GHOSTBUSTERS Pre-Release - film discussion only, no social commentary please!

I thought Ghostbusters was a lot of fun and even enjoyed part 2. Maybe it's my age, 47, but for the life of me I can't fathom why people hold this "franchise" in such high regard as to spend countless hours arguing it's virtues or merit. It was an 80's comedy film. I feel the same way about Back to the Future. I could care less hay they do with this IP, if it is decent I would go see it. But this whole continuity stuff is really too much.

Click to expand...

The cartoon. You gotta factor in the old cartoon show.

It kept continuity with the first movie, picked up right after, and re-invented the GB to last. The characters kept their basic movie traits but they were shifted towards being more competent heroes. The ghost threat settled into a steady ongoing moderate issue for the city.

The writers branched out with a lot more creative types of ghosts. They dealt with other cryptid-type monsters, time travel & alternate dimension episodes, etc.



Here was the animated GBs, just getting back home from the first movie's ending battle. The uniforms are all tan. The white stuff is marshmallow glop still visible on them. Total continuity with the movie.

Bryancd said:

I thought Ghostbusters was a lot of fun and even enjoyed part 2. Maybe it's my age, 47, but for the life of me I can't fathom why people hold this "franchise" in such high regard as to spend countless hours arguing it's virtues or merit. It was an 80's comedy film. I feel the same way about Back to the Future. I could care less hay they do with this IP, if it is decent I would go see it. But this whole continuity stuff is really too much.

Click to expand...

in this case, its cause they threw EVERYTHING out. yest still kept the basic idea around.

simplest explanation...
If it wasn't sony doing it, it would be seen as a total rip off of the original movie rather than something set in the same universe.
and even with sony doing it ;o)...

i'm still wondering why they filmed the thing in b oston. big movie studio like sony could afford to shoot the smurfs in NY but not ghostbusters?

something fishy there..unless it really was supposed to be set in boston originally like rumors suggested.

stantz 84 deleted his account on reddit. just like how sony deleted the YT video of the kid who supposedly saw three cuts of the trailer..
hmm.....sure took them long enough to find it though.

Bryancd said:

I thought Ghostbusters was a lot of fun and even enjoyed part 2. Maybe it's my age, 47, but for the life of me I can't fathom why people hold this "franchise" in such high regard as to spend countless hours arguing it's virtues or merit. It was an 80's comedy film. I feel the same way about Back to the Future. I could care less hay they do with this IP, if it is decent I would go see it. But this whole continuity stuff is really too much.

Click to expand...

I think it's the sense of potential story for the films, and the fact that the first two movies offer an experience that (much like BTTF) is approachable both as a child and again as an adult. I'm by no means a Ghostbusters superfan, but I do enjoy the original two films (although the 2nd one was much weaker). The thing I see in these films is potential for a wide-ranging, more interesting universe. It's that potential -- that wasted potential, I should say -- that has me bothered by the way this film was made. Also, the whole sausage-making process behind the scenes, as revealed in the Sony email leaks, basically is emblematic of much of what I think is wrong in Hollywood today and why we keep getting films that are financially decent performers but are utterly lacking in vision and basically just don't register as any kind of lasting entertainment. They're blips on the cultural radar that disappear almost immediately after surfacing.

Now, to be fair, this has always existed in some form or other in Hollywood, but the whole reboot craze is, to my way of thinking, considerably worse than the "That studio is making a [setting/subject matter] movie, so we should make one, too" trend that existed previously. The reason I see it as bad is because it basically consigns Hollywood and filmmaking to an endless retelling of the same stories over and over with only the slightest variations, rather than taking stories and expanding upon them.

I should also say that I personally never wanted another Ghostbusters film at all. The first two were fine, let's leave it at that. But because the filmmaking business is all about mining brands nowadays, you get what we have here: an apparently mediocre, also-ran film that will probably have decent financial success but otherwise remain utterly unremarkable.

NeilT said:

i'm still wondering why they filmed the thing in b oston. big movie studio like sony could afford to shoot the smurfs in NY but not ghostbusters?

something fishy there..unless it really was supposed to be set in boston originally like rumors suggested.

Click to expand...

Most likely due to some kind of tax breaks or other financial incentives to encourage the studio to make a movie there. This happens all the time now. It's good for the city or location in question. It acts as free advertising, it generates a ton of ancillary revenue and business for the area, and even if the city is disguised as somewhere else, it can still help boost tourism by creating locations that fans will visit in the future.

Solo4114 said:

Now, to be fair, this has always existed in some form or other in Hollywood, but the whole reboot craze is, to my way of thinking, considerably worse than the "That studio is making a [setting/subject matter] movie, so we should make one, too" trend that existed previously. The reason I see it as bad is because it basically consigns Hollywood and filmmaking to an endless retelling of the same stories over and over with only the slightest variations, rather than taking stories and expanding upon them.


Most likely due to some kind of tax breaks or other financial incentives to encourage the studio to make a movie there. This happens all the time now. It's good for the city or location in question. It acts as free advertising, it generates a ton of ancillary revenue and business for the area, and even if the city is disguised as somewhere else, it can still help boost tourism by creating locations that fans will visit in the future.

Click to expand...

thefirst part :

that's why i'm tired on the turtles franchise today. nick Turtles throwbacks, we've seen it all before. it's hard to get excited for the same thing a fourth time in a row, especially when 4kids did the ultimate version of it, being fans of everything and not just mirage turtles like the new nick guys are. whenyou are forced to put something into your project that you're not a fan of, the end result isn't good. Look at how peter laird treated the 80s turtles in Turtles forever. He created the damn franchise, yet isn't a fan of the 80s turtles...but loves things like the Technodrome.. that's why the 80s turtles where turned into cry babies and pranksters and yet they got the 80s bad guys personalities down perfectly. go figure.

with the new bay turtles movies, bebop, rocksteady, and baxter never left my consciousness, because I never stopped watching the old stuff. therefore, I can't get excited about seeing a in name only version of them on the big screen. it's not the characters I grew up with, so I can't get into it.

that's why I like the IDW version of turtles best out of the other two. They keep things the same. only changing where it SHOULD be changed (making angel an adult rather than an annoying trying to be adult kid). they also give you enough new to make it worthwhile. The Turtles being re incarnated humans. hun being Casey's FATHER instead of killing his father is especially twisted. Apolex is a cool new character. as are the new mutants on Shredders side. the only one kind of wasted is Karai.

That, too me at least, is how you reboot something. keep enough of the old to give it a 'wow, new stuff with old stuff' factor...but go 180% on the new. I can't tell you how big a smile I got seeing Agent Bishop interact with two one shot 80s series characters reinvented.


With Ghostbusters, they did it all wrong at the start, by having people in control of it, who don't care about it. amy pascal and paul feig destroyed dan's idea forever. and as has been brought up with the EXCELLENT syndicated version of the animated series...it has SOOO much potential to be a fun series. all ruined thanks to bill murray being an ass..


As for Boston...I noticed that even people online can tell it's boston. one city can't look like New York no matter how you try ;o)...

something that isn't an endless circle of discussion ;o)....

Apparently stantz84 deleted his reddit account and all the supposed story spoilers along with it. Either sony doesn't browse reddit and it took someone this long to find it...
Or they left it up there a while to gauge the reaction..


If it was real, I'd bet a little more on the latter.

Meh~it looks like an episode of that GB show from the mid 90's Extreme Ghostbusters was it? I dunno if it's going to be horrible but it just looks forgettable :unsure

you know the other thing I find weird about this movies casting choices?

only one of the women is the same age of the original ghostbusters from the 84 movie. the rest are approaching 50.
Not that they look anything close to 50... but if you are casting what should be a kids movie, and hoping to spin it off into an animated series like the original...
it's just another in long line of odd casting choices and things about this movie that don't make sense. if they do make it to a part three, they'd probably be approaching 70.


heh, I've been trying to plod through more of spy this week. Istill havn't found one likeable guy in that whole movie...even among the ones feig doesn't kill off violently.
I also popped in a little of Peanuts. I think I finally figured out why it attracted feig, considering the main star is a guy. it's a guy he can trash constantly throughout the movie, and the audience expects it to happen. perfect feig material when you think of it.

I think lead-actor ages have been climbing all over Hollywood during the last 20-30 years.

Age of the cast is completely irrelevant. Plenty of valid things to complain about but that's a hell of a stretch man.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

Bryancd said:

I thought Ghostbusters was a lot of fun and even enjoyed part 2. Maybe it's my age, 47, but for the life of me I can't fathom why people hold this "franchise" in such high regard as to spend countless hours arguing it's virtues or merit. It was an 80's comedy film. I feel the same way about Back to the Future. I could care less hay they do with this IP, if it is decent I would go see it. But this whole continuity stuff is really too much.

Click to expand...

That's a hell of a troll post. Usually I agree with you on things but man, does that show a complete lack of understanding if serious.

Star wars was just a 70's sci-fi flick. Indiana Jones was just an 80's adventure movie...

Just 'cause it isn't what you're personally passionate about doesn't make another person's passion any less valid. The original GB and BTTF are brilliantly executed films that were incredibly fresh when they came out and stood as pillars of that era.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

Michael Bergeron said:

That's a hell of a troll post. Usually I agree with you on things but man, does that show a complete lack of understanding if serious.

Star wars was just a 70's sci-fi flick. Indiana Jones was just an 80's adventure movie...

Just 'cause it isn't what you're personally passionate about doesn't make another person's passion any less valid. The original GB and BTTF are brilliantly executed films that were incredibly fresh when they came out and stood as pillars of that era.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

No, I wasn't trying to stir things up like that and I appreciate how good the 2 films were, I'm just saying as someone who was in their mid teens when these films came out they certainly didn't have the same cultural impact that SW or Indiana Jones did in the years prior. It's not Apples to apples to compare those two film franchises impact relative to two GB films that were considered good comedies. They never generated the merchandise or ancillary material volume that can really create a franchise fandom. I'm not saying people shouldn't be fans and cosplay and collect props.

batguy said:

I think lead-actor ages have been climbing all over Hollywood during the last 20-30 years.

Click to expand...

funny you should mention this. heard I think a clip on ellen stating that this is the oldest batman ever cast. maybe hollywood is finally veering away from casting only 20 somethings in big roles.

Not saying older is bad...usually they cast far far younger. If this thing somehow does manage to catch on to sequels..you want to stretch the cast out as far as possible.
I just noticed the mean age of the main cast when someone pointed it out...

not a complaint, just something odd noticed. especially when I see folks complaining that they don't want to see the OLD old GB's return.


heh, speaking of odd rumors.... saw on the nets that sony of japan would consider not releasing this to safe face. Highly doubtful, but it would be nice ;o).

Bryancd said:

They never generated the merchandise or ancillary material volume that can really create a franchise fandom.

Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Several highly rated cartoon spinoffs airing with massive toy ranges that would make any Indy fan jealous. I remember my brothers and I getting the Firehouse one Christmas. The RGB toys were as big as Ninja Turtles and those were HUGE.

Amongst kids in the mid-late 80's this was bigger than Indy and even Star Wars.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

Michael Bergeron said:

You're kidding right? Several highly rated cartoon spinoffs airing with massive toy ranges that would make any Indy fan jealous. I remember my brothers and I getting the Firehouse one Christmas. The RGB toys were as big as Ninja Turtles and those were HUGE.

Amongst kids in the mid-late 80's this was bigger than Indy and even Star Wars.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

But it lacked longevity in pop culture. I'm just looking at this purely from an analytic sense.

Bryancd said:

But it lacked longevity in pop culture. I'm just looking at this purely from an analytic sense.

Click to expand...

It lasted long enough to be in newer tv shows....Last Man On Earth had a goofy little scene singing the them song in the first episode ;o).


The PKE Meter also wound up in a hulk hogan movie starring christopher lloyd.

Suburban Commando? A childhood turkey I remember fondly

Bryancd said:

But it lacked longevity in pop culture. I'm just looking at this purely from an analytic sense.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, Ghostbusters properties were on TV with new episodes until 1997 and on syndication on cartoon networks well into the 2000's. Only reason I know this is that my kids discovered Ghostbusters on TV before I ever introduced them to it, and that wasn't long ago. Also, since GB first came out there has been at least one new video game for every console generation, usually more in addition to collectables and toys available the whole time. I'll add that in all these iterations the original continuity has been maintained.

All this is to say, it's FAR more than "just an 80's comedy" and I believe that fans have every justification in treating it as the franchise it is.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

funny you should mention this. heard I think a clip on ellen stating that this is the oldest batman ever cast. maybe hollywood is finally veering away from casting only 20 somethings in big roles.

Not saying older is bad...usually they cast far far younger. If this thing somehow does manage to catch on to sequels..you want to stretch the cast out as far as possible.
I just noticed the mean age of the main cast when someone pointed it out...

not a complaint, just something odd noticed. especially when I see folks complaining that they don't want to see the OLD old GB's return.

Click to expand...

I don't think the character ages are going up, though. Just the actors playing them.

Modern actors look younger than ever. Strict diet & exercise, cosmetic surgery, CGI touch-ups in the footage, some men are using steroids, etc. Now everyone is playing 10+ years down from their real age.

heh, speaking of odd rumors.... saw on the nets that sony of japan would consider not releasing this to safe face. Highly doubtful, but it would be nice ;o).

Click to expand...

It's weird. This movie looks bad but I don't think it looks bad enough to justify the negative press. I don't recall anyone talking about not releasing the recent Fantastic-4 movie, which was probably worse.

I don't think it's even protestations about the female cast issue. Sometimes public reactions take on a life of their own (disliking boy-bands far beyond how much they really deserve to be bashed, etc). This GB reboot just seems to have a great big dark storm cloud over it. Probably a combination of reasons.

crabra comander said:

Suburban Commando? A childhood turkey I remember fondly

Click to expand...

I love that movie. it's cheesy, but it tries to be logical in it's own cheese and doesn't forget to have fun at the same time. it looks like people are having fun doing it too..



Uh oh...
couldn't happen to a 'nicer' company. hopefully if ghostbusters tanks, maybe they'd think of selling back FF4 and spiderman to recoup ;o).

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/sony-lay-offs-marketing-distribution-1201737700/