That's not exactly the kind of situation Ghostbusters would face if this movie were to flop. At worst, you're right. It won't get a direct sequel. But why would that stop anyone else from trying to bring back the Ghostbusters franchise again? Star Trek Nemesis was such a disaster it did more harm to the franchise than Star Trek 5 did, yet the franchise still continued after that. The Ghostbusters franchise, even 26 years with no new movie has still managed to maintain it's popularity and obvious money making status. This is not a franchise that will be undone if Paul's movie does poorly. In fact, if it does do poorly, there might be a greater incentive to legitimately follow up with a movie that ties in to the originals since, as apparent in this thread, that's what most of the fans want in the first place.
Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
That's not exactly the kind of situation Ghostbusters would face if this movie were to flop. At worst, you're right. It won't get a direct sequel. But why would that stop anyone else from trying to bring back the Ghostbusters franchise again? Star Trek Nemesis was such a disaster it did more harm to the franchise than Star Trek 5 did, yet the franchise still continued after that. The Ghostbusters franchise, even 26 years with no new movie has still managed to maintain it's popularity and obvious money making status. This is not a franchise that will be undone if Paul's movie does poorly. In fact, if it does do poorly, there might be a greater incentive to legitimately follow up with a movie that ties in to the originals since, as apparent in this thread, that's what most of the fans want in the first place.
The fact that this is where they are taking GB right now basically proves we can't count on sense to prevail.
It's very possible that GB might be given one bad shot at rebooting and then never tried again. It wouldn't be the first time a big studio ignored common sense & dollar signs to do something out-of-whack with a franchise, and then blamed the source material when the new one failed to earn.
It's very possible that GB might be given one bad shot at rebooting and then never tried again. It wouldn't be the first time a big studio ignored common sense & dollar signs to do something out-of-whack with a franchise, and then blamed the source material when the new one failed to earn.
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, I mean, there are plenty of brands that studios are hanging on to, but which are just collecting dust because the studio assumes that the brand is the weak link, rather than the lack of creative vision. And these are brands where there's potential for really cool storytelling, but you'll never see anything from it because the brand itself has been tarnished by one or more crappy entries.
People keep saying this as if they knew him personally and he had told you. This statement is really misleading, all the emails that have been posted say he didn't want to make a sequel (why he turned it down several times), he is not making a sequel. He isn't making the movie YOU wanted him to make, but he is making the movie HE wants to make.
KrangPrime
Master Member
yep, if this crashes, will the ghostbsuters brand recover? It was already apparently tarnished for years, if you believe sony, because no director wanted to touch it due to the greatness of the first movie and apparent lackluster performance of the2nd.
And I think if the cartoon didn't exist, we probably would have gotten something a bit closer to the first movie in tone. and maybe a more original plot. notice how we never saw the containment unit in the second movie and Slimer being a bit 'nicer'...Although personally, I don't think two was that bad. I personally think Dana and peter should have been married to see his character evolve a little....Maybe give Ray a romance point if you wanted to still have that element. The Scolerie brothers where great new ghosts. The evolution of the slime to mood slime was an awesome idea...as was slime portals. Dana being haunted again could have been left out. Oscar could have been a little older so she could start her GB training. RGB set up that they had millions of other costumers..so it could have been someone else. I would also love to see a smaller, HARDER case rather than another world saving event. If so many ghosts want to conquer the world, why wouldn't they do it in a time when the ghostbsuters don't exist?
Although to be honest, the tone of comedy from the early 80s was softening a little by the time we reached late 80s...so it probably wouldn't have had the same tone even if the toon didn't exist.
*looks back and forth between the other thread and this one, does a couple turns of the rug pondering my words*
Okay, since there is genuine movie-only commentary here, I could post over there, but since there's some social-commentary stuff mixed in, I'll keep it in this one.
I was born in the '70s, with intelligent and very progressive parents. I grew up mainly watching PBS. Sesame Street (pre-Elmo), Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, 3-2-1 Contact, Cosmos, Free To Be You And Me... A whole lot of "people are people, regardless of [socially-charged trait]" content that I internalized way down deep. It's actually probably a bit of a blind spot of my generation. Indoctrinated to be so egalitarian that we don't see that society is still anything but. I'm a white guy in the prime of my life. Society has this as its baseline norm. I've had a pretty rough life, for reasons, and have been frustrated that a lot of the social safety nets out there aren't for me. But I can intellectually understand that I'm the cultural norm, and see why those resources exist as they do, even if viscerally it doesn't make any sense to me.
This has translated to my appreciation of -- and participation in -- the various media of storytelling. Some of my early (bad) fanfic for Star Trek, in my early teens, had my Harry Stu's sister as a starship captain. Not for any agenda, not as a conscious decision to make this character a woman, but because it was relevant to him and his setting -- the fact that he had a sister (two, actually, plus one informally adopted), the fact that she was younger, and the fact that she commanded a starship. Like Janeway, later, when she was being portrayed well by the writers (as opposed to the times she wasn't), she was still a woman... She just happened to also be a starship commander. She wasn't "acting like a man", her perspective was not one that an equivalent male character could have exactly held, her femaleness was relevant to her role, but not the neon-lit definition of it.
It was this way for me growing up. Where I live, there has been a lot of immigration from various Pacific Rim nations. Going through school, I had a lot of classmates who were of Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, or Hawaiian ancestry. It never struck me as odd or noteworthy. It was just one detail among many that helped me tell who was who -- like eye color or height. I had no significance attached to it. So it's always seemed weird to me when something like that becomes a focus. It seems as bizarre, superstitious, and pre-scientific as the snark about gingers or left-handed people.
I would love to see race and sex sections omitted from applications. Neither should really matter at all except in mate-selection, and that's no one's business but the individuals involved.
I say shouldn't matter. But, like the man said, a person can be smart -- people are dumb, panicky animals. It shouldn't matter, but it does. *sigh*
I said maaaaaaaaaaany pages back that I applaud casting people who interview everyone, regardless of physicality. Because sometimes the perfect fit for a role isn't who they might have expected. Then the script can get tweaked to incorporate necessary changes. Lando was white in original concept art. They could have probably found a smooth-talking white guy to play him. They cast Billy, though, and I doubt anyone could see anyone else in that role now. He owned it. That's one of my main criticisms of the process this movie has followed. Almost -- almost -- every time the cast is chosen before there's even a story, the end result suffers. You really have to know who the characters are, what they're facing, and how they react to it to be able to find the right people to portray that.
The original Ghostbusters, ironically, is one of those rare exceptions, but that's because it still grew organically out of Ramis and Aykroyd and Reitman knowing from the get-go who the characters were and who would best fill those roles, and writing the script with all of that in mind. There is an actual difference between writing a role for a particular actor and stunt casting. The creators went with who they were comfortable with, and whose work they knew, from all working together on SNL and SCTV. I could actually easily see Lily Tomlin in Ray's role. No complaints about Dan Aykroyd putting himself in it, though. *heh* But even then Bill Murray wasn't really into it, and only agreed if he got his own movie project in return. Which no one's ever heard of, so his further resentment and greater reluctance to come back to GB makes perfect sense.
I was nine when Ghostbusters came out, and fourteen when Ghostbusters 2 came out. I loved them both then, and still do now, each for its own reasons. I love the evolution shown in GB2 -- how they'd been legally barred from doing their job, were fighting multiple lawsuits, and the general public had convinced themselves that the events of the first film hadn't happened. The fall from the heights of fame and the return to grace is always a good approach, if handled well, and I feel GB2 did. There were elements of both films that go beyond the campiness of the premise. The serious conversations between Ray and Winston are wonderful character moments. I still get chills at their scene in Ecto 1 in the first film: "Ray, do you think that maybe we've been so busy because the dead are rising from the grave?" Seriously facing the possibility that this is the beginning of the end of the world.
We were left hanging, though. The cartoon was sort of peripheral. There were some really good episodes, but in general it just treaded water, as far as moving the story forward. The recent video game is, I think, justly considered "Ghostbusters 3". It moved the story forward, showed the original crew recognizing they weren't up to the challenge they way they might once have been, and bringing in new blood. And is a great set-up for what comes next. Cue... a movie that hasn't materialized. Because somehow, some way, te creative minds involved, and the corporate types backing them, couldn't figure out between them a good approach that embraced the old while advancing the story. I mentioned some beats that occurred to me during a stream-of-consciousness rant about the cart-before-the-horse approach Feig took with this film. In five minutes I had:
- Ray, Winston, Louis, and Janine are the only ones from the old guard still in the firehouse
- Louis and Janine have gone into the field to do some 'busting, as well as working as the team's lawyer and executive assistant, respectively.
- Increase of mainstream paranormal investigation (Destination: Truth, Ghost Hunters, et al) has seen them doing more academic lectures than 'busting
- Peter and Dana have been off living heir own life together, well away from all the ghostbusting, and the acrimony runs deep
- Egon has recently died, and things start as the crew is coming back from his funeral, where they saw Peter for the first time in years
- Something Strange (TM) happens, which other paranormal teams have no experience with, but they do -- initial confrontation goes poorly
- "We're getting too old for this s***" moment between Ray and Winston -- they decide they need new blood
- "Rookie" and Alyssa Milano's character from the video game called in, plus interviewing other new candidates
- hijinks ensue
Basic scriptwriting points. A few minutes to establish the setting and the old status quo. An incident upsets that and the characters have to rise to the challenge. Things escalate to a turning point, then reach a final conflict, after which we are left with the new status quo. There is so much available in the existing IP to accomplish that without even trying hard, a reboot/remake/reinterpretation/whatever is not only unnecessary, but insulting -- to the original films, to the fans that made it a hit and have kept it alive over thirty years with comparatively little new content.
Then there's the team on this film. Paul Feig has talked about why he makes the movies he does with the people he does. Much early teasing from boys over the similarity of the correct pronunciation of his last name to a derogatory slur for a homosexual. Resulting tendency to gravitate to girls who didn't tease him like that. He does, however, have a skewed and one-track notion of who women are, how they act and think, what they want, etc. And while I'm sure it is not wholly inaccurate, it is also neither universal nor universally appealing. I had had no interest in Bridesmaids when it came out. After-the-fact buzz led me to watch it on DVD. I couldn't finish. The characters were so shallow and insipid and unlikable. Consequently I had even less desire to see The Heat. I have since gone and read the script, and I stand by that decision. The trailers for Spy left me with a feeling of mild revulsion. And my desire to see Trainwreck can be measured in negative numbers.
There are character arcs and learning/growth experiences, but they're pale and embedded in a morass of attitudes and behaviors I I have hated my whole life, and work against in my own creative works.
Melissa McCarthy I find an intelligent and engaging woman, and quite pretty, too. I find her funnier when she's just being herself, though, than when she's trying to be funny. I'm actually curious to see what she could do if uncoupled from Feig and given an actual strong leading role -- where the emphasis is not on her being fat or ugly or like that. That's not a kind of humor that's ever engaged me, and is generally harmful. I see the argument of people not complaining if it had been John Candy or Chris Farley, but I only liked their work where they weren't playing up the "I'm funny because I'm fat" angle, like Canadian Bacon and Tommy Boy (yeah, it was there in Tommy Boy, but only in a couple of places).
Kristen Wiig I also find intelligent and engaging and pretty... and that somehow all vanishes when she's working. I know people love her in Parks and Rec, but I spend my time watching that show wanting to bash her character on the head -- and not in a lighthearted, fun-loving way. I wtch that show in spite of her, not because of.
I haven't seen enough of the other two main team-members to have formed much of an opinion, but I don't know how I can in in this film if I'm having to deal with anything like the characterizations I've come to expect from McCarthy and Wiig. And Chris Hemsworth I despair for. Janine in the original wasn't the "hot secretary" that the guys drooled over. She was a jaded, sassy, outer-borough (Staten Island or Queens, probably) New York chick who was the only one who responded to their ad for a secretary. They gave her a hard time or were generally dismissive of her. Somehow, I really, really doubt they've cast a hunky beefcake like Chris to treat him the same way.
I still don't know if I'll even ever see this film. On the one hand, I feel like I have to so I'll be able to critique it intelligently. On the other, I don't want to support Sony in this kind of filmmaking. I'll probably wait to see if it shows up used at Goodwill or f.y.e. so my purchase of it and viewing of it aren't counted anywhere as a sale or Netflix/Amazon view.
--Jonah
Okay, since there is genuine movie-only commentary here, I could post over there, but since there's some social-commentary stuff mixed in, I'll keep it in this one.
I was born in the '70s, with intelligent and very progressive parents. I grew up mainly watching PBS. Sesame Street (pre-Elmo), Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, 3-2-1 Contact, Cosmos, Free To Be You And Me... A whole lot of "people are people, regardless of [socially-charged trait]" content that I internalized way down deep. It's actually probably a bit of a blind spot of my generation. Indoctrinated to be so egalitarian that we don't see that society is still anything but. I'm a white guy in the prime of my life. Society has this as its baseline norm. I've had a pretty rough life, for reasons, and have been frustrated that a lot of the social safety nets out there aren't for me. But I can intellectually understand that I'm the cultural norm, and see why those resources exist as they do, even if viscerally it doesn't make any sense to me.
This has translated to my appreciation of -- and participation in -- the various media of storytelling. Some of my early (bad) fanfic for Star Trek, in my early teens, had my Harry Stu's sister as a starship captain. Not for any agenda, not as a conscious decision to make this character a woman, but because it was relevant to him and his setting -- the fact that he had a sister (two, actually, plus one informally adopted), the fact that she was younger, and the fact that she commanded a starship. Like Janeway, later, when she was being portrayed well by the writers (as opposed to the times she wasn't), she was still a woman... She just happened to also be a starship commander. She wasn't "acting like a man", her perspective was not one that an equivalent male character could have exactly held, her femaleness was relevant to her role, but not the neon-lit definition of it.
It was this way for me growing up. Where I live, there has been a lot of immigration from various Pacific Rim nations. Going through school, I had a lot of classmates who were of Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, or Hawaiian ancestry. It never struck me as odd or noteworthy. It was just one detail among many that helped me tell who was who -- like eye color or height. I had no significance attached to it. So it's always seemed weird to me when something like that becomes a focus. It seems as bizarre, superstitious, and pre-scientific as the snark about gingers or left-handed people.
I would love to see race and sex sections omitted from applications. Neither should really matter at all except in mate-selection, and that's no one's business but the individuals involved.
I say shouldn't matter. But, like the man said, a person can be smart -- people are dumb, panicky animals. It shouldn't matter, but it does. *sigh*
I said maaaaaaaaaaany pages back that I applaud casting people who interview everyone, regardless of physicality. Because sometimes the perfect fit for a role isn't who they might have expected. Then the script can get tweaked to incorporate necessary changes. Lando was white in original concept art. They could have probably found a smooth-talking white guy to play him. They cast Billy, though, and I doubt anyone could see anyone else in that role now. He owned it. That's one of my main criticisms of the process this movie has followed. Almost -- almost -- every time the cast is chosen before there's even a story, the end result suffers. You really have to know who the characters are, what they're facing, and how they react to it to be able to find the right people to portray that.
The original Ghostbusters, ironically, is one of those rare exceptions, but that's because it still grew organically out of Ramis and Aykroyd and Reitman knowing from the get-go who the characters were and who would best fill those roles, and writing the script with all of that in mind. There is an actual difference between writing a role for a particular actor and stunt casting. The creators went with who they were comfortable with, and whose work they knew, from all working together on SNL and SCTV. I could actually easily see Lily Tomlin in Ray's role. No complaints about Dan Aykroyd putting himself in it, though. *heh* But even then Bill Murray wasn't really into it, and only agreed if he got his own movie project in return. Which no one's ever heard of, so his further resentment and greater reluctance to come back to GB makes perfect sense.
I was nine when Ghostbusters came out, and fourteen when Ghostbusters 2 came out. I loved them both then, and still do now, each for its own reasons. I love the evolution shown in GB2 -- how they'd been legally barred from doing their job, were fighting multiple lawsuits, and the general public had convinced themselves that the events of the first film hadn't happened. The fall from the heights of fame and the return to grace is always a good approach, if handled well, and I feel GB2 did. There were elements of both films that go beyond the campiness of the premise. The serious conversations between Ray and Winston are wonderful character moments. I still get chills at their scene in Ecto 1 in the first film: "Ray, do you think that maybe we've been so busy because the dead are rising from the grave?" Seriously facing the possibility that this is the beginning of the end of the world.
We were left hanging, though. The cartoon was sort of peripheral. There were some really good episodes, but in general it just treaded water, as far as moving the story forward. The recent video game is, I think, justly considered "Ghostbusters 3". It moved the story forward, showed the original crew recognizing they weren't up to the challenge they way they might once have been, and bringing in new blood. And is a great set-up for what comes next. Cue... a movie that hasn't materialized. Because somehow, some way, te creative minds involved, and the corporate types backing them, couldn't figure out between them a good approach that embraced the old while advancing the story. I mentioned some beats that occurred to me during a stream-of-consciousness rant about the cart-before-the-horse approach Feig took with this film. In five minutes I had:
- Ray, Winston, Louis, and Janine are the only ones from the old guard still in the firehouse
- Louis and Janine have gone into the field to do some 'busting, as well as working as the team's lawyer and executive assistant, respectively.
- Increase of mainstream paranormal investigation (Destination: Truth, Ghost Hunters, et al) has seen them doing more academic lectures than 'busting
- Peter and Dana have been off living heir own life together, well away from all the ghostbusting, and the acrimony runs deep
- Egon has recently died, and things start as the crew is coming back from his funeral, where they saw Peter for the first time in years
- Something Strange (TM) happens, which other paranormal teams have no experience with, but they do -- initial confrontation goes poorly
- "We're getting too old for this s***" moment between Ray and Winston -- they decide they need new blood
- "Rookie" and Alyssa Milano's character from the video game called in, plus interviewing other new candidates
- hijinks ensue
Basic scriptwriting points. A few minutes to establish the setting and the old status quo. An incident upsets that and the characters have to rise to the challenge. Things escalate to a turning point, then reach a final conflict, after which we are left with the new status quo. There is so much available in the existing IP to accomplish that without even trying hard, a reboot/remake/reinterpretation/whatever is not only unnecessary, but insulting -- to the original films, to the fans that made it a hit and have kept it alive over thirty years with comparatively little new content.
Then there's the team on this film. Paul Feig has talked about why he makes the movies he does with the people he does. Much early teasing from boys over the similarity of the correct pronunciation of his last name to a derogatory slur for a homosexual. Resulting tendency to gravitate to girls who didn't tease him like that. He does, however, have a skewed and one-track notion of who women are, how they act and think, what they want, etc. And while I'm sure it is not wholly inaccurate, it is also neither universal nor universally appealing. I had had no interest in Bridesmaids when it came out. After-the-fact buzz led me to watch it on DVD. I couldn't finish. The characters were so shallow and insipid and unlikable. Consequently I had even less desire to see The Heat. I have since gone and read the script, and I stand by that decision. The trailers for Spy left me with a feeling of mild revulsion. And my desire to see Trainwreck can be measured in negative numbers.
There are character arcs and learning/growth experiences, but they're pale and embedded in a morass of attitudes and behaviors I I have hated my whole life, and work against in my own creative works.
Melissa McCarthy I find an intelligent and engaging woman, and quite pretty, too. I find her funnier when she's just being herself, though, than when she's trying to be funny. I'm actually curious to see what she could do if uncoupled from Feig and given an actual strong leading role -- where the emphasis is not on her being fat or ugly or like that. That's not a kind of humor that's ever engaged me, and is generally harmful. I see the argument of people not complaining if it had been John Candy or Chris Farley, but I only liked their work where they weren't playing up the "I'm funny because I'm fat" angle, like Canadian Bacon and Tommy Boy (yeah, it was there in Tommy Boy, but only in a couple of places).
Kristen Wiig I also find intelligent and engaging and pretty... and that somehow all vanishes when she's working. I know people love her in Parks and Rec, but I spend my time watching that show wanting to bash her character on the head -- and not in a lighthearted, fun-loving way. I wtch that show in spite of her, not because of.
I haven't seen enough of the other two main team-members to have formed much of an opinion, but I don't know how I can in in this film if I'm having to deal with anything like the characterizations I've come to expect from McCarthy and Wiig. And Chris Hemsworth I despair for. Janine in the original wasn't the "hot secretary" that the guys drooled over. She was a jaded, sassy, outer-borough (Staten Island or Queens, probably) New York chick who was the only one who responded to their ad for a secretary. They gave her a hard time or were generally dismissive of her. Somehow, I really, really doubt they've cast a hunky beefcake like Chris to treat him the same way.
I still don't know if I'll even ever see this film. On the one hand, I feel like I have to so I'll be able to critique it intelligently. On the other, I don't want to support Sony in this kind of filmmaking. I'll probably wait to see if it shows up used at Goodwill or f.y.e. so my purchase of it and viewing of it aren't counted anywhere as a sale or Netflix/Amazon view.
--Jonah
Last edited:
- - Movies that do poorly don't get sequels, that's generally how business happens.
- - It's very possible that GB might be given one bad shot at rebooting and then never tried again.
- - And these are brands where there's potential for really cool storytelling, but you'll never see anything from it because the brand itself has been tarnished by one or more crappy entries.
- - yep, if this crashes, will the ghostbsuters brand recover?
Well, guess everyone here better see the new movie and hope that doesn't happen. Even a bad movie that does well at the box office will have a rich and assured future. It's only if you don't see it that you'll be ensuring your pessimistic views of the Ghostbusters IP fading away will come true. I mean, come on. Things could be worse. Michael Bay could be producing the film with a first time film director hot off of commercials with Damon Lindelof being brought in re-write a script penned by Michael France.
KrangPrime
Master Member
I felt the same way about Turtles. I swore I'd never see it based on the reputation of Michael Bay's past work, and all we've seen leading up to it. once I realized that this turd was a hit, and no amount of protesting would stop a sequel from further degrading the brand, I went for exactly those reasons. Some people say your criticism means nothing unless you've seen the film.
I wish I didn't. I could write a whole ten page essay on what was wrong with that mess. I was so bored 50 minutes in, that I started to resort to twitter to live tweet my review of how horrible this thing was. I will probably do the same for ghostbusters. worn down enough that I will see it in it's 4th week in an empty theater. I've never walked out of a theater because of a bad movie, but turtles came close. lets see if Ghostbusters can keep me in.
I, like you, had no interest in feigs other works. the clips and trailers I've seen didn't really interest me. I love spy stuff, and comedy. like Inspector Gadget, or Dangermouse. SPY might be the first one I'd give a chance when it goes to rental, although the swearing in the trailer turns me off. but, I'll probably see it just to see what I'm getting myself into with ghostbusters. by all accounts, Feig is a one trick pony and all his movies are the same.
I find it kind of funny that the trailer for Peanuts doesn't even MENTION feig. I had no idea he was even apart of it until I looked the movie up. and in interviews, the people in charge where afraid he'd cast justin beiber as charlie brown ( something I wouldn't put past him if left to his own devices)....It kind of shows his real power in hollywood if he has such a reputation for a certain kind of film, a kids movie won't even mention him in it's promotion.
I've watched a bit of Mike and Molly. I don't get it. other sitcoms with people of size I could get into a little, like rosanne, or King of Queens. for some reason not so much this one. something about her just seems like she tries too hard to get ahead in the world. she's got a hit tv show. focus on that first. when it ends, then try to start your movie career a little.
and I agree. I could never get into the 'dumb comedy' angle. shows like family guy, or what the simpsons has devolved into, playing homer as the fat dumb, ignorant one. When the simpsons first started out, homer was if not likeable, at least understandable. you can understand why his family stuck around him, because he tried. somewhere around season 12 or so, all that went out the window and the show became kind of worthless because the family dynamic didn't work anymore.
and yes, I've said this before as well. the first movie came together naturally. no one forced them to do any of it, or sped things up to get something going. they had time, talent and a goal to get things done. all sony seems concerned about is getting the brand out there with no time for natural planning or even cohesive thought being put into it.
and thank you for being another person who brings up bill having no interest in ghostbusters. people put him on such a pedestal for all the great work he's given us... but they tend to over look the fact that the only reason he did ghostbusters, was to give razors edge a start.
Solo4114
Master Member
Minor point, but I think you're thinking of Amy Poehler, maybe? She was Leslie Knope in Parks & Rec. April was played by Aubrey Plaza, and Ann was Rashida Jones. I doubt you're confusing her with Donna, who was played by Rhetta.
You're right. You're right. :facepalm Ack. I don't know why those two occupy the same neuron for me, as they're actually quite different. Okay. Yeah. Kristen I like. Depending on how much business it gets opening weekend (as in, when it becomes obvious whether or not my attending will count much) I'll probably go see it just for her.
--Jonah
Solo4114
Master Member
Honestly...I wouldn't pin your hopes on the original continuity returning. While it's true the studio seemed completely at sea as to what direction it wanted to take the franchise, much of that was probably due to Amy Pascal, rather than the studio overall. They want to make money. Period. They'll jump at whatever chance they can to do that. But if this film flops, I think it will make it that much more difficult to see a return to the original continuity.
Basically, my theory is this: once a studio commits to abandoning established continuity, there's no going back to it. Ever. No matter how poorly the new material is received, the old material certainly won't be returning. The reason behind that is that a shift in continuity indicates that the studio has little to no faith in the value of the original continuity. In some cases, they may find the original continuity actually a detriment to future sales.
Take Star Trek. I feel pretty confident that old Trek is never, ever coming back, even if JJTrek's next outing tanks at the box office (it won't, by the way). Old Trek's continuity was jettisoned on purpose, because the studio was concerned that the old continuity harbored too many requirements and made good movies difficult. Plus it turned off new fans because they didn't know the backstory.
Or take Bond. Old Bond -- quippy, gadget-laden, comic-book caricature Bond -- is unlikely to return. Audiences had decades of that, and the final film that did it went so far over the top with that style that it was very, very poorly received. Hence the Craig reboot. The third film in Craig's run, however, suggests a possible return to some of the structural elements that made up old Bond (male Q, with whom Bond has a history, a seasoned agent rather than a rookie, some gadgetry and quipping, but still a more grounded feel). But I really doubt that, for example, they'll refer to Tracy Bond's death in OHMSS, or Blofeld as a nemesis or whathaveyou. That old continuity won't return, even if some stylistic elements from that era do.
I'd say it's more likely that if this film tanks, it will either kill the brand outright (because the brand itself will be seen as the weak link, since Feig & Co. have proven to be moneymakers outside of it), or it will lead to an immediate hard reboot. Personally, while I'm a fan of the original stuff, I question just how valuable the Ghostbusters brand itself really is. Certainly as compared to, say, Spider-Man or Bond or Batman or Star Trek, or really any other franchise that has seen a reboot of the continuity.
That said, I wouldn't go see this film -- or any film, for that matter -- purely out of brand loyalty, if you think it's going to be a waste of money. And frankly, I think supporting a brand over content is a waste of money. That's spending money on nostalgia rather than actual product.
Basically, my theory is this: once a studio commits to abandoning established continuity, there's no going back to it. Ever. No matter how poorly the new material is received, the old material certainly won't be returning. The reason behind that is that a shift in continuity indicates that the studio has little to no faith in the value of the original continuity. In some cases, they may find the original continuity actually a detriment to future sales.
Take Star Trek. I feel pretty confident that old Trek is never, ever coming back, even if JJTrek's next outing tanks at the box office (it won't, by the way). Old Trek's continuity was jettisoned on purpose, because the studio was concerned that the old continuity harbored too many requirements and made good movies difficult. Plus it turned off new fans because they didn't know the backstory.
Or take Bond. Old Bond -- quippy, gadget-laden, comic-book caricature Bond -- is unlikely to return. Audiences had decades of that, and the final film that did it went so far over the top with that style that it was very, very poorly received. Hence the Craig reboot. The third film in Craig's run, however, suggests a possible return to some of the structural elements that made up old Bond (male Q, with whom Bond has a history, a seasoned agent rather than a rookie, some gadgetry and quipping, but still a more grounded feel). But I really doubt that, for example, they'll refer to Tracy Bond's death in OHMSS, or Blofeld as a nemesis or whathaveyou. That old continuity won't return, even if some stylistic elements from that era do.
I'd say it's more likely that if this film tanks, it will either kill the brand outright (because the brand itself will be seen as the weak link, since Feig & Co. have proven to be moneymakers outside of it), or it will lead to an immediate hard reboot. Personally, while I'm a fan of the original stuff, I question just how valuable the Ghostbusters brand itself really is. Certainly as compared to, say, Spider-Man or Bond or Batman or Star Trek, or really any other franchise that has seen a reboot of the continuity.
That said, I wouldn't go see this film -- or any film, for that matter -- purely out of brand loyalty, if you think it's going to be a waste of money. And frankly, I think supporting a brand over content is a waste of money. That's spending money on nostalgia rather than actual product.
I had to look this up, and yeah... he's the producer, and overseeing production and all, but I see no reason why they would mention him in the style of ads they are doing...
If I recall, the only creative mentioned in the trailer is schultz... and he's dead.
Unless you have a crappy animated flick where they show live action stills of the actors playing the characters (cuz they feel it's the only way to get people in) most animated will only draw attention to the producers if they worked on other animated shows.
The lack of Feig being mentioned is because "The director of Bridesmaids" or "Creator of Freaks and Geeks" will not bring kids to the theater... or make parents want to bring them "Is Lucy going to crap her pants in the middle of the street in a wedding dress?"
Also, given that he's overseeing Peanuts, it may very well have been his call.
Also Also, Peanuts looks amazing.
Also Also Also... I don't think this Ghostbusters is going to work as a "Ghostbusters" movie... though it may still stand as an entertaining flick.
KrangPrime
Master Member
That's what I'm afraid of with reboots. as I said before, I can't think of one instance where an old continuity came back. hence why IDW was probably cancelled, because companies LIKE to focus on what is current. If it was canceled due to low sales, why would they continue to do crossover issues? sounds to me like fans of the old continuity trying to keep it alive for as long as possible before this new things comes out.
For star trek, I think the producers just didn't like the submarine style slowness of old trek. DS9 tried to amp it up a little with war and grim and dark and gritty, and that didn't do so well with most trek fans. I know I, myself skipped ds9 because it veered too far off the star ship course. I only discovered it later as voyager was ending and got hooked.
The problem with voyager , was the creative people had no idea what to do with it. I personally think they should have gone bold and skipped ten years in the ships travel history. every season, ten years would go by, and we'd see if become a generational ship, picking up dozens of alien crew members from across the galaxy. only picking up nelix and kess in the begining, and getting rid of all the borg kids minus one made it a staler show than it could have been. they didn't even need to be in every episode. just reference them to remind us they are still there. but no, they played it safe. going back to kirk continuity WITH kirk was just lazy. even lazier remaking wrath of kahn (oh, kirk died this time...big whoop....)
IF this film tanks, I'd rather that be it for ghostbusters. Unlike Spiderman, it really hasn't been AROUND long enough to proove brand worth. We've had two movies, a syndicated cartoon show (ABC doesn't count, terrible), another syndicated show ten years later, and the video game. that's it. over 25 years. EGB was on a fledgling network I don't think many people got at the time, so that didn't help it. And the IDW series had the misfortune of finally coming around when this new movie comes out.
so we havn't really had a chance to see what the TRUE (not original) ghostbusters could do because, thanks to so many rights holders, it was tough for any of them to agree on anything. At least with the syndicated cartoon, we had ivan and joe medjuck looking out for it, probably why most of it was so good. they had less control over the ABC version as I recall..
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, I mean, I enjoyed the videogame, and vaguely remember enjoying the cartoon when I was a kid (the one with Lorenzo Music as Venkman and Frank Welker as Ray), but otherwise, I think this franchise sinks or swims on this film. And, to be honest, given Sony's track record with Spider-Man, even if we get a little trilogy, expect a hard reboot again in another 10 years or so. That or they finally just let it rest in peace.
Moving forward, I think the GB franchise is probably more workable & sellable in the cartoon-esque form than the two films.
The films were a bunch of 1970s SNL alums doing a smartass take on 1980s NYC and generally being in-over-their-heads. The were 13yo kids left home unsupervised and found their 16yo brother's firework collection. You knew this wasn't going to end well but it would probably be funny & entertaining until TSHTF. The tone was PG-13ish even if the content didn't technically rate that rough.
The cartoon ("The Real GB") played them more like genuinely admirable good guys. The ghost threat was an ongoing permanent thing that had calmed down to a steady manageable business model for them. They were on the right side of the law. They weren't clumsily hitting on their female clients. They had a pet ghost. Etc. The tone was PG.
I could see the studio aiming for a bit younger demongraphic than the movies and doing a live-action version of the cartoon. They would sell a lot of merchandise all over again.
. . . and then a generation after that, I can just imagine some producer getting the bright idea to take that cartoonish hit concept and "re-imagine" it in a darker grittier reboot:
"Ghost-busting? Giant monsters attacking the city? We've all grown up with GB and taken it seriously. But looking at it as an adult now it's really kind of ridiculous. One the other hand, how cool might this be with a more adult tone? With a bunch of comedians doing it instead of action heroes?"
"Hey, wasn't there some early GB movie back in the day that was more grown-up? Seems like somebody told me that one time. They saw the original 20th-century GB movie and it wasn't what they expected at all. It was way darker than the GB we know. Sort of ahead-of-its time in a way."
The films were a bunch of 1970s SNL alums doing a smartass take on 1980s NYC and generally being in-over-their-heads. The were 13yo kids left home unsupervised and found their 16yo brother's firework collection. You knew this wasn't going to end well but it would probably be funny & entertaining until TSHTF. The tone was PG-13ish even if the content didn't technically rate that rough.
The cartoon ("The Real GB") played them more like genuinely admirable good guys. The ghost threat was an ongoing permanent thing that had calmed down to a steady manageable business model for them. They were on the right side of the law. They weren't clumsily hitting on their female clients. They had a pet ghost. Etc. The tone was PG.
I could see the studio aiming for a bit younger demongraphic than the movies and doing a live-action version of the cartoon. They would sell a lot of merchandise all over again.
. . . and then a generation after that, I can just imagine some producer getting the bright idea to take that cartoonish hit concept and "re-imagine" it in a darker grittier reboot:
"Ghost-busting? Giant monsters attacking the city? We've all grown up with GB and taken it seriously. But looking at it as an adult now it's really kind of ridiculous. One the other hand, how cool might this be with a more adult tone? With a bunch of comedians doing it instead of action heroes?"
"Hey, wasn't there some early GB movie back in the day that was more grown-up? Seems like somebody told me that one time. They saw the original 20th-century GB movie and it wasn't what they expected at all. It was way darker than the GB we know. Sort of ahead-of-its time in a way."
Solo4114
Master Member
So, offering another perspective, just as anecdotal information, my assistant at work is pretty excited about this film, mostly because of the cast whom she thinks is doing some really awesome stuff in comedy these days (she pays pretty close attention to comedy, especially folks from improv backgrounds).
I'm also realizing, after talking with her, that I really don't...watch comedic films these days. Like, at all. I don't watch male driven ones, I don't watch female driven ones. I just tend to avoid comedy altogether, for the most part. Occasionally I catch something, and while in some limited cases I find it really funny (e.g. Tropic Thunder), in most cases I find it to be...pretty unfunny except in very small vignettes. Like, there are funny quotes or scenes, but as a film, the thing is utterly unengaging and I struggle to stay focused on it instead of surfing my phone.
I think this has been due to several factors:
1. The trailers for most comedies are aimed at......not me. Melissa McCarthy may be an absolute riot, but to be perfectly honest, her film trailers make her look obnoxious. The oafish fat schtick is as old as the hills, and appeals to me exactly zero percent. Will Ferrel Will-Ferrelling on screen is old hat, too, for that matter.
2. The style of comedy that's been popular for, like, the last 15 years has been a weird mix of elements that generally don't appeal to me. There was the gross-out comedy phase of the late-90s/early-00s. Not my thing, given the mean-spirited quality of those films. There's been the vignette-oriented/large-scale-SNL thing of recent years (e.g. Anchorman). Funny in very small doses, not funny as a film. Give me a web video series instead, and let's not delude ourselves that any of this stuff has any kind of narrative cohesion. There's been the manchild thing (e.g. Judd Apatow films). Funny once or twice. Not funny as a genre unto itself. For that matter, I go back and forth on those films, given that they so often play on the painful awkwardness inherent in many of the scenarios. I've never liked awkwardness-based comedy. And there's been the stoner comedy stuff (e.g. Your Highness, most Seth Rogen films, etc.). I don't smoke weed, myself, so this is utterly lost on me and totally unfunny when you watch it sober.
3. The actors themselves have become negative-brands for me. By that, I mean that I just assume that they're doing their usual thing (from #2 above), which doesn't appeal to me, so I skip it. I then end up missing what turns out to be a really funny or pleasant film (e.g. School of Rock, Tropic Thunder, Forgetting Sarah Marshall).
As a result...I'm really just not that into modern comedies, I think. The only exceptions to this have been the Cornetto Trilogy from Edgar Wright, because (A) the films play on genres I already love, (B) the films themselves are less straight-up comedies and more comedic versions of genre films, and (C) the films have true narrative cohesion. It's really rare that I find that nowadays in other comedies. Maybe I do need to check out Feig's body of work to see what he's doing. Maybe he's doing the kind of thing I'm interested in, and maybe it'll end up being entertaining in this new ghostbusters project. It won't be a true Ghostbusters movie to me, the way JJ Trek wasn't a true Star Trek movie to me, but it might still be reasonably entertaining as its own thing.
And ultimately, I suspect it's that general "I dunno. Maybe it'll be good on its own" that will allow this film to be a success.
The thing is, for that to happen, it's gonna have to really stand on its own. And the self-referential bits and studio mucking about in the construction of this film...those do not inspire me with great confidence. Not to mention Feig's own sort of "Eh, I guess I can do this..." attitude, rather than enthusiastic commitment to the project.
I'm also realizing, after talking with her, that I really don't...watch comedic films these days. Like, at all. I don't watch male driven ones, I don't watch female driven ones. I just tend to avoid comedy altogether, for the most part. Occasionally I catch something, and while in some limited cases I find it really funny (e.g. Tropic Thunder), in most cases I find it to be...pretty unfunny except in very small vignettes. Like, there are funny quotes or scenes, but as a film, the thing is utterly unengaging and I struggle to stay focused on it instead of surfing my phone.
I think this has been due to several factors:
1. The trailers for most comedies are aimed at......not me. Melissa McCarthy may be an absolute riot, but to be perfectly honest, her film trailers make her look obnoxious. The oafish fat schtick is as old as the hills, and appeals to me exactly zero percent. Will Ferrel Will-Ferrelling on screen is old hat, too, for that matter.
2. The style of comedy that's been popular for, like, the last 15 years has been a weird mix of elements that generally don't appeal to me. There was the gross-out comedy phase of the late-90s/early-00s. Not my thing, given the mean-spirited quality of those films. There's been the vignette-oriented/large-scale-SNL thing of recent years (e.g. Anchorman). Funny in very small doses, not funny as a film. Give me a web video series instead, and let's not delude ourselves that any of this stuff has any kind of narrative cohesion. There's been the manchild thing (e.g. Judd Apatow films). Funny once or twice. Not funny as a genre unto itself. For that matter, I go back and forth on those films, given that they so often play on the painful awkwardness inherent in many of the scenarios. I've never liked awkwardness-based comedy. And there's been the stoner comedy stuff (e.g. Your Highness, most Seth Rogen films, etc.). I don't smoke weed, myself, so this is utterly lost on me and totally unfunny when you watch it sober.
3. The actors themselves have become negative-brands for me. By that, I mean that I just assume that they're doing their usual thing (from #2 above), which doesn't appeal to me, so I skip it. I then end up missing what turns out to be a really funny or pleasant film (e.g. School of Rock, Tropic Thunder, Forgetting Sarah Marshall).
As a result...I'm really just not that into modern comedies, I think. The only exceptions to this have been the Cornetto Trilogy from Edgar Wright, because (A) the films play on genres I already love, (B) the films themselves are less straight-up comedies and more comedic versions of genre films, and (C) the films have true narrative cohesion. It's really rare that I find that nowadays in other comedies. Maybe I do need to check out Feig's body of work to see what he's doing. Maybe he's doing the kind of thing I'm interested in, and maybe it'll end up being entertaining in this new ghostbusters project. It won't be a true Ghostbusters movie to me, the way JJ Trek wasn't a true Star Trek movie to me, but it might still be reasonably entertaining as its own thing.
And ultimately, I suspect it's that general "I dunno. Maybe it'll be good on its own" that will allow this film to be a success.
The thing is, for that to happen, it's gonna have to really stand on its own. And the self-referential bits and studio mucking about in the construction of this film...those do not inspire me with great confidence. Not to mention Feig's own sort of "Eh, I guess I can do this..." attitude, rather than enthusiastic commitment to the project.
I agree with a whole lot of that. Most modern comedies are so blunt-force-trauma that it's difficult to get excited about them. Investing $15 and 1.5 hours straight just doesn't seem worth it most of the time.
As for Feig's excitement & respect for GB:
All I have to say is "JJ Abrams doing Star Wars." <--- that is what I call RESPECTING the source material and being EXCITED about doing it.
SW and GB are in very different situations today but you get the point. Imagine what JJA might have done if he had been put in charge of "rebooting & updating" the Star Wars OT. I don't think it would resemble Feig's attitude towards GB at all.
I don't think Feig gives a crap about the old GB beyond what it can do for him now. If Feig had been working on his own project about vampires when the studio put him in charge of GB then we would probably be getting blood-drinking GBs.
As for Feig's excitement & respect for GB:
All I have to say is "JJ Abrams doing Star Wars." <--- that is what I call RESPECTING the source material and being EXCITED about doing it.
SW and GB are in very different situations today but you get the point. Imagine what JJA might have done if he had been put in charge of "rebooting & updating" the Star Wars OT. I don't think it would resemble Feig's attitude towards GB at all.
I don't think Feig gives a crap about the old GB beyond what it can do for him now. If Feig had been working on his own project about vampires when the studio put him in charge of GB then we would probably be getting blood-drinking GBs.
Last edited:
The thing is, it's not just you. I DO watch comedies. It's my favorite genre and always has been. The plain fact is, the comedy genre is in a HUGE dead period right now. Look at most lists of people ranking the top comedies of the last 10 years and you'll be lucky if even one is from after 2010 (and it will probably be Ted). Look at the top comedies ever and not a single one from after 2010 will make the list (unless Ted makes your top ever list. Doesn't make mine, but I could understand if it did).
They still make em. Recently I saw a new Vince Vaughn one I didn't hate. And an Adam Sandler comedy with kind of an original plot (The cobbler). Nothing to get in a tizzy over.
Tropic Thunder, Forgetting Sarah marshal, Superbad knocked up...those were 7 years ago. Wedding Crashers, 40 year old Virgin, Old school...you're looking at 10 years ago.
Ironically (considering this thread) probably the two I liked best in the last 5 years were Easy A and Duff...both female lead comedies.
Similar threads
