Ghostbusters 2016

[Totenkindly]

I think that (the bolded) was one of James Rolfe's (angry video game nerd) major points of contention with this movie. Then of course the obvious "a possible sequel spent years in development hell because no one could agree on a script (which maybe suggests any III we would've gotten could have been shit and some of the same fans lamenting no true sequel might have bashed it the way Indy 4 was bashed) but the second Ramis died the studio greenlit and rushed a shit reboot into production" complaint. On the flip though, I can also see how waiting on the reboot could've have been at least in part out of respect to the original cast, and the second he died it was unlikely we'd get a sequel, so why not move ahead with a reboot?

Yeah, I can't really be sure what was going on. Probably something with multiple levels. I mean, any sequel is a cash-grab of sorts, because they're exploiting an earlier foothold to hopefully draw a stronger revenue stream. you would just hope that there was be another reason to make a particular movie. (The Incredibles might be a decent example of when a sequel would have been financially successful if someone wanted to make a cheap grab for money but they've waited -- 10-15 years -- until they had a story that would warrant it. Not that I am sure they will pull THAT off; very few sequels are as good or better, although How to Train Your Dragon II was actually pretty decent if a bit more complex.)

I'm not really going to step up to defend Sony because (1) they pissed me off when I was simply buying audio gadgets from them years back... all the shit with propriety tech that you could otherwise grab for cheap from third-party suppliers... why am I playing $40 for a shitty power adapter that they couldn't make right the first time, but they changed the plug shape just to block out generics? it shows a particular mentality on their part that was all them-focused and not consumer-focused and (2) they typically fuck up movie properties when they get involved in them, trying to generate money for themselves. (Spiderman is one of those debacles, where they wanted to do something new but kept interfering with the artistic process, which resulted in putting out damaged product in the end.) IOW, yeah, I'll buy that they weren't really concerned about 'art' or story at all. Doesn't mean the people involved weren't trying, but Sony? Eehhh...

Rolfe barely mentioned the gender-flip or anything about SJWs politicizing the film, but he was still lambasted as a manbaby. I just don't think his critics have really watched his series in depth, because he talks about Ghostbusters in several episodes, and it's basically for him what Star Wars is to a lot of people. If they understood that, then perhaps he wouldn't have received as much backlash. Imagine the ire from Warsies if Disney had said "we're not going to make Star Wars episodes 7 - 8 but instead reboot and remake the original film.

I'm not even sure who he is, either way, honestly. [I skimmed the thread and see a video in there, but I just don't watch vids much, so... never heard of him until now.]

And yeah, when you draw a comparison to Star Wars (although Ghostbusters is a very pale shade of that marketing/artistic behemoth), then yes, it becomes a little more clear. The thing with the Star Wars universe is that you can tell a number of stories without interfering with the other, so there's not much need to 'remake' anything.

Like I said with this, it's best to watch it as a riff on a theme versus something that is supposed to represent the old. The characters aren't the same characters.

Hell, they could just play up the marketing in the movie itself and have multiple ghostbuster teams (franchise it out in-story) and tell different stories in different cities with different spins on the material. It's not even like the characters much matter because the whole concept is based on THEME, not a particular group of characters per se. I think it's really funny the Ghostbusters cartoon didn't even have the characters look like their movie counterparts (although that was to protect against having to pay royalties for likeness, I think -- cheapskates).

That's kind of just the business of Hollywood though. A lot of potentially awesome films spend years in development hell while shitty sequels and reboots are churned out every year. I don't really see any point in raging against a system I can't change, but if it makes Crabs and others feel better, I understand that need. Complete 180 from what I posted yesterday, so shoot me. I wouldn't be talking about it today if I wasn't at least a little interested in the topic.

Yeah, they've had almost 30 years to make another Ghostbusters but never did. It's not like people were going to get something else at the moment.

Personally, I didn't really need this version of Ghostbusters. It was okay for what it was and I kind of don't care either way. Iconic series for me were more Star Wars or Indiana Jones. it's kind of sad, but the historical ramifications of this movie is more about fan response than about the movie itself -- it's interesting to look at.

About the only franchise I remember being pissed off about deviations from source material / stuff that was part of my core "me" was The Lord of the Rings movies, but I try really hard to limit my bitching to stuff I would think was stupid regardless of the movie (like the histrionics in spots, or the glossy video-game boss animations, or the schlocky horror elements that don't work in a serious movie).

 

[Totenkindly]

So what was the heat that Milo Yannowhassisname was directing at Leslie Jones that drove her off Twitter and got him shitcanned there?

I'll assume it was directed at her appearance in this movie...? Or something else?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yeah, I can't really be sure what was going on. Probably something with multiple levels. I mean, any sequel is a cash-grab of sorts, because they're exploiting an earlier foothold to hopefully draw a stronger revenue stream. you would just hope that there was be another reason to make a particular movie. (The Incredibles might be a decent example of when a sequel would have been financially successful if someone wanted to make a cheap grab for money but they've waited -- 10-15 years -- until they had a story that would warrant it. Not that I am sure they will pull THAT off; very few sequels are as good or better, although How to Train Your Dragon II was actually pretty decent if a bit more complex.)

I'm not really going to step up to defend Sony because (1) they pissed me off when I was simply buying audio gadgets from them years back... all the shit with propriety tech that you could otherwise grab for cheap from third-party suppliers... why am I playing $40 for a shitty power adapter that they couldn't make right the first time, but they changed the plug shape just to block out generics? it shows a particular mentality on their part that was all them-focused and not consumer-focused and (2) they typically fuck up movie properties when they get involved in them, trying to generate money for themselves. (Spiderman is one of those debacles, where they wanted to do something new but kept interfering with the artistic process, which resulted in putting out damaged product in the end.) IOW, yeah, I'll buy that they weren't really concerned about 'art' or story at all. Doesn't mean the people involved weren't trying, but Sony? Eehhh...



I'm not even sure who he is, either way, honestly.

And yeah, when you draw a comparison to Star Wars (although Ghostbusters is a very pale shade of that marketing/artistic behemoth), then yes, it becomes a little more clear. The thing with the Star Wars universe is that you can tell a number of stories without interfering with the other, so there's not much need to 'remake' anything.

Like I said with this, it's best to watch it as a riff on a theme versus something that is supposed to represent the old. The characters aren't the same characters.

Hell, they could just play up the marketing in the movie itself and have multiple ghostbuster teams (franchise it out in-story) and tell different stories in different cities. It's not even like the characters much matter because the whole concept is based on THEME, not a particular group of characters per se. I think it's really funny the Ghostbusters cartoon didn't even have the characters look like their movie counterparts (although that was to protect against having to pay royalties for likeness, I think -- cheapskates).



Yeah, they've had almost 30 years to make another Ghostbusters but never did. It's not like people were going to get something else at the moment.

Personally, I didn't really need this version of Ghostbusters. It was okay for what it was and I kind of don't care either way. Iconic series for me were more Star Wars or Indiana Jones.

That's where I had hoped they would take it... The franchise model, I mean. REALLY expand the universe and add to the overall lore. Crossovers would happen a la 90s Trek, and we'd have all sorts of diversity with different teams in different cities. The original cast (especially Murray) would barely need to be involved beyond a few torch passing cameos. That might just be because I appreciate extensive world building in fiction though. To each their own.

 

[Crabs]

Here's where you skipped over my earlier point about not making this a "ghostbusters" movie in the sense you are thinking of a "ghostbusters" movie. It's not a sequel, and it's not a remake. It's a riff on the general material, just taken in a different direction.

It's like I mentioned in an earlier post. What you are referring to as a 'riff on the original material taken in a different direction' is more like a parody. Scream was a horror movie that utilized humor. Scary Movie was a constant barrage of jokes, many of which were cultural references, just like GB16. They have some commonalities, though Scream arguably incorporated higher brow comedy than Scary Movie did. The latter is not a sequel or remake of Scream, it is an obvious parody. They are claiming that GB16 is a reboot, set in a different universe, though it still lazily incorporates some of the same ghosts. It is, without question, a parody of the original movie given permission by the studio to use the name "Ghostbusters." That might not have been their initial intention, but due to the direction of Paul Feig, that is the end result.

Yes, it was. It was appealing to a different set of fans -- although the fan bases are not exclusive. I enjoyed the original movie, although I don't consider it in the same tier as Animal House or Caddyshack honestly -- its major victory was that it had an awesome marketing campaign and was unique in the marketplace at the time. I enjoyed this spin on the material as well, but it was definitely aimed at the market you've suggested. Still, does that make me NOT a fan of Ghostbusters original? You're laying claim to sacred ground that really is just terrain a lot of people overlap on.

Again, like I mentioned before, it's akin to Space Balls. Plenty of Star Wars fans like that movie for what it is, a parody. If they had released it under the guise and title of Star Wars, however (set in a different universe) you would've seen a very different reaction from SW fans.

What it sounds like is that you're more concerned about protecting a favored take on the material versus judging a different movie (that you've already acknowledged had a different target audience) on its own merits.

And this is why the scores were so abnormally low coming from a particular demographic of audience, even people who had never seen the movie. "It's not the Ghostbusters I personally love, so it sucks." I'm like, "It's not the Ghostbusters I grew up with; but as a movie, it's got its own merits."

From a financial take perspective, it's essentially not really an existing franchise movie -- it would really be an unestablished movie opening -- but the fact it uses branding from the original drew a lot of negative publicity, so that kind of explains the revenue hit.

As a side note, every freaking actor from the old movie (aside from Ramis, although as a ghost he might have been the most appropriate) makes a cameo here.

That's because it's not a Ghostbusters movie. It's a Paul Feig movie piggybacking on the Ghostbusters name to sell it to audiences.

They could've paid homage to Dan Aykroyd's original premise and called the movie Ghost Smashers, which was the title before it became Ghostbusters, and used many of the same elements without seeming like a cheap ripoff. The comics did this and established a separate company that initially rivaled the Ghostbusters then eventually joined forces with them. And...{gasp}...three of the four members were female!!! Fans appreciated the gesture and had no problem with this. It still took place in the same universe and wasn't treading on hallowed ground.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's where I had hoped they would take it... The franchise model, I mean. REALLY expand the universe and add to the overall lore. Crossovers would happen a la 90s Trek, and we'd have all sorts of diversity with different teams in different cities. The original cast (especially Murray) would barely need to be involved beyond a few torch passing cameos. That might just be because I appreciate extensive world building in fiction though. To each their own.

Yeah. it looks like they did not want to do the torch passing, since they wrote it as "another universe" retelling unfortunately. I think that kind of approach would have been better for the fanbase, and would not have been difficult to do. Ramis is dead? Big deal.. and yes, the freaking movie is about GHOSTS so you could still have Ramis reaching out from beyond the grave in some way. It really would not have been difficult.

I think we also saw some of this in Abrams' spin on Khan. He cannibalized / retold what many consider the best Star Trek movie and favored by the fan base, and the movie was just beaten to a pulp. When I've rewatched it, trying to NOT compare it to the old, it's not a bad movie; but for old fanbase, it can feel like an affront.


[MENTION=23796]Crabs[/MENTION]: I appreciate your comments, and I hope you can see I grasp about the fan reaction, since I've had some similar responses (like with Star Trek Into Darkness). However, I think "parody" is a stretch; the original movie actually isn't great enough to make this a "parody." That's why I called it a riff. But I understand that your attachment to the original makes this seem like a "parody" to you.



As a side note, I despise SpaceBalls, and I actually like Mel Brooks. I hated about 85% of the jokes, they were just inert to me. About the only funny scene is watching Rick Moranis seduce his Leia doll in the privacy of his own quarters. Oh, and the great, "I'm Barf the Mawg -- half-man, half-dog, I'm my own best friend." Again, that's the kind of stuff we see from 80's pics... they at least knew how to deliver memorable one-liners.

 

[Crabs]

^ I didn't care for Space Balls either.

Regardless of how you feel about the original Ghostbusters, its quality isn't what determines whether or not the new movie is a parody. Plenty of bad movies have been parodied.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yeah. it looks like they did not want to do the torch passing, since they wrote it as "another universe" retelling unfortunately. I think that kind of approach would have been better for the fanbase, and would not have been difficult to do. Ramis is dead? Big deal.. and yes, the freaking movie is about GHOSTS so you could still have Ramis reaching out from beyond the grave in some way. It really would not have been difficult.

I think we also saw some of this in Abrams' spin on Khan. He cannibalized / retold what many consider the best Star Trek movie and favored by the fan base, and the movie was just beaten to a pulp. When I've rewatched it, trying to NOT compare it to the old, it's not a bad movie; but for old fanbase, it can feel like an affront.


[MENTION=23796]Crabs[/MENTION]: I appreciate your comments, and I hope you can see I grasp about the fan reaction, since I've had some similar responses (like with Star Trek Into Darkness). However, I think "parody" is a stretch; the original movie actually isn't great enough to make this a "parody." That's why I called it a riff. But I understand that your attachment to the original makes this seem like a "parody" to you.



As a side note, I despise SpaceBalls, and I actually like Mel Brooks. I hated about 85% of the jokes, they were just inert to me. About the only funny scene is watching Rick Moranis seduce his Leia doll in the privacy of his own quarters. Oh, and the great, "I'm Barf the Mawg -- half-man, half-dog, I'm my own best friend." Again, that's the kind of stuff we see from 80's pics... they at least knew how to deliver memorable one-liners.

I have to agree that the original was not as great as nostalgia glasses make it seem. It was very good, very memorable comedy, nothing less, nothing more. For mid-80s comedy that played on other genres, I would still rank Back to the Future as a superior film. Incidentally, if they remake that one, I expect James Rolfe's head might explode.

 

[Totenkindly]

I have to agree that the original was not as great as nostalgia glasses make it seem. It was very good, very memorable comedy, nothing less, nothing more. For mid-80s comedy that played on other genres, I would still rank Back to the Future as a superior film. Incidentally, if they remake that one, I expect James Rolfe's head might explode.

Yeah, okay... there you hit my trigger point too. I can't imagine Back to the Future being remade, mainly because its success was driven by its two stars (and a pretty remarkable turn by Crispin Glover).

There's lots of opportunity for spinoffs, if they need that... namely Jules and Verne.

^ I didn't care for Space Balls either.

Regardless of how you feel about the original Ghostbusters, its quality isn't what determines whether or not the new movie is a parody. Plenty of bad movies have been parodied.

Sorry, I had to run to a meeting.

I also meant to add that I find the word "parody" wrong because neither movie is spoofing the other. It's not a freaking parody. In fact, this 2016 movie probably has more substance than the original, which is just campy; if anything is a "parody" of the general material, it would be the first one tone-wise.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Lol true, just listen to Elmer Bernstein's score for the original and it is rife with homages to classic horror movie music. He used a ondes martenot for some parts evoking old theremin sounds

Tone-wise it matches the script's loving sendup of old Hollywood horror cliches. Equal parts universal monsters and laurel and hardy, basically

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

There's lots of opportunity for spinoffs, if they need that... namely Jules and Verne

Agree. Don't forget Einstein too!

Zemeckis did a great job wrapping it up as a self contained trilogy while leaving the door open for a potential follow up. I want a sequel just to find out what the deal was with that little crotch grabber Verne.

 

[Crabs]

Yeah, okay... there you hit my trigger point too. I can't imagine Back to the Future being remade, mainly because its success was driven by its two stars (and a pretty remarkable turn by Crispin Glover).

There's lots of opportunity for spinoffs, if they need that... namely Jules and Verne.

And Ghostbusters wasn't a success because of its stars? I'm baffled how you came to that conclusion.

I also meant to add that I find the word "parody" wrong because neither movie is spoofing the other. It's not a freaking parody. In fact, this 2016 movie probably has more substance than the original, which is just campy; if anything is a "parody" of the general material, it would be the first one tone-wise.

Now you're just being absurd. The new movie has more substance if you define substance as idiocy. Melissa McCarthy's head turning all the way around. Leslie Jones yelling obnoxiously while quoting The Exorcist. Chris Hemsworth dancing? There was a terrible scene of them testing their equipment and McCarthy's character flies backwards into a building like something out of Loony Tunes. Slinging ghosts like a bowling ball into other ghosts. WTF? Your definition of campy is a bit askew.

 

[Totenkindly]

And Ghostbusters wasn't a success because of its stars? I'm baffled how you came to this conclusion.



Now you're just being absurd. The new movie has more substance if you define substance as idiocy. Melissa McCarthy's head turning all the way around. Leslie Jones yelling obnoxiously while quoting The Exorcist. Chris Hemsworth dancing? There was a terrible scene of them testing their equipment and Melissa McCarthy flew backwards into a building like something out of Loony Tunes. Slinging ghosts like a bowling ball into other ghosts. WTF? Your definition of campy is a bit askew.

Did you actually watch the movie? I've seen both. That probably makes me the only one of us who can actually comment intelligently. of course, if you're just guzzling dumbass clips out of context, and miss anything that was serious in the movie that it wouldn't be in trailer clips, then you're just speaking from ignorance at this point.

The second movie had some screwball moments like the first, but also attempted some emotional backstory and give some depth to the relationship between at least two of the characters. The original movie really was just all jokes. That's why calling the second a parody is just ridiculous; and it's also attempting to tell its own story.

Meanwhile, I saw the movie, despite my negative attitude towards it.
Then I provided my assessment of what I saw, trying to be as fair as I could.
It's pretty clear you're not interested in hearing anything but what you've already come up with without watching the movie, presumably because you're just pissed about the whole thing.

Personally, I don't care enough about Ghostbusters (either movie) to continue to sink time into a non-collaborative discussion.

 

[Crabs]

Did you actually watch the movie? I've seen both. That probably makes me the only one of us who can actually comment intelligently. of course, if you're just guzzling dumbass clips out of context, and miss anything that was serious in the movie that it wouldn't be in trailer clips, then you're just speaking from ignorance at this point.

I've already stated that I'm not paying SONY for fucking up Ghostbusters. Those dumbass clips that you mentioned are still in the movie, regardless of the context. Melissa McCarthy goes flying into a building like a cartoon character. I know a lot more about this movie than you think. Like I mentioned before, the plot details were leaked months before the movie's release. And there was a novelization released prior to the premier. Did you know that? I didn't think so.

The second movie had some screwball moments like the first, but also attempted some emotional backstory and give some depth to the relationship between at least two of the characters. The original movie really was just all jokes. That's why calling the second a parody is just ridiculous; and it's also attempting to tell its own story.

Now I know you're just talking out of your ass. Every negative review has criticized this movie for its non-stop jokes (which primarily fall flat). The first movie was as much horror and drama as it was comedy. You must have missed these reviews so I'll repost them for your own personal viewing. The original Ghostbusters wasn't a constant stream of lame, unnecessary jokes.

Meanwhile, I saw the movie, despite my negative attitude towards it.
Then I provided my assessment of what I saw, trying to be as fair as I could.
It's pretty clear you're not interested in hearing anything but what you've already come up with without watching the movie, presumably because you're just pissed about the whole thing.

Personally, I don't care enough about Ghostbusters (either movie) to continue to sink time into a non-collaborative discussion.

That's fine. If you're not going to honestly compare and contrast the two anyway, I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say. I'd go to Rotten Tomatoes or feminist blogs if I wanted to read critiques that are skewed in favor of the reboot over the original.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

[MENTION=23796]Crabs[/MENTION] you could always pirate a copy. I'm sure there is a decent enough version floating around somewhere, then you could offer a more in-depth critique.

Like you, I don't want to spend my movie on what looks like a lukewarm remake of a classic I hold in somewhat high esteem when I barely even go to the movies unless it's an "event" film like Star Wars, so I understand your resistance to paying for it. With that said, I'm reserving any further judgment until I either pirate a copy or catch it on TV in a few years. You can use the trailer as basis for your criticisms, but have you ever seen a bad trailer for a movie that turned out being great or vice versa? You can only make so many accurate assessments of a film when you're basing your analysis on a few minutes worth of collaged footage and word-of-mouth.

 

[Crabs]

[MENTION=23796]Crabs[/MENTION] you could always pirate a copy. I'm sure there is a decent enough version floating around somewhere, then you could offer a more in-depth critique.

Like you, I don't want to spend my movie on what looks like a lukewarm remake of a classic I hold in somewhat high esteem when I barely even go to the movies unless it's an "event" film like Star Wars, so I understand your resistance to paying for it. With that said, I'm reserving any further judgment until I either pirate a copy or catch it on TV in a few years. You can use the trailer as basis for your criticisms, but have you ever seen a bad trailer for a movie that turned out being great or vice versa? You can only make so many accurate assessments of a film when you're basing your analysis on a few minutes worth of collaged footage and word-of-mouth.

It's not simply a matter of not wanting to give SONY money. I've been following the development of this movie for about a year and a half; I know enough about it that I just don't have any interest in seeing it. To me, it's not Ghostbusters. And that sentiment has been echoed throughout the fan community, among many of those who've seen it as well. The hype surrounding it has died down over the last week or so. Hopefully, it will fade into oblivion.

 

[soremfinger]

It looks like the insufferable Progressive movement has shit on a modern classic with this bastardized feminist propaganda.

Because Hollyweird is mostly propaganda? But the fact is feminism is so not popular right now not even in their own liberal camp and, evidently, they are trying too hard to make you swallow them.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

How about a mood lightener?

I think this satirical piece will be funny regardless of where you stand on this film

The Original Ghostbusters Is A Crime Against Women | The Daily Caller

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Spirit some people hear it some people fear it

 

[belgianvalid]

Since Ghostbusters is a classic, this is not what i expected.

 

[Crabs]

I love womyn who hate this atrocious piece of shit.

Full Review