Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure),
None of the original creators in the past 30 years have been able to produce a script to make that premise work.
Take this movie as written. Go to the bit where they see the first ghost in the library. Have them interact with the ghost for a bit, then have a drunk and/or out of shape Aykroyd show up to try and half-ass capture the ghost. He's fucking it up, so he has the mains grab some of the extra proton packs from the car (that's double-parked and being ticketed). Scene ends with Aykroid (covered in slime) and two of the women lassoing the ghost while the third runs the trap. Aykroyd then flops down (maybe pulls out a flask too) and asks if they can drive him back to the office. Movie then continues more or less as written, just with Aykroyd around as a reference tome/exposition dump character, leaving the mains to do the actual busting.
About all you need to add is some handwavium covering why ghosts come and go and why nobody really references the events in the original and you're good to go.
Honestly it's not that super difficult. Just come up with the reason why there's an original Ghostbuster still hanging around, then come up with a motivation for him to bring the new crew on board. Bigger issue is probably trying to convince a big name start to play second fiddle.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
So much about the way they handled a Ghostbusters revival is baffling to me.
Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure), having Paul Feig direct a comedy that was budgeted like a blockbuster with an all female cast to a fanbase that was probably always predominantly male and that was intended to start a cinematic universe was heading towards inevitable disaster.
I don't really care if the movie was bad or not but holy shit, I'm just kind of amazed they really thought all that would work and not blow up in their face like it has. Theres taking a risk and then theres just kind of burning a giant pile of money like Joker in TDK.
The Ghosbusters name alone wasn't ever going to be able to save them from the shitstorm that was going to follow when the cast and director was announced. Movie probably could have made bank if it was a mixed gender team with more actual ties to the original movies.
I guess I can admire the steel balls it took for them to do this atleast. Can't imagine most other studios would have handled it the same way and they still managed to get a good critical reception out of it I guess. Hopefully it's legacy in the long term does more good for female lead bigger movies than bad.
While I would have preferred it to be in the Ghostbusters universe, they showed they had a script which worked despite it. It was a new world with new things to explore, and they could do things more freely with it - like the Trek reboot. The fanbase by itself isn't something to be too concerned about it, this is an obscure franchise not Superman, and then there's the fact they're trying to appeal to new audience and build on that. Which was always going to happen for a sequel to do, anyway. The movie franchise can't survive with fans alone.
I'm skeptical the reboot would have been entirely safe, like if they committed the sin of having a female lead. People might have also been hostile to a mixed gender team, as well. The cartoon got away with that since cartoons are not high profile. Not compared to multi million dollar movies.
Not that the shit storm was their fault, that's on society being dicks not that having an all-female cast wasn't something that should been ok in a Ghostbusters movie.
Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure),
None of the original creators in the past 30 years have been able to produce a script to make that premise work.
Star Wars was originally conceptualized as an epic three different trilogies, so Lucas made sure that the story had lots of room to grow.
The Original Ghostbusters movie is about mundane pest control workers who inadvertently stumble onto the Sumerian apocalypse. In the movie, ghosts only start appearing because of Gozer. But then Gozer gets defeated. So the ghosts should no longer be a problem. Which means... what exactly are the Ghostbusters doing in between movies? And how do you make a sequel that isn't a total rehash of the original?
I don't really care if the movie was bad or not but holy shit, I'm just kind of amazed they really thought all that would work and not blow up in their face like it has. Theres taking a risk and then theres just kind of burning a giant pile of money like Joker in TDK.
That's the cost of trying something new and pushing the industry forward. You have to take risks, and you have to face opposition.
Agree. It has been said before but I will say it again: Star Wars was designed to be a "universe". Ghostbusters was a funny movie from the 80's that a lot of people remember fondly. Making a Ghostbusters reboot is like making a Caddyshack reboot. First, there is nothing to reboot: It is a movie not a world. Second, it is a comedy and in a reverse to Tolstoy's line about families, the fucked up ones are all alike, the funny ones are funny in their own inexplicable ways.
Ghost busters is an easier IP to make a world from Caddyshack. The cartoons and comics have shown the IP is capable of world building. That the original creative team couldn't get it together is on them, not the IP.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
So much about the way they handled a Ghostbusters revival is baffling to me.
Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure), having Paul Feig direct a comedy that was budgeted like a blockbuster with an all female cast to a fanbase that was probably always predominantly male and that was intended to start a cinematic universe was heading towards inevitable disaster.
I don't really care if the movie was bad or not but holy shit, I'm just kind of amazed they really thought all that would work and not blow up in their face like it has. Theres taking a risk and then theres just kind of burning a giant pile of money like Joker in TDK.
The Ghosbusters name alone wasn't ever going to be able to save them from the shitstorm that was going to follow when the cast and director was announced. Movie probably could have made bank if it was a mixed gender team with more actual ties to the original movies.
I guess I can admire the steel balls it took for them to do this atleast. Can't imagine most other studios would have handled it the same way and they still managed to get a good critical reception out of it I guess. Hopefully it's legacy in the long term does more good for female lead bigger movies than bad.
While I would have preferred it to be in the Ghostbusters universe, they showed they had a script which worked despite it. It was a new world with new things to explore, and they could do things more freely with it - like the Trek reboot. The fanbase by itself isn't something to be too concerned about it, this is an obscure franchise not Superman, and then there's the fact they're trying to appeal to new audience and build on that. Which was always going to happen for a sequel to do, anyway. The movie franchise can't survive with fans alone.
I'm skeptical the reboot would have been entirely safe, like if they committed the sin of having a female lead. People might have also been hostile to a mixed gender team, as well. The cartoon got away with that since cartoons are not high profile. Not compared to multi million dollar movies.
Not that the shit storm was their fault, that's on society being dicks not that having an all-female cast wasn't something that should been ok in a Ghostbusters movie.
Trek rebooting is understandable, though lazy. There's still plenty of stories that could be told in Trek without rebooting, but that'd be difficult. Ghostbusters though doesn't have nearly the limitations placed on it that Trek does. GB has two movies set in the 80s, Trek has five series and eight movies spread over centuries. Literally all you need to do is say 'ghosts went away, now ghosts are coming back'. Hell, tie the ghosts going away into the big bad's plotting somehow. Dude was soaking up all their ghost mojo to power his thingie, and now that his plans are nearly complete he's stopped tapping them as a source and they're able to manifest again. Really, the original movie put so few constraints on the setting that I'd guess that not setting this one as a sequel was due to company politics, ego, or legal wrangling. There are just too many upsides to having a 'pass the torch' thing happen.
The fanbase by itself isn't something to be too concerned about it, this is an obscure franchise not Superman, and then there's the fact they're trying to appeal to new audience and build on that. Which was always going to happen for a sequel to do, anyway. The movie franchise can't survive with fans alone.
You try and build the audience yes, but lets not pretend that getting the original fans in the door isn't part of the calculations. And Ghostbusters isn't exactly obscure. Ocean's Eleven, that's obscure.
Again, numberswise this behaved like a standard Paul Feig comedy, with the slight problem that the budget was that of a summer blockbuster. Maybe figuring out something to get more of the original fanbase on board might have been a good idea.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Well, the reason they didn't make it a 'passing-the-torch' was because Amy Pascal was hellbent on getting Paul Feig to direct. The only way to get him to agree to direct was for him to do his own thing, because he 'didn't get' the passing-the-torch angle and admitted he wouldn't be able to do much with it. The entire script, concept and pitch for GB2016 was Amy Pascal, Paul Feig, and Kate Dippold and put together after he agreed to do it. He even made the basic pitch in an e-mail, and now that we've seen the movie that e-mail was almost exactly what we got on the screen.
For better or worse, somewhere out there is a Ghostbusters 3 script that was actually green-lighted by Sony. But was canned after Pascal decided this needed to be come a P Feig movie.
I think Paul Feig made the best movie he could make given the circumstances, but IMO he shouldn't have been in that position to begin with -- because his style of comedy is not what I associate with the Ghostbusters franchise. Now, as for my opinion on this whole hurricane of crap for the past year -- I put all the blame on Amy Pascal.
So much about the way they handled a Ghostbusters revival is baffling to me.
Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure), having Paul Feig direct a comedy that was budgeted like a blockbuster with an all female cast to a fanbase that was probably always predominantly male and that was intended to start a cinematic universe was heading towards inevitable disaster.
I don't really care if the movie was bad or not but holy shit, I'm just kind of amazed they really thought all that would work and not blow up in their face like it has. Theres taking a risk and then theres just kind of burning a giant pile of money like Joker in TDK.
The Ghosbusters name alone wasn't ever going to be able to save them from the shitstorm that was going to follow when the cast and director was announced. Movie probably could have made bank if it was a mixed gender team with more actual ties to the original movies.
I guess I can admire the steel balls it took for them to do this atleast. Can't imagine most other studios would have handled it the same way and they still managed to get a good critical reception out of it I guess. Hopefully it's legacy in the long term does more good for female lead bigger movies than bad.
While I would have preferred it to be in the Ghostbusters universe, they showed they had a script which worked despite it. It was a new world with new things to explore, and they could do things more freely with it - like the Trek reboot. The fanbase by itself isn't something to be too concerned about it, this is an obscure franchise not Superman, and then there's the fact they're trying to appeal to new audience and build on that. Which was always going to happen for a sequel to do, anyway. The movie franchise can't survive with fans alone.
I'm skeptical the reboot would have been entirely safe, like if they committed the sin of having a female lead. People might have also been hostile to a mixed gender team, as well. The cartoon got away with that since cartoons are not high profile. Not compared to multi million dollar movies.
Not that the shit storm was their fault, that's on society being dicks not that having an all-female cast wasn't something that should been ok in a Ghostbusters movie.
Trek rebooting is understandable, though lazy. There's still plenty of stories that could be told in Trek without rebooting, but that'd be difficult. Ghostbusters though doesn't have nearly the limitations placed on it that Trek does. GB has two movies set in the 80s, Trek has five series and eight movies spread over centuries. Literally all you need to do is say 'ghosts went away, now ghosts are coming back'. Hell, tie the ghosts going away into the big bad's plotting somehow. Dude was soaking up all their ghost mojo to power his thingie, and now that his plans are nearly complete he's stopped tapping them as a source and they're able to manifest again. Really, the original movie put so few constraints on the setting that I'd guess that not setting this one as a sequel was due to company politics, ego, or legal wrangling. There are just too many upsides to having a 'pass the torch' thing happen.
True.
You try and build the audience yes, but lets not pretend that getting the original fans in the door isn't part of the calculations. And Ghostbusters isn't exactly obscure. Ocean's Eleven, that's obscure.
Again, numberswise this behaved like a standard Paul Feig comedy, with the slight problem that the budget was that of a summer blockbuster. Maybe figuring out something to get more of the original fanbase on board might have been a good idea.
You're overestimating Ghostbusters relevance in pop culture, before this movie it was a fringe IP - has been ever since it stopped making movies. It had a slight blip with the cartoons, but that's it. That's small enough to be obscure. This movie was the best thing to the IP for many decades to bringing into the spotlight again. GB is closer to Ocean's 11 than Superman.
edit: Making it a priority for the fanbase to get board is a good idea, but they aren't a large enough force to be the main priority over a new audience.
You're overestimating Ghostbusters relevance in pop culture, before this movie it was a fringe IP - has been ever since it stopped making movies. It had a slight blip with the cartoons, but that's it. That's small enough to be obscure. This movie was the best thing to the IP for many decades to bringing into the spotlight again. GB is closer to Ocean's 11 than Superman.
edit: Making it a priority for the fanbase to get board is a good idea, but they aren't a large enough force to be the main priority over a new audience.
This is arguable. 80's nostalgia is HUGE right now. Look at the Goldbergs or Stranger Things. Everyone who grew up in the 80's and Early 90's are in their 30's now. The amount of actual long-time Ghostbusters fan might be very fringe. But it is a perfect time for 80's revivals and nostalgia.
With all this gnashing and drama they only thing they seem to have made successfully is a movie that both alienates the long-term fans, fails to capitalize on a current trend of 80's nostalgia, and fails to attract a new audience.
But I do find it interesting on how many people on the internet as a whole are starting to diminish the franchise itself rather than just saying that maybe the movie as we received wasn't a good idea or successful. Especially where in the same report that says the movie is heading for a loss also mentions that the franchise itself has a new breath to it.
You're overestimating Ghostbusters relevance in pop culture, before this movie it was a fringe IP - has been ever since it stopped making movies. It had a slight blip with the cartoons, but that's it. That's small enough to be obscure. This movie was the best thing to the IP for many decades to bringing into the spotlight again. GB is closer to Ocean's 11 than Superman.
edit: Making it a priority for the fanbase to get board is a good idea, but they aren't a large enough force to be the main priority over a new audience.
This is arguable. 80's nostalgia is HUGE right now. Look at the Goldbergs or Stranger Things. Everyone who grew up in the 80's and Early 90's are in their 30's now. The amount of actual long-time Ghostbusters fan might be very fringe. But it is a perfect time for 80's revivals and nostalgia.
With all this gnashing and drama they only thing they seem to have made successfully is a movie that both alienates the long-term fans, fails to capitalize on a current trend of 80's nostalgia, and fails to attract a new audience.
80's IP's being big right now didn't mean those things weren't obscure right now, that's why the reboots are instrumental for making them relevant again, without them they stay in the shadows. I agree it's the perfect time for the revival, but there is not any one way for a revival to work, even in theory.
True, it was a failure. But y'know what? I'm glad they took risks and tried to go for new demographics and it's not like they ignored the nostalgia element. If anything they went overboard with the shout outs. I wouldn't say the failed to make a new audience, they failed to get enough of them interested. Sometime mistakes happen, here's hoping they learnt the right lessons for the next shot.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."
You're overestimating Ghostbusters relevance in pop culture, before this movie it was a fringe IP - has been ever since it stopped making movies. It had a slight blip with the cartoons, but that's it. That's small enough to be obscure. This movie was the best thing to the IP for many decades to bringing into the spotlight again. GB is closer to Ocean's 11 than Superman.
edit: Making it a priority for the fanbase to get board is a good idea, but they aren't a large enough force to be the main priority over a new audience.
Depends on how you define relevance. It's still got quotable lines like, "Dogs and Cats living together.", "If someone asks if you're a god, say yes.", and "Who you gonna call?" and is referenced in shows like The Flash and Supernatural. It's less relevant than Superman in that there have been recent Superman movies, and the comics are ongoing, but it's still a constant background influence. Especially considering how huge the movie was at the time.
It might not have the huge numbers of 'active' fans like some comic book characters, but I think the production team really underestimated the attachment that people felt for the original.
What exactly does Feig not be able to do much with the torch passing mean? Just incorporate some basic elements of mentorship by the original GB followed by the new GB stepping up and winning the day. Did he sleep through Star Wars or something? Cripes, even ST: Generations managed some level of torch passing when Kirk told Picard to never leave the captains chair. Good advice too, since the first thing Riker did was crash the damn ship.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
You're overestimating Ghostbusters relevance in pop culture, before this movie it was a fringe IP - has been ever since it stopped making movies. It had a slight blip with the cartoons, but that's it. That's small enough to be obscure. This movie was the best thing to the IP for many decades to bringing into the spotlight again. GB is closer to Ocean's 11 than Superman.
edit: Making it a priority for the fanbase to get board is a good idea, but they aren't a large enough force to be the main priority over a new audience.
Depends on how you define relevance. It's still got quotable lines like, "Dogs and Cats living together.", "If someone asks if you're a god, say yes.", and "Who you gonna call?" and is referenced in shows like The Flash and Supernatural. It's less relevant than Superman in that there have been recent Superman movies, and the comics are ongoing, but it's still a constant background influence. Especially considering how huge the movie was at the time.
It might not have the huge numbers of 'active' fans like some comic book characters, but I think the production team really underestimated the attachment that people felt for the original.
What exactly does Feig not be able to do much with the torch passing mean? Just incorporate some basic elements of mentorship by the original GB followed by the new GB stepping up and winning the day. Did he sleep through Star Wars or something? Cripes, even ST: Generations managed some level of torch passing when Kirk told Picard to never leave the captains chair. Good advice too, since the first thing Riker did was crash the damn ship.
It was part of the email leak. He e-mailed Pascal telling them he could only make it work as a reboot because he didn't like the idea of a world where ghosts already are a known thing.
You're overestimating Ghostbusters relevance in pop culture, before this movie it was a fringe IP - has been ever since it stopped making movies. It had a slight blip with the cartoons, but that's it. That's small enough to be obscure. This movie was the best thing to the IP for many decades to bringing into the spotlight again. GB is closer to Ocean's 11 than Superman.
edit: Making it a priority for the fanbase to get board is a good idea, but they aren't a large enough force to be the main priority over a new audience.
Depends on how you define relevance. It's still got quotable lines like, "Dogs and Cats living together.", "If someone asks if you're a god, say yes.", and "Who you gonna call?" and is referenced in shows like The Flash and Supernatural. It's less relevant than Superman in that there have been recent Superman movies, and the comics are ongoing, but it's still a constant background influence. Especially considering how huge the movie was at the time.
It might not have the huge numbers of 'active' fans like some comic book characters, but I think the production team really underestimated the attachment that people felt for the original.
What exactly does Feig not be able to do much with the torch passing mean? Just incorporate some basic elements of mentorship by the original GB followed by the new GB stepping up and winning the day. Did he sleep through Star Wars or something? Cripes, even ST: Generations managed some level of torch passing when Kirk told Picard to never leave the captains chair. Good advice too, since the first thing Riker did was crash the damn ship.
It was part of the email leak. He e-mailed Pascal telling them he could only make it work as a reboot because he didn't like the idea of a world where ghosts already are a known thing.
No imagination having goose. Just handwave something where there are ghosts everywhere (but invisible) and interacting with the world in minor ways, but the big bad is keeping people from noticing through reasons, then have the new peeps notice things are out of whack (say keys moving around due to a poltergeist, and them not willing to excuse the location shift as them just forgetting) and then they build some They Live style sunglasses or some crap and we're off to the races.
I don't want to sound like writing a movie script is easy, but assuming some level of accuracy with what the Sony emails show, it's like they weren't even trying.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
Take this movie as written. Go to the bit where they see the first ghost in the library. Have them interact with the ghost for a bit, then have a drunk and/or out of shape Aykroyd show up to try and half-ass capture the ghost. He's fucking it up, so he has the mains grab some of the extra proton packs from the car (that's double-parked and being ticketed). Scene ends with Aykroid (covered in slime) and two of the women lassoing the ghost while the third runs the trap. Aykroyd then flops down (maybe pulls out a flask too) and asks if they can drive him back to the office. Movie then continues more or less as written, just with Aykroyd around as a reference tome/exposition dump character, leaving the mains to do the actual busting.
Talk about treating the original characters with respect.
Like, in the pitch you outline, ghosts are already a known quantity and Aykroyd is no longer a kook, so he's just a sad alcoholic who sucks at his job.
MalReynolds on
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
You're overestimating Ghostbusters relevance in pop culture, before this movie it was a fringe IP - has been ever since it stopped making movies. It had a slight blip with the cartoons, but that's it. That's small enough to be obscure. This movie was the best thing to the IP for many decades to bringing into the spotlight again. GB is closer to Ocean's 11 than Superman.
edit: Making it a priority for the fanbase to get board is a good idea, but they aren't a large enough force to be the main priority over a new audience.
Depends on how you define relevance. It's still got quotable lines like, "Dogs and Cats living together.", "If someone asks if you're a god, say yes.", and "Who you gonna call?" and is referenced in shows like The Flash and Supernatural. It's less relevant than Superman in that there have been recent Superman movies, and the comics are ongoing, but it's still a constant background influence. Especially considering how huge the movie was at the time.
It might not have the huge numbers of 'active' fans like some comic book characters, but I think the production team really underestimated the attachment that people felt for the original.
What exactly does Feig not be able to do much with the torch passing mean? Just incorporate some basic elements of mentorship by the original GB followed by the new GB stepping up and winning the day. Did he sleep through Star Wars or something? Cripes, even ST: Generations managed some level of torch passing when Kirk told Picard to never leave the captains chair. Good advice too, since the first thing Riker did was crash the damn ship.
It was part of the email leak. He e-mailed Pascal telling them he could only make it work as a reboot because he didn't like the idea of a world where ghosts already are a known thing.
No imagination having goose. Just handwave something where there are ghosts everywhere (but invisible) and interacting with the world in minor ways, but the big bad is keeping people from noticing through reasons, then have the new peeps notice things are out of whack (say keys moving around due to a poltergeist, and them not willing to excuse the location shift as them just forgetting) and then they build some They Live style sunglasses or some crap and we're off to the races.
I don't want to sound like writing a movie script is easy, but assuming some level of accuracy with what the Sony emails show, it's like they weren't even trying.
I think that the vast majority of people know that having a soft reboot would have made more sense financially and probably critically, especially given the success of Jurassic World and the Force Awakens have been. However, you have to give the respect to Feig for being upfront that he didn't want a soft reboot. I think the problem going the soft reboot route for me is that audiences will start to expect the classic characters to be in the future films in some capacity or you would have to kill them off which in its-self beings a whole host of problems.
Going slightly off topic, It will be interesting to see how audiences react to this proposed all female Oceans 8 film and compare the marketing from it to Ghostbusters to see how a different studio handles a female franchise reboot.
Ghost busters is an easier IP to make a world from Caddyshack. The cartoons and comics have shown the IP is capable of world building. That the original creative team couldn't get it together is on them, not the IP.
The Ghostbusters cartoon treats Ghosts as an every day occurrence, which is not the world of the movie.
Again, it's basically like comparing "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" movie to the TV show.
The TV show is built around the concept of the Hellmouth and that Demons are everywhere living in a parallel society as well as dozens of potential slayers and an entire watcher society to clear them out.
The movie is based around the idea that there's just one big bad guy who's the Slayer has been unable to kill over many lifetimes until Buffy finally does. There's only one slayer and one watcher who get reincarnated.
Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure),
None of the original creators in the past 30 years have been able to produce a script to make that premise work.
Take this movie as written. Go to the bit where they see the first ghost in the library. Have them interact with the ghost for a bit, then have a drunk and/or out of shape Aykroyd show up to try and half-ass capture the ghost. He's fucking it up, so he has the mains grab some of the extra proton packs from the car (that's double-parked and being ticketed). Scene ends with Aykroid (covered in slime) and two of the women lassoing the ghost while the third runs the trap. Aykroyd then flops down (maybe pulls out a flask too) and asks if they can drive him back to the office. Movie then continues more or less as written, just with Aykroyd around as a reference tome/exposition dump character, leaving the mains to do the actual busting.
About all you need to add is some handwavium covering why ghosts come and go and why nobody really references the events in the original and you're good to go.
Honestly it's not that super difficult. Just come up with the reason why there's an original Ghostbuster still hanging around, then come up with a motivation for him to bring the new crew on board. Bigger issue is probably trying to convince a big name start to play second fiddle.
What you've described is a MadTV gag, not an actual storyline.
Trek rebooting is understandable, though lazy. There's still plenty of stories that could be told in Trek without rebooting, but that'd be difficult. Ghostbusters though doesn't have nearly the limitations placed on it that Trek does. GB has two movies set in the 80s, Trek has five series and eight movies spread over centuries. Literally all you need to do is say 'ghosts went away, now ghosts are coming back'. Hell, tie the ghosts going away into the big bad's plotting somehow.
You've basically described the original sequel.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Ghosts kind of have to be an everyday occurrence, if the notion of of a ghost pest control/extermination business can exist.
Otherwise Ghostbusters kind of has a depressing end to it. "With the portal closed, the ghosts stopped appearing and they all went out of business the next day."
You were right Winston, the job definitely was not worth 11 5 a year.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I really think this is a case where marketing tanked what could have otherwise been a profitable film. Those trailers were just awful, annoying garbage, and they seemed to be running constantly on TV.
In any case, I think this film could wind up having a cult following down the road. The characters are great, it will be a shame if we don't get to see them one more time. With lessons learned a sequel could be something truly special. Sadly I don't think it's in the cards.
The characters outside of Holtzman were merely fine. They sold the parts okay, and were decent joke delivery devices, but Wiig's character, say, wasn't much different from her other characters in other films.
So I wouldn't miss those characters too much, as it already feels like I've seen them all before.
The difference in my experience against yours might be that I haven't seen any of these women's other movies, I suppose.
That would make a difference, yes.
Trying to see it from that pov, I can see liking the characters. You should take heart, then, knowing that you'll see these characters again soon whether we get a sequel or not.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Really, the entire original movie is based around a business model that makes no real sense whatsoever.
"Let's take out a third mortgage and build a business around capturing things which is rare to the point that there was zero proof of existence until a few months ago, with equipment that's never been tested."
The Frightener's had an interesting take on it, where Michael J Fox is a con artist who knows that ghosts are real and communicates with them all the time, but the only reason his business model works is because it's bullshit.
Even then, the Frightener's didn't lend itself to a sequel either.
0
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Citation required.
6.5 user rating on the IMDB is about as close as we're going to get, short of sending out fliers asking anyone who has seen the movie to participate in a fucking stupid study.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
65% isn't great, but it's a far cry from "most people hated".
Unless we're using the "video game rating" system where anything under an 8 is a pile of shit.
And yes, I'm not forgetting that there's a pile of shit sitting in the user ratings. I'm ignoring that for now as not relevant. I've seen lots of movies I would rate around a 2/3 or 3/5. Might not gush to my friends about seeing it, or catch it again, or buy the DVD, but that's a rating I'd give a number of generally enjoyable films that weren't quite 'great' but were far above 'hated'.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying that you're implying it's a level of hatred, Mal. I agree it's probably closer than we'll realistically get otherwise, and having not seen the movie (but read the thread), I'm willing to give it a shot.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Citation required.
6.5 user rating on the IMDB is about as close as we're going to get, short of sending out fliers asking anyone who has seen the movie to participate in a fucking stupid study.
Yeah, and that's a far fucking cry from "Most people hated it."
So, you know ... Maybe Schrodinger could back off on the goose? I know it's asking a lot ...
If you wanted to involve the original cast you don't need to make anyone a drunk or really even change the plot that much.
The skeptic is still in the movie. Except he isn't just a skeptic he is an original Ghostbuster helping the mayor with the cover up! So instead of the flying out the window scene he is there to offer advice and a lead in to the mayor scene.
But that isn't the movie Feig wanted to do. And that doesn't make him any of the things you called him.
(Side note making the original GBs drunken failure? As a way to attract the old fans? O.o)
+3
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
There just seems to be a weird amount of glee at the idea of Ghostbusters 2016 failing it just kind of seems like when people point out that the movie didn't really bomb, opened up new revenue streams from the franchise, and will, in all likelihood be getting a sequel
The general response to the nay-sayers is
"Yeah, well, it didn't set the world on fire, alternate revenue streams are garbage, and we know Sony has been talking about a sequel but that probably won't happen."
It comes across to me as negative for negative's sake and like... mildly malicious.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
I am very skeptical that whether this was a sequel or a reboot had fuckall to do with this movie's broader success.
Like, if you kept the same tone and style of comedy, but Dan Aykroyd shows up in character and makes a throwaway comment about ghosts existing, we'd have a blockbuster on our hands? Yeah, no.
I think the movie is not as successful as the studio wanted because that style of comedy in this age does not command the kind of dollars they imagined. It made the numbers you'd expect of a Feig comedy, on par with every one of them outside of Bridesmaids, which is an outlier.
Presumably Sony thought that if you attach a pop culture name to a Feig comedy, it acts as some kind of giant force multiplier, even though there's no evidence this is true. Ghostbusters 2016 also made about the same amount of money as 21 Jump Street, another comedy reboot based on an 80s property. It made a shit load more than Robocop, another reboot of a beloved 80s scifi movie.
The movie did nothing wrong. It achieved exactly what a reasonable person would expect it to do. That the people running the numbers were spectacularly bad at their jobs says nothing about the quality of this movie, which received generally positive reviews and made respectable box office returns.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Citation required.
6.5 user rating on the IMDB is about as close as we're going to get, short of sending out fliers asking anyone who has seen the movie to participate in a fucking stupid study.
Yeah, and that's a far fucking cry from "Most people hated it."
So, you know ... Maybe Schrodinger could back off on the goose? I know it's asking a lot ...
49% of Critics on Rotten Tomato gave it a bad review.
If you want to argue the semantics that 49% is 2% short of "most," then fine.
The point is, it wasn't a good movie, despite their best efforts to create one.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Citation required.
6.5 user rating on the IMDB is about as close as we're going to get, short of sending out fliers asking anyone who has seen the movie to participate in a fucking stupid study.
Yeah, and that's a far fucking cry from "Most people hated it."
So, you know ... Maybe Schrodinger could back off on the goose? I know it's asking a lot ...
49% of Critics on Rotten Tomato gave it a bad review.
What? I'm looking at it right now and it says 74% fresh.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Citation required.
6.5 user rating on the IMDB is about as close as we're going to get, short of sending out fliers asking anyone who has seen the movie to participate in a fucking stupid study.
Yeah, and that's a far fucking cry from "Most people hated it."
So, you know ... Maybe Schrodinger could back off on the goose? I know it's asking a lot ...
49% of Critics on Rotten Tomato gave it a bad review.
What? I'm looking at it right now and it says 74% fresh.
I'm discussing the original sequel involving the painting dude, not the reboot.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Citation required.
6.5 user rating on the IMDB is about as close as we're going to get, short of sending out fliers asking anyone who has seen the movie to participate in a fucking stupid study.
Yeah, and that's a far fucking cry from "Most people hated it."
So, you know ... Maybe Schrodinger could back off on the goose? I know it's asking a lot ...
49% of Critics on Rotten Tomato gave it a bad review.
What? I'm looking at it right now and it says 74% fresh.
I'm discussing the original sequel involving the painting dude, not the reboot.
He is Vigo. You are like the buzzing flies to him.
I am very skeptical that whether this was a sequel or a reboot had fuckall to do with this movie's broader success.
Like, if you kept the same tone and style of comedy, but Dan Aykroyd shows up in character and makes a throwaway comment about ghosts existing, we'd have a blockbuster on our hands? Yeah, no.
I think the movie is not as successful as the studio wanted because that style of comedy in this age does not command the kind of dollars they imagined. It made the numbers you'd expect of a Feig comedy, on par with every one of them outside of Bridesmaids, which is an outlier.
Presumably Sony thought that if you attach a pop culture name to a Feig comedy, it acts as some kind of giant force multiplier, even though there's no evidence this is true. Ghostbusters 2016 also made about the same amount of money as 21 Jump Street, another comedy reboot based on an 80s property. It made a shit load more than Robocop, another reboot of a beloved 80s scifi movie.
The movie did nothing wrong. It achieved exactly what a reasonable person would expect it to do. That the people running the numbers were spectacularly bad at their jobs says nothing about the quality of this movie, which received generally positive reviews and made respectable box office returns.
I'd like to add to this that Sony had invested heavily to make this into a multi film franchise because they are desperate to have a Sony brand cinematic universe. ASM2 performed really well at the box office but it wasn't the billion dollar franchise numbers Sony wanted. James Bond is the billion dollar franchise for Sony, but it doesn't have the wide appeal for the younger audience so Sony wants it to make 50% on top of that. Even if you take out the disaster of a marketing campaign, the numbers Sony were expecting of this and all these films just boggles the mind.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Citation required.
6.5 user rating on the IMDB is about as close as we're going to get, short of sending out fliers asking anyone who has seen the movie to participate in a fucking stupid study.
Yeah, and that's a far fucking cry from "Most people hated it."
So, you know ... Maybe Schrodinger could back off on the goose? I know it's asking a lot ...
49% of Critics on Rotten Tomato gave it a bad review.
What? I'm looking at it right now and it says 74% fresh.
I'm discussing the original sequel involving the painting dude, not the reboot.
OHHHHHHHH, okay, sorry.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I am very skeptical that whether this was a sequel or a reboot had fuckall to do with this movie's broader success.
Like, if you kept the same tone and style of comedy, but Dan Aykroyd shows up in character and makes a throwaway comment about ghosts existing, we'd have a blockbuster on our hands? Yeah, no.
I think the movie is not as successful as the studio wanted because that style of comedy in this age does not command the kind of dollars they imagined. It made the numbers you'd expect of a Feig comedy, on par with every one of them outside of Bridesmaids, which is an outlier.
Presumably Sony thought that if you attach a pop culture name to a Feig comedy, it acts as some kind of giant force multiplier, even though there's no evidence this is true. Ghostbusters 2016 also made about the same amount of money as 21 Jump Street, another comedy reboot based on an 80s property. It made a shit load more than Robocop, another reboot of a beloved 80s scifi movie.
The movie did nothing wrong. It achieved exactly what a reasonable person would expect it to do. That the people running the numbers were spectacularly bad at their jobs says nothing about the quality of this movie, which received generally positive reviews and made respectable box office returns.
I'd like to add to this that Sony had invested heavily to make this into a multi film franchise because they are desperate to have a Sony brand cinematic universe. ASM2 performed really well at the box office but it wasn't the billion dollar franchise numbers Sony wanted. James Bond is the billion dollar franchise for Sony, but it doesn't have the wide appeal for the younger audience so Sony wants it to make 50% on top of that. Even if you take out the disaster of a marketing campaign, the numbers Sony were expecting of this and all these films just boggles the mind.
I think there was a time where Ghostbusters 3 could have done Jurassic World numbers. But it was just once misstep after another. When the director/cast was announced I was negative because I don't like Paul Feig movies. I said that it was going to be a Paul Feig movie with the Ghostbusters name slapped on it and wont share the style/tone/humor of the original. I was called (not on here -- everyone here is civil) many things in regards to that. It was a Paul Feig movie, with Paul Feig humor.
Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure),
None of the original creators in the past 30 years have been able to produce a script to make that premise work.
Take this movie as written. Go to the bit where they see the first ghost in the library. Have them interact with the ghost for a bit, then have a drunk and/or out of shape Aykroyd show up to try and half-ass capture the ghost. He's fucking it up, so he has the mains grab some of the extra proton packs from the car (that's double-parked and being ticketed). Scene ends with Aykroid (covered in slime) and two of the women lassoing the ghost while the third runs the trap. Aykroyd then flops down (maybe pulls out a flask too) and asks if they can drive him back to the office. Movie then continues more or less as written, just with Aykroyd around as a reference tome/exposition dump character, leaving the mains to do the actual busting.
About all you need to add is some handwavium covering why ghosts come and go and why nobody really references the events in the original and you're good to go.
Honestly it's not that super difficult. Just come up with the reason why there's an original Ghostbuster still hanging around, then come up with a motivation for him to bring the new crew on board. Bigger issue is probably trying to convince a big name start to play second fiddle.
What you've described is a MadTV gag, not an actual storyline.
Trek rebooting is understandable, though lazy. There's still plenty of stories that could be told in Trek without rebooting, but that'd be difficult. Ghostbusters though doesn't have nearly the limitations placed on it that Trek does. GB has two movies set in the 80s, Trek has five series and eight movies spread over centuries. Literally all you need to do is say 'ghosts went away, now ghosts are coming back'. Hell, tie the ghosts going away into the big bad's plotting somehow.
You've basically described the original sequel.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Has anyone put any thought into the possibility that, by being kind of a dick about most things always, Murray helped shoot the franchise in the foot?
Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure),
None of the original creators in the past 30 years have been able to produce a script to make that premise work.
Take this movie as written. Go to the bit where they see the first ghost in the library. Have them interact with the ghost for a bit, then have a drunk and/or out of shape Aykroyd show up to try and half-ass capture the ghost. He's fucking it up, so he has the mains grab some of the extra proton packs from the car (that's double-parked and being ticketed). Scene ends with Aykroid (covered in slime) and two of the women lassoing the ghost while the third runs the trap. Aykroyd then flops down (maybe pulls out a flask too) and asks if they can drive him back to the office. Movie then continues more or less as written, just with Aykroyd around as a reference tome/exposition dump character, leaving the mains to do the actual busting.
About all you need to add is some handwavium covering why ghosts come and go and why nobody really references the events in the original and you're good to go.
Honestly it's not that super difficult. Just come up with the reason why there's an original Ghostbuster still hanging around, then come up with a motivation for him to bring the new crew on board. Bigger issue is probably trying to convince a big name start to play second fiddle.
What you've described is a MadTV gag, not an actual storyline.
Trek rebooting is understandable, though lazy. There's still plenty of stories that could be told in Trek without rebooting, but that'd be difficult. Ghostbusters though doesn't have nearly the limitations placed on it that Trek does. GB has two movies set in the 80s, Trek has five series and eight movies spread over centuries. Literally all you need to do is say 'ghosts went away, now ghosts are coming back'. Hell, tie the ghosts going away into the big bad's plotting somehow.
You've basically described the original sequel.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Has anyone put any thought into the possibility that, by being kind of a dick about most things always, Murray helped shoot the franchise in the foot?
All I would say to that is: I wouldn't put that past him.
Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure),
None of the original creators in the past 30 years have been able to produce a script to make that premise work.
Take this movie as written. Go to the bit where they see the first ghost in the library. Have them interact with the ghost for a bit, then have a drunk and/or out of shape Aykroyd show up to try and half-ass capture the ghost. He's fucking it up, so he has the mains grab some of the extra proton packs from the car (that's double-parked and being ticketed). Scene ends with Aykroid (covered in slime) and two of the women lassoing the ghost while the third runs the trap. Aykroyd then flops down (maybe pulls out a flask too) and asks if they can drive him back to the office. Movie then continues more or less as written, just with Aykroyd around as a reference tome/exposition dump character, leaving the mains to do the actual busting.
About all you need to add is some handwavium covering why ghosts come and go and why nobody really references the events in the original and you're good to go.
Honestly it's not that super difficult. Just come up with the reason why there's an original Ghostbuster still hanging around, then come up with a motivation for him to bring the new crew on board. Bigger issue is probably trying to convince a big name start to play second fiddle.
What you've described is a MadTV gag, not an actual storyline.
Trek rebooting is understandable, though lazy. There's still plenty of stories that could be told in Trek without rebooting, but that'd be difficult. Ghostbusters though doesn't have nearly the limitations placed on it that Trek does. GB has two movies set in the 80s, Trek has five series and eight movies spread over centuries. Literally all you need to do is say 'ghosts went away, now ghosts are coming back'. Hell, tie the ghosts going away into the big bad's plotting somehow.
You've basically described the original sequel.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Has anyone put any thought into the possibility that, by being kind of a dick about most things always, Murray helped shoot the franchise in the foot?
The email leaks deflected Murray's dick moves and focused on Sony's dick moves. Both were as bad as each other at that point.
Dropping the continuity and all mentions of the original cast members (already a bad start, should have gone the Force Awakens route and kept atleast one actor like Ernie Hudson or Dan Aykroyd as a mentor figure),
None of the original creators in the past 30 years have been able to produce a script to make that premise work.
Take this movie as written. Go to the bit where they see the first ghost in the library. Have them interact with the ghost for a bit, then have a drunk and/or out of shape Aykroyd show up to try and half-ass capture the ghost. He's fucking it up, so he has the mains grab some of the extra proton packs from the car (that's double-parked and being ticketed). Scene ends with Aykroid (covered in slime) and two of the women lassoing the ghost while the third runs the trap. Aykroyd then flops down (maybe pulls out a flask too) and asks if they can drive him back to the office. Movie then continues more or less as written, just with Aykroyd around as a reference tome/exposition dump character, leaving the mains to do the actual busting.
About all you need to add is some handwavium covering why ghosts come and go and why nobody really references the events in the original and you're good to go.
Honestly it's not that super difficult. Just come up with the reason why there's an original Ghostbuster still hanging around, then come up with a motivation for him to bring the new crew on board. Bigger issue is probably trying to convince a big name start to play second fiddle.
What you've described is a MadTV gag, not an actual storyline.
Trek rebooting is understandable, though lazy. There's still plenty of stories that could be told in Trek without rebooting, but that'd be difficult. Ghostbusters though doesn't have nearly the limitations placed on it that Trek does. GB has two movies set in the 80s, Trek has five series and eight movies spread over centuries. Literally all you need to do is say 'ghosts went away, now ghosts are coming back'. Hell, tie the ghosts going away into the big bad's plotting somehow.
You've basically described the original sequel.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Has anyone put any thought into the possibility that, by being kind of a dick about most things always, Murray helped shoot the franchise in the foot?
The email leaks deflected Murray's dick moves and focused on Sony's dick moves. Both were as bad as each other at that point.
I just... there have been a lot of stories of Bill Murray being kind of a goose about Ghostbusters in general since forever, to the extent that even Sigourney Weaver was positive about a couple of scripts, but Murray was too salty to have anything to do with it. Now, I know, Weaver has been involved in some stinkers, but she also has a much greater backlog of critically-acclaimed work, and is generally considered significantly more classy and discerning than Murray.
He's essentially had veto power over Ghostbusters films since the second one, and has vetoed all but one script. I grew up loving the guy, but I've literally only enjoyed... two(?) films he's been in since GB2, and haven't even been interested in others. I know that actors tend to have interest in things other than revisiting the same project over and over again, but... a lot of his other work doesn't seem to resonate with as wide a cross-section of people as even GB2
Posts
Take this movie as written. Go to the bit where they see the first ghost in the library. Have them interact with the ghost for a bit, then have a drunk and/or out of shape Aykroyd show up to try and half-ass capture the ghost. He's fucking it up, so he has the mains grab some of the extra proton packs from the car (that's double-parked and being ticketed). Scene ends with Aykroid (covered in slime) and two of the women lassoing the ghost while the third runs the trap. Aykroyd then flops down (maybe pulls out a flask too) and asks if they can drive him back to the office. Movie then continues more or less as written, just with Aykroyd around as a reference tome/exposition dump character, leaving the mains to do the actual busting.
About all you need to add is some handwavium covering why ghosts come and go and why nobody really references the events in the original and you're good to go.
Honestly it's not that super difficult. Just come up with the reason why there's an original Ghostbuster still hanging around, then come up with a motivation for him to bring the new crew on board. Bigger issue is probably trying to convince a big name start to play second fiddle.
While I would have preferred it to be in the Ghostbusters universe, they showed they had a script which worked despite it. It was a new world with new things to explore, and they could do things more freely with it - like the Trek reboot. The fanbase by itself isn't something to be too concerned about it, this is an obscure franchise not Superman, and then there's the fact they're trying to appeal to new audience and build on that. Which was always going to happen for a sequel to do, anyway. The movie franchise can't survive with fans alone.
I'm skeptical the reboot would have been entirely safe, like if they committed the sin of having a female lead. People might have also been hostile to a mixed gender team, as well. The cartoon got away with that since cartoons are not high profile. Not compared to multi million dollar movies.
Not that the shit storm was their fault, that's on society being dicks not that having an all-female cast wasn't something that should been ok in a Ghostbusters movie.
Ghost busters is an easier IP to make a world from Caddyshack. The cartoons and comics have shown the IP is capable of world building. That the original creative team couldn't get it together is on them, not the IP.
Trek rebooting is understandable, though lazy. There's still plenty of stories that could be told in Trek without rebooting, but that'd be difficult. Ghostbusters though doesn't have nearly the limitations placed on it that Trek does. GB has two movies set in the 80s, Trek has five series and eight movies spread over centuries. Literally all you need to do is say 'ghosts went away, now ghosts are coming back'. Hell, tie the ghosts going away into the big bad's plotting somehow. Dude was soaking up all their ghost mojo to power his thingie, and now that his plans are nearly complete he's stopped tapping them as a source and they're able to manifest again. Really, the original movie put so few constraints on the setting that I'd guess that not setting this one as a sequel was due to company politics, ego, or legal wrangling. There are just too many upsides to having a 'pass the torch' thing happen.
You try and build the audience yes, but lets not pretend that getting the original fans in the door isn't part of the calculations. And Ghostbusters isn't exactly obscure. Ocean's Eleven, that's obscure.
Again, numberswise this behaved like a standard Paul Feig comedy, with the slight problem that the budget was that of a summer blockbuster. Maybe figuring out something to get more of the original fanbase on board might have been a good idea.
For better or worse, somewhere out there is a Ghostbusters 3 script that was actually green-lighted by Sony. But was canned after Pascal decided this needed to be come a P Feig movie.
I think Paul Feig made the best movie he could make given the circumstances, but IMO he shouldn't have been in that position to begin with -- because his style of comedy is not what I associate with the Ghostbusters franchise. Now, as for my opinion on this whole hurricane of crap for the past year -- I put all the blame on Amy Pascal.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
True.
You're overestimating Ghostbusters relevance in pop culture, before this movie it was a fringe IP - has been ever since it stopped making movies. It had a slight blip with the cartoons, but that's it. That's small enough to be obscure. This movie was the best thing to the IP for many decades to bringing into the spotlight again. GB is closer to Ocean's 11 than Superman.
edit: Making it a priority for the fanbase to get board is a good idea, but they aren't a large enough force to be the main priority over a new audience.
This is arguable. 80's nostalgia is HUGE right now. Look at the Goldbergs or Stranger Things. Everyone who grew up in the 80's and Early 90's are in their 30's now. The amount of actual long-time Ghostbusters fan might be very fringe. But it is a perfect time for 80's revivals and nostalgia.
With all this gnashing and drama they only thing they seem to have made successfully is a movie that both alienates the long-term fans, fails to capitalize on a current trend of 80's nostalgia, and fails to attract a new audience.
But I do find it interesting on how many people on the internet as a whole are starting to diminish the franchise itself rather than just saying that maybe the movie as we received wasn't a good idea or successful. Especially where in the same report that says the movie is heading for a loss also mentions that the franchise itself has a new breath to it.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
80's IP's being big right now didn't mean those things weren't obscure right now, that's why the reboots are instrumental for making them relevant again, without them they stay in the shadows. I agree it's the perfect time for the revival, but there is not any one way for a revival to work, even in theory.
True, it was a failure. But y'know what? I'm glad they took risks and tried to go for new demographics and it's not like they ignored the nostalgia element. If anything they went overboard with the shout outs. I wouldn't say the failed to make a new audience, they failed to get enough of them interested. Sometime mistakes happen, here's hoping they learnt the right lessons for the next shot.
Depends on how you define relevance. It's still got quotable lines like, "Dogs and Cats living together.", "If someone asks if you're a god, say yes.", and "Who you gonna call?" and is referenced in shows like The Flash and Supernatural. It's less relevant than Superman in that there have been recent Superman movies, and the comics are ongoing, but it's still a constant background influence. Especially considering how huge the movie was at the time.
It might not have the huge numbers of 'active' fans like some comic book characters, but I think the production team really underestimated the attachment that people felt for the original.
What exactly does Feig not be able to do much with the torch passing mean? Just incorporate some basic elements of mentorship by the original GB followed by the new GB stepping up and winning the day. Did he sleep through Star Wars or something? Cripes, even ST: Generations managed some level of torch passing when Kirk told Picard to never leave the captains chair. Good advice too, since the first thing Riker did was crash the damn ship.
It was part of the email leak. He e-mailed Pascal telling them he could only make it work as a reboot because he didn't like the idea of a world where ghosts already are a known thing.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
No imagination having goose. Just handwave something where there are ghosts everywhere (but invisible) and interacting with the world in minor ways, but the big bad is keeping people from noticing through reasons, then have the new peeps notice things are out of whack (say keys moving around due to a poltergeist, and them not willing to excuse the location shift as them just forgetting) and then they build some They Live style sunglasses or some crap and we're off to the races.
I don't want to sound like writing a movie script is easy, but assuming some level of accuracy with what the Sony emails show, it's like they weren't even trying.
EDIT:
For a little more substance:
Talk about treating the original characters with respect.
Like, in the pitch you outline, ghosts are already a known quantity and Aykroyd is no longer a kook, so he's just a sad alcoholic who sucks at his job.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
I think that the vast majority of people know that having a soft reboot would have made more sense financially and probably critically, especially given the success of Jurassic World and the Force Awakens have been. However, you have to give the respect to Feig for being upfront that he didn't want a soft reboot. I think the problem going the soft reboot route for me is that audiences will start to expect the classic characters to be in the future films in some capacity or you would have to kill them off which in its-self beings a whole host of problems.
Going slightly off topic, It will be interesting to see how audiences react to this proposed all female Oceans 8 film and compare the marketing from it to Ghostbusters to see how a different studio handles a female franchise reboot.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
The Ghostbusters cartoon treats Ghosts as an every day occurrence, which is not the world of the movie.
Again, it's basically like comparing "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" movie to the TV show.
The TV show is built around the concept of the Hellmouth and that Demons are everywhere living in a parallel society as well as dozens of potential slayers and an entire watcher society to clear them out.
The movie is based around the idea that there's just one big bad guy who's the Slayer has been unable to kill over many lifetimes until Buffy finally does. There's only one slayer and one watcher who get reincarnated.
What you've described is a MadTV gag, not an actual storyline.
You've basically described the original sequel.
Which most people hated and found to be a complete rehash of the first movie.
Including Bill Murray.
Otherwise Ghostbusters kind of has a depressing end to it. "With the portal closed, the ghosts stopped appearing and they all went out of business the next day."
You were right Winston, the job definitely was not worth 11 5 a year.
That would make a difference, yes.
Trying to see it from that pov, I can see liking the characters. You should take heart, then, knowing that you'll see these characters again soon whether we get a sequel or not.
Citation required.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
"Let's take out a third mortgage and build a business around capturing things which is rare to the point that there was zero proof of existence until a few months ago, with equipment that's never been tested."
The Frightener's had an interesting take on it, where Michael J Fox is a con artist who knows that ghosts are real and communicates with them all the time, but the only reason his business model works is because it's bullshit.
Even then, the Frightener's didn't lend itself to a sequel either.
6.5 user rating on the IMDB is about as close as we're going to get, short of sending out fliers asking anyone who has seen the movie to participate in a fucking stupid study.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Unless we're using the "video game rating" system where anything under an 8 is a pile of shit.
And yes, I'm not forgetting that there's a pile of shit sitting in the user ratings. I'm ignoring that for now as not relevant. I've seen lots of movies I would rate around a 2/3 or 3/5. Might not gush to my friends about seeing it, or catch it again, or buy the DVD, but that's a rating I'd give a number of generally enjoyable films that weren't quite 'great' but were far above 'hated'.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying that you're implying it's a level of hatred, Mal. I agree it's probably closer than we'll realistically get otherwise, and having not seen the movie (but read the thread), I'm willing to give it a shot.
Yeah, and that's a far fucking cry from "Most people hated it."
So, you know ... Maybe Schrodinger could back off on the goose? I know it's asking a lot ...
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
The skeptic is still in the movie. Except he isn't just a skeptic he is an original Ghostbuster helping the mayor with the cover up! So instead of the flying out the window scene he is there to offer advice and a lead in to the mayor scene.
But that isn't the movie Feig wanted to do. And that doesn't make him any of the things you called him.
(Side note making the original GBs drunken failure? As a way to attract the old fans? O.o)
The general response to the nay-sayers is
"Yeah, well, it didn't set the world on fire, alternate revenue streams are garbage, and we know Sony has been talking about a sequel but that probably won't happen."
It comes across to me as negative for negative's sake and like... mildly malicious.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Like, if you kept the same tone and style of comedy, but Dan Aykroyd shows up in character and makes a throwaway comment about ghosts existing, we'd have a blockbuster on our hands? Yeah, no.
I think the movie is not as successful as the studio wanted because that style of comedy in this age does not command the kind of dollars they imagined. It made the numbers you'd expect of a Feig comedy, on par with every one of them outside of Bridesmaids, which is an outlier.
Presumably Sony thought that if you attach a pop culture name to a Feig comedy, it acts as some kind of giant force multiplier, even though there's no evidence this is true. Ghostbusters 2016 also made about the same amount of money as 21 Jump Street, another comedy reboot based on an 80s property. It made a shit load more than Robocop, another reboot of a beloved 80s scifi movie.
The movie did nothing wrong. It achieved exactly what a reasonable person would expect it to do. That the people running the numbers were spectacularly bad at their jobs says nothing about the quality of this movie, which received generally positive reviews and made respectable box office returns.
49% of Critics on Rotten Tomato gave it a bad review.
If you want to argue the semantics that 49% is 2% short of "most," then fine.
The point is, it wasn't a good movie, despite their best efforts to create one.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Ghostbusters 2 will always have its own very special place in my heart.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
What? I'm looking at it right now and it says 74% fresh.
I'm discussing the original sequel involving the painting dude, not the reboot.
He is Vigo. You are like the buzzing flies to him.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
This is probably going to join Hot Fuzz in my "I want to watch something fun, oh man, I should totally watch [x] again!" category.
I'd like to add to this that Sony had invested heavily to make this into a multi film franchise because they are desperate to have a Sony brand cinematic universe. ASM2 performed really well at the box office but it wasn't the billion dollar franchise numbers Sony wanted. James Bond is the billion dollar franchise for Sony, but it doesn't have the wide appeal for the younger audience so Sony wants it to make 50% on top of that. Even if you take out the disaster of a marketing campaign, the numbers Sony were expecting of this and all these films just boggles the mind.
OHHHHHHHH, okay, sorry.
I think there was a time where Ghostbusters 3 could have done Jurassic World numbers. But it was just once misstep after another. When the director/cast was announced I was negative because I don't like Paul Feig movies. I said that it was going to be a Paul Feig movie with the Ghostbusters name slapped on it and wont share the style/tone/humor of the original. I was called (not on here -- everyone here is civil) many things in regards to that. It was a Paul Feig movie, with Paul Feig humor.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Has anyone put any thought into the possibility that, by being kind of a dick about most things always, Murray helped shoot the franchise in the foot?
All I would say to that is: I wouldn't put that past him.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
The email leaks deflected Murray's dick moves and focused on Sony's dick moves. Both were as bad as each other at that point.
I just... there have been a lot of stories of Bill Murray being kind of a goose about Ghostbusters in general since forever, to the extent that even Sigourney Weaver was positive about a couple of scripts, but Murray was too salty to have anything to do with it. Now, I know, Weaver has been involved in some stinkers, but she also has a much greater backlog of critically-acclaimed work, and is generally considered significantly more classy and discerning than Murray.
He's essentially had veto power over Ghostbusters films since the second one, and has vetoed all but one script. I grew up loving the guy, but I've literally only enjoyed... two(?) films he's been in since GB2, and haven't even been interested in others. I know that actors tend to have interest in things other than revisiting the same project over and over again, but... a lot of his other work doesn't seem to resonate with as wide a cross-section of people as even GB2