Ghostbusters Reboot/3

The ghost catching montage! It's in both movies!

Oh yeah. :) I haven't seen them in a long time. ^_^;;

Seems to me to be an odd reason to dislike a film. Montages are one of the most overused things in cinema. Meanwhile:

http://squeewentthefangirl.tumblr.com/post/152627450114/memorian-ghostbusters-halloween-appreciation

That's what the film means as far as I'm concerned. Positive role models to young girls instead of all the other constant bombardment of shit they get force fed by other media. The joy on those girls' faces as they get to play as the heroes for once, rather than playing as the ones the heroes (usually male) either save or fail to save (usually female).

I don't dislike the film. It's just an aspect I think should have been included.

Thinking a movie flubbed on two things =/= disliking the movie.

edited 3rd Nov '16 9:37:54 AM by MrAHR

So, flash animator Hot Diggedy Demon released a video on the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBRz_0iyL1w

I've no idea why he's been doing film reviews lately, but his Zootopia review generated quite a bit of controversy in that film's thread.

and controversy means clicks,so he;s a hypocrite in that regard

I'm watching it right now. First five minutes, and I feel like it's actively trying to make me both love and hate it at the same time. So far, it's the latter.

EDIT: Though the orchestral score during the first Ghostbusting scene is cool.

Also, what was with the Ghost Corps. thing in the logo montage in the beginning?

EDIT EDIT: The ghost-hunting sequences are really cool.

Also, why weren't the Paddleball Shot's edited out of the non-3D DVD's?

edited 14th Nov '16 6:41:18 AM by Shippudentimes

So this just came out.

Dan Aykroyd Slams Ghostbusters Remake Director; Reveals Reshoots Cost $40 Million

Long story short, Dan love the main actresses but criticized the director for spending too much money on reshoots which could have been avoided if he had listened to producers to film those scenes much earlier.

Anyway, i finally saw the film and it was rather "Meh". The last fight in the movie felt weird and awkward to watch. I hated Chris Hemsworth character Kevin yet i love him when he became possessed by the Big Bad. In fact, i feel like Chris Hemsworth should have been cast as the main villain in the first place since it makes a good story about this evil handsome bloke against four average women that fight ghosts.

Yes, pretty much any scene with Possessed Kevin was some of the film's best work. Skipping both the villain and Kevin and just making that gestalt entity into his actual character would have done the film a lot of good.

edited 4th Jun '17 9:48:09 PM by TobiasDrake

I had noticed that, certainly interesting. If the movie was closer to 100 million it probably would have been considered a success, it did make over 200 million worldwide, but a runaway budget and expensive reshoots hurt it. The film definitely had a lot of its budget on the screen, but overall it shouldn't have been aiming to be a blockbuster.

It would have probably broken even. It's hard to say definitively because marketing budget usually goes unlisted.

Marketing can be as much as 100% of the production costs are, particularly if the studios are nervous about a film's prospects yet not nervous enough to cut its throat before release. Maybe even more if the film has a totally new premise that they're not sure is going to work.

I heard elsewhere that Dan Akyrod's estimation of overbudget was off by a 0 (aka 4 million instead), but I can't find any source on me. A

It really depends on exactly what was done and how much CG was reworked. 40 mill is likely if its a good amount of the special effects, 4 mill would be more likely if its just basic reshoots.

I think Ackroyd is being his usual near-senile combative forgetful old self here. 40 million dollars is such a large sum to have been spent in reshoots that no-one in the notoriously leaky Hollywood community would have hesitated in blabbing to the Hollywood Reporter months ago. 4 million dollars seems more credible.

Well, now that it seems that there will be no sequel for this version and Sony is thinking in rebooting the whole thing or making a sequel with Harold Raimis in CGI, why don't we discuss some ideas on how to save the Ghostbusters franchise?

Who knows, maybe someone at Sony listen for a change.

MAKE A PREQUEL

Think about it, I know prequels are generally disliked but in this case it may work. We never saw young Peter, Ray and Egon in the University, discovering the paranormal, developing their equipment, testing it for the first time. I can imagine a lot of things, Ray probably as the one who started studying ghosts since he was a kid, Egon been skeptic at first and considering him a loony, Peter joining just because he could met girls or having some extra points but not really believing in it, until they have their first encounter (notice that in the movie their encounter with the Librarian ghost wasn’t the first as they already had a classification for her). Anyway, you can even put Janine on it, is never shown how they met her and why they hired her. The only character (aside from Tully and Dana of course) you can’t put in is Winston, unless is some cameo.

MAKE EXTREME GHOSTBUSTERS LIVE ACTION

Extreme Ghostbusters was a great cartoon and it has a cult-following, but most importantly, it has characters they may work a lot for a movie. There are a lot of young 20 something actors that may be very much appealing to new generations. You can easily find many actresses that can play the role of a goth girl like Kiley, there are plenty of young Latino and Black actors for Eduardo and Roland, etc., the only problem is due to Harold Raimis’ passing you’ll have to change the role of the old mentor and probably giving it to Ray.

MAKE A MOVIE FROM THE REAL GHOSTBUSTERS

On this I'm dubious, because Sony is not exactly known for its quality in animated movies… but, bringing back J. Straczynski and the original cast it may work. The show was pretty popular, maybe as well known as the movies, and 80s nostalgia is a thing now.

MAKE A SEQUEL PLACE IN THE SAME UNIVERSE

Yes, this is like beating a dead horse. We all know that that was what we actually wanted to begin with and that some people at Sony deliberately delay it until it was impossible especially after Raimis’ demise. But, still, it could work. Using a CGI version of Raimis is unethical IMO so I really don’t like that idea. But you can start the movie during Egon Spengler’s funeral with all the original cast doing cameos, maybe his (and Janine’s) daughter who he was estranged because she wanted a serious career in science and his reputation as ghostbuster tainted that is at the funeral, and she reluctantly has to take the baton due to some sort paranormal menace over the world and a new team is set.

Of course I mean daughter because it gives Sony the opportunity to use the female empowerment trope they want so much, but it could work the same with a son, tho I think it will be funnier with a daughter.

edited 2nd May '18 4:16:20 AM by Luppercus

It would never work now, but the script floating around about the Ghostbusters being franchised (from the Chronicle writer) could have worked since it incorporated Egon being dead, Bill Murray not being involved, and had Ernie Hudson as a lead, with a far more natural transition to a new team. (The climax, which called for a massive teamup referred to as “The Avengers of Comedy” could have been great).

Abandon the films and stick to animated series.

Actually, f'ck me. The real answer is Netflix. Seriously.

edited 2nd May '18 12:32:36 PM by Soble

I want sequels. I want a whole franchise. Ghostbusters is a film that is ripe for worldbuilding. There's near-limitless potential for new characters, new stories, new ghosts, movies, shows, video games, etc. etc. Had it not been made in the 80's, we'd probably be seeing the Ghostbusters Shared Universe failing to compete with Marvel today.

I found the new film to be pretty serviceable, but flawed. I think the biggest mistake, looking back, is that they put it in the wrong genre. The new movie tries to be an action comedy, with wild and crazy bad guys that the heroes get to put down in dramatic action scenes. But here's the thing: that's not what Ghostbusters was.

Ghostbusters was a comedic horror. It didn't pit its heroes against colorful and cartoony Bad Guys. It put them against unfathomable horrors. The ghosts are strange and powerful beings that defy the very laws of physics themselves, and our heroes are a band of hapless service employees here to reassert the natural world's superiority by shoving nuclear fire down Cthulhu's throat.

Much of the tension and suspense in Ghostbusters comes from the delicate balance of a power dynamic: the boys are armed with super-science for blasting the supernatural to Hell and back, but they're facing things that could literally do anything, be anything, come from anywhere, etc. That's the entire premise. They're the Buffy the Vampire Slayer of haunting films, kicking in the door of the Overlook Hotel and dragging the hotel's dark presence howling and screaming into a muon trap.

The video game sequel that functionally serves as Ghostbusters 3 captures that dynamic very well, but I feel that the 2016 reboot missed that fundamental point, resulting in something more akin to a superhero flick, where the wisecracking heroes always seem like they are, at least to some extent, in control of the situation.

I wouldn't be averse to building off of the reboot for future films and worldbuilding, but whether they go back to the old setting or continue with the new one, I want Sony to really take another look at the Ghostbusters films and think about where they went awry tonally.

edited 2nd May '18 12:45:02 PM by TobiasDrake

That's how movies are made today, like Tom Cruises' the Mummy, because everyone want to immitate Marvel and it seems to be a certain feeling that only Superheroe-like movies succeed (despite the fact that in reality only Marvel's do and the success of certain horror movies like It Follows and A Quiet Place show that there's a market for other kinds of movies).

And that franchise idea sounds very good, too bad it was never done.

edited 2nd May '18 3:22:01 PM by Luppercus

I've felt that a series - live action or animated - that composites the continuities (and is partially based on the IDW comic series, especially) would work very well.

Hell, if they decide to go with the new crew of Ghostbusters rather than the original set, that would work too. With the exception of Patty, the new Ghostbusters were largely great characters suffering under a bog standard Hollywood action comedy. The IDW comics showed that they could be pretty damn fun when in something better put together (even Patty).

But either way I'd prefer a unified continuity.

edited 2nd May '18 9:14:05 PM by KnownUnknown

@Tobias Drake

It's funny that you say that, because in his review of the film Film Brain expressed the exact opposite viewpoint; he felt that the remake had actually brought back some of the more horror elements from the original film that Ghostbusters II had previously downplayed in it's attempt to be a more general comedy than was marketed towards children.

Ghostbusters II makes the reboot look good. At least with the reboot I think to myself "See, there's good ideas mired in with some poor execution", Ghostbusters II is more of a shallow cash grab than the reboot ever was.

I wouldn't call the reboot a cash grab, really. It had good intentions and ideas, at least in my opinion.

Just that the execution...went somewhere horrible.

Ghostbusters 2 was the first one I saw so I'll always have a soft spot for it