising the budget effectively. I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.
1. How do you seem to understand movie making more than those actually doing it?

2. You say "...no reason to just to film because it's cheaper" and "utilising the budget effectively". Well filming where it's cheaper and not noticeable to the average movie patron is in FACT utilizing the budget more effectively. What are you not understanding?

3. The end result "speaks confusion as to where it's shot"? Who's confused? The film is portrayed as taking place in New York, and it's made extremely clear throughout the entire film. Who exactly is confused about this?
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4895225
I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems.
With all due respect, you clearly don't. I'm not an expert in movie making but I can see why Boston was the juicier option. At this point in time I would suggest you write some letters to the state, municipal and city governments of New York if you still feel the need to air your grievances, as New York did not provide a shiny enough apple to film the majority of the location sequences - as has been pointed out several times already.
I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.
There's no confusion about where it's shot, you're just being pedantic.

As we've all made our positions on the choice of location filming in Boston extremely clear, that we move on to another subject related to this topic.
I'm also a budding screenwriter and I'd like to think that production doesn't come first and a script second. That's a terrible mentality to have. If you have a good script that has requirements you make it work!
World War Z and The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy are great examples of good stories ruined by their respective productions. As long as studios are more keen on profits than telling a good story, making sure you have a good and enjoyable script will always take less priority.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895227
I'm not so sure what the big deal is. It was shot in Boston, but is set in New York. As a result it doesn't completely feel like it's taking place in New York. They probably figured that when they choosed to shoot in Boston, but decided that it was worth the tradeoff of having to pay less, and so they shot in Boston. No big deal.

You know it's funny, for me a show like Married...With Children feels like it has just as much of Chicago's influence as a movie such as Ferris Bueller's Day Off does, yet Married...With Children has almost no shots of Chicago, besides in the intro. Perhaps it has a lot to do with the references made to Chicago. That'd be an interesting thing to look into, what makes the setting of a movie or show convincing. With all do respect, it'd be a lot more productive that bickering over incentives to shoot in Massachusetts.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895247
Married is one of my absolute favorite shows! I know I probably don't seem like the types who would enjoy it, but honestly it is one of the best things I've ever seen. People really freaked out over nothing with the fourth season. I had seen the fourth season before reading about the protests, and when I found out about them I was like what was so wrong in the fourth season? My personal fave is the fifth season, but it's great throughout.
Last edited by Sav C on July 5th, 2017, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895289
Plus I just heard the Blues Brothers are performing at a July 4th event on PBS.
Just saw the Blues Brothers on PBS, it was great. They were with Sam Moore for a song and that was really cool. Also the Four Tops and the Beach Boys performed, all really good stuff. Happy fourth, everyone! :)
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895291
Plus I just heard the Blues Brothers are performing at a July 4th event on PBS.
Just saw the Blues Brothers on PBS, it was great. They were with Sam Moore for a song and that was really cool. Also the Four Tops and the Beach Boys performed, all really good stuff. Happy fourth, everyone! :)
Glad you enjoyed it too! I was watching it live streaming on my phone, while also watching fireworks on my vacation (Yay technology! :D)
User avatar
By Doctor Venkman
#4895292
You don't work in the Hollywood industrial machine, so it's understandable if decisions like filming in Boston over New York don't make as much sense to you as they did to Feig, Sony or the beancounters. Still, it's not a fact that's going to change so it's time really to make your peace with that decision.
I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems. There's no reason just to film because it's cheaper, it's about utilising the budget effectively. I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.
The irony of this statement is kind of funny to be honest. There's absolutely no confusion whatsoever about where the movie takes place. This is like saying that scenes shouldn't be shot on a stage because it's not "really New York and confuses people."

Let alone that yes, shooting in a location that is cheaper and still easily passes for the city you're portraying, is definitely "using the budget effectively."

If you want to be a screenwriter, you're probably going to need to drop the slight arrogance and realize that you don't know more than those in the business. You're not going to break down any barriers into the business by thinking you know everything, especially when your argument is completely nonsensical.
By Dr.D
#4895293
pferreira1983 wrote:

Kingpin wrote:
You don't work in the Hollywood industrial machine, so it's understandable if decisions like filming in Boston over New York don't make as much sense to you as they did to Feig, Sony or the beancounters. Still, it's not a fact that's going to change so it's time really to make your peace with that decision.

I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems. There's no reason just to film because it's cheaper, it's about utilising the budget effectively. I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.
There is so much I could say about the lever of arrogance and basic misunderstanding of how the film industry works in this statement. First and foremost, screenwriting is essentially the lowest man on the totem pole and I say this as a screenwriter. Scripts are living documents that are constantly changed on and off set and usually not by the writer. It doesn't matter where you set your movie because at the end of the day once the script is purchased and unless you're also the director and you are a name that any person of the street will recognize (Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola) your script is going to change and location is usually one of the first things to go.

Criticism is fine, but criticism without justification is just complaining. It doesn't help any argument when you start attacking other people for their lack of knowledge about filmmaking. Especially when it seems like you aren't entirely well informed yourself.

It's okay if you didn't like the movie. It's just a movie.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895295
Just saw the Blues Brothers on PBS, it was great. They were with Sam Moore for a song and that was really cool. Also the Four Tops and the Beach Boys performed, all really good stuff. Happy fourth, everyone! :)
Glad you enjoyed it too! I was watching it live streaming on my phone, while also watching fireworks on my vacation (Yay technology! :D)
Nice! I was switching between the Capitol Fourth and the Macy's Fourth. Therefore I initially missed the Four Tops, and had to rewind live TV (which is new for me), yay technology is right! It's nice the fireworks shows are staggered so I watched both.
The irony of this statement is kind of funny to be honest. There's absolutely no confusion whatsoever about where the movie takes place. This is like saying that scenes shouldn't be shot on a stage because it's not "really New York and confuses people."
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that if someone didn't understand it was taking place in New York, they probably weren't paying attention.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895297
Nice! I was switching between the Capitol Fourth and the Macy's Fourth. Therefore I initially missed the Four Tops, and had to rewind live TV (which is new for me), yay technology is right!
Oh did you know Dan Aykroyd once performed with the Four Tops? Start at 24:14:
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

From what we have seen, it makes narrative s[…]

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

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

Hello from Washington State!

Thanks Fritz! Are the any other Washingtonians on[…]