Ghostbusters (2016)

[Delargey]

I hope they don't focus too much on the comedy aspect. 

 

One of my favourite things about GB was that the scares where really well done. I loved the library ghost at the beginning. 

 

 

[Professor Puzzles]

Feig's stated that he wants to make the horror proper horror stuff, let's hope he lives up to his word. Roll on March 3rd!

[makkuwata]

I guess with them being based in New York we have at most about 5 and a half hours left. Oh well.

[rumblecat]

18 hours ago, sir_shrew said:

Kerraig is spot on, Ghostbusters would've been a huge 80's hit even without Murray and Ramis, due to the appealing concept and visual effects. Ghostbusters isn't Bill Murray. Some of the most memorable ghosts and stories were in the cartoon.

That might well be, I've never seen the cartoon, but the cartoon only exists because the film was a hit. At the time Ghostbusters was seen a huge risk, something of a flop in the making- and I'd hazard a guess that the charm and name-recognition of the cast is something that really helped it cross over. 

Isn't Kerraig was saying it was the actors that elevated it above the concept in his post? I think he might be saying the opposite to what you think. I mean, I'm looking forward to the new film- it seems crazy it's taken this long to get a new Ghostbusters film- but it's a series that relies on way more than the concept and visual effects. 

[Fury4k]

Come on mate, you wrote an overly aggressive and frankly bizzare post and got negged for it. That's all. 

 

It's not unreasonable for people to look at who's involved in making this film and think they might not like it. The fact there's a female cast shouldn't forbay us from saying all the things people usually say about remakes and films in general just because you're seeing sexists under the bed. 

 

Sure there are people out there in the wider realms of the internet saying various obscene and sexist things, but I'm not one of them and I don't think anyone else in here is either.

[Goose]

[Mr Cochese]

I don't really get why people are in a thread for a Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy vehicle complaining that it has Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy in it. I dunno, maybe try a different film.

[Fury4k]

Extreme boredom's my excuse.

[Delargey]

2 hours ago, Mr Cochese said:

I don't really get why people are in a thread for a Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy vehicle complaining that it has Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy in it. I dunno, maybe try a different film.

 

If they cast people you dislike in a franchise you are invested in your bound to complain, if they cast Vince Vaughn in this film I'd be moaning about it.

[Comrade]

To be honest, my main concern with the film is Paul Feig. It pains me to say it, since I do love Freaks and Geeks, but I really didn't think much of either Bridesmaids or The Heat. I've not seen Spy though.

[Mr Cochese]

10 hours ago, Delargey said:

 

If they cast people you dislike in a franchise you are invested in your bound to complain, if they cast Vince Vaughn in this film I'd be moaning about it.

What is that even supposed to mean? No-one's invested anything in "franchises" except for the studios. Watch Ghostbusters, watch other films, life goes on.

[Nespresso]

@MrCochese That's a bit pedantic lol. Surely people are allowed to criticise or at least be wary of certain factors of an upcoming film? Just because life goes on doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to be cynical assholes.

[Mr Cochese]

Of course they are. I just think using the language of marketing to describe your own relationship to film sounds is at best naive, and at worst unjustifiably entitled. Complaining about the possible quality of an unreleased cash-in sequel is pretty much casting yourself as a helpless victim - a passive consumer riding the eddies of the commercial process.

 

I mean, there were some half-arsed films released a couple of years ago that were given the titles "Total Recall" and "Robocop" to make stupid people come and watch them based on recognising the names. I'm not interested in seeing those films based on their own merits, so just haven't watched them.

[Delargey]

You are being way too pedantic.

 

Invested is a perfectly reasonable term to use with regards to people's hobbies.

 

Football fans are invested in the match they are watching, it's why they cry if they lose. I'm invested in the book I'm reading if the ending turned out to be shit I'd be dissappointed.

 

I'm invested in Game of Thrones if they replaced all the actors with the cast of "Made in Chelsea" and got Dan Brown to write it, I'd be annoyed becuase I've already put lots of time into the series. 

 

Maybe "excited" would have been a better word. 

 

I'm not a massive fan of Ghostbusters, though it's a great film, nor am I a massive fan of remakes as they tend not to be that good.

 

For me, it's the all female cast that appeals to me as it's something we rarely see in this genre.

 

For others, they might have been waiting and hoping for years to get a new Ghostbusters film, they might have been really excited/invested in it and if the casting decisions were wrong for them it might be as dissappointing as the time the ref gave a penalty to some team in the finals of that big cup. (I don't watch Football ).

 

[Mr Cochese]

Got, don't even mention football. Now there's a sad instance of people clinging like barnacles to the impassive efforts of a behemoth commercial enterprise. Possibly the console wars guys in Discussion are the most contemptible/pitiable of the lot, though.

[Delargey]

Or perhaps they loved the movie, enjoyed the cartoon, both original and extreme, read the comics but still think that Paul Feign isn't that great a director and that Melissa McCarthy isn't that funny.

 

A lot of people are jumping on anyone who doesn't like this line up and branding them as sexist when it's prefectly reasonable to hate on the casting based solely on their past work. 

 

It's exactly the same as people moaning about the Total Recall remake when they heard it was staring Collin Farrell.

 

Obv, there are some people who just don't like the idea of all female leads...Snakes with Leading Roles, etc.

[Don Wiskerando]

19 hours ago, Goose said:

What the fuck is wrong with the hands on that ghost?  The shading is all wrong.

 

I am looking forward to this as a fan of both Ghostbusters and Bridesmaids.  

 

What I don't understand is why they are calling this Ghostbusters 3.  There was never a Ghostbusters 2 as far as I can remember.

[Alex W.]

I think they translated the design elements of the original logo into the "metal sign" too literally. Things that look 3D but foreshortened in a cartoon image can look flat and weird when embossed.

[Blu3Flame]

It looks like it's been run through Photoshop's plastic wrap filter.

[Mr Cochese]

Goddamn women. I knew they'd fuck it up somehow.

[CactuarBill]

OK changed the title as it isn't called Ghostbusters 3.

 

 

I don't get why people are branding those who do not like this female, sexist.  It has nothing to do with the sex of the main cast. I would not like it if it had a male cast. The problem I have, is that when this film starts its marketing campaign, Paul Feig and the cast will say how this Ghostbusters is different to the original while the film throws in cameos and nods reminding you of the original. This happens in every remake and it is annoying.  

 

I wish they made a sequel, with a new cast.  You then have that history and can do cameos without it feeling like you are just putting it in to appease the fans. 

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, CactuarBill said:

OK changed the title as it isn't called Ghostbusters 3.

 

 

I don't get why people are branding those who do not like this female, sexist.  I don't like this female, it has nothing to do with the sex of the main cast. I would not like it if it had a male cast. The problem I have, is that when this film starts its marketing campaign, Paul Feig and the cast will say how this Ghostbusters is different to the original while the film throws in cameos and nods reminding you of the original. This happens in every remake and it is annoying.  

 

I wish they made a sequel, with a new cast.  You then have that history and can do cameos without it feeling like you are just putting it in to appease the fans. 

I'm going to assume a bit of a slip there

[CactuarBill]

Haha my fucking tablet thinks I'm a sexist.

[Alex W.]

There is a certain loud contingent of people online who are really mad that it's got women in it instead of men, and they're doing a disservice by drowning out those of us who think Paul Feig couldn't direct his way out of a paper bag.

[Delargey]

Was Mad Max a remake or a sequel? 

[CactuarBill]

Well that is loud, stupid internet dickheads.  Like those who got mad the human torch was black, instead of actually being concerned that Fanatsic Four looked doomed from the start and it wasn't due to race.

[JohnC]

9 minutes ago, Delargey said:

Was Mad Max a remake or a sequel? 

Sequel. I think all the Mad Max movies after the first are sort of loose sequels, in that they aren't entirely consistent with each other but are still supposed to be sequels.

[Alex W.]

Ghostbusters was edited in a very generic 80s action-comedy way, but that was still quite dynamic and lively. Feig's shooting is very televisual.

 

Happy to be surprised, my point is really that there's a genuine problem with the negative response from the cranks swamping out the sensible worries. Not here of course.

[gone fishin]

3 hours ago, sir_shrew said:

 

Which again is fine, but was Ghostbuster's fondly remembered because of Ivan Reitman's direction? And personally, I can't say I had a problem with how Bridesmaids or Spy was directed, so I can't imagine it being noticeably worse than GB2. I'm more concerned with whether they can pull off the script and ghost designs. So far all we know is a demon gargoyle, some old librarian type, and possibly the logo ghost feature in the film.

 

I dunno, let's look at the pedigree of both films.

 

Ghostbusters (1984) was directed by the guy who directed Stripes and Caddyshack. It was written by the guy who had written The Blues Brothers and the other guy who had written Animal House (and Stripes and Caddyshack). 

 

Ghostbusters (2016) is directed by the guy who did Bridesmaids, The Heat and Spy. And writtem by the co-writer of The Heat.

 

Hmmmm...  Some of the best comedies from the early 80s against Bridesmaids, The Heat and Spy. What's to be worried about???

 

And as its been pointed out, the way the new film has been put together stinks of modern Hollywood reboots. "Honestly, this is a completely new take on Ghostbusters*, except it's actually got shit loads of lazy references to the original because we can't be bothered coming up with something new or are cynically targeting the nostalgia crowd."

 

* replace Ghostbusters with Robocop, Terminator Genesys, The Thing or whatever franchise** Hollywood is in the process of trying to "reboot".

 

** you could also add Jurrassic World and Star Wars The Force Awakens in there too if you're feeling really cynical. 

 

And yes, I know John Carpenter's The Thing is a remake but at least it's a completely new take on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CactuarBill]

You know it will have loads of references in it. It has literally everyone from the original doing cameos in it.

 

I hope I'm wrong and it is decent on its own. We shall see from the trailer.