Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Riceball said:

Not a very valid argument there, Jeyl, considering that everything you listed is a pre-existing IP that was adapted or is being adapted for the big screen. I'd wager that the current MCU would have collapsed and never have gotten the success that it's gotten if they were to have gender bended some or all of the roles and changed any number of the male characters into female.

Click to expand...

That was not the point of my argument. renaissance_man stated "the 80s where films tended to lean towards male leads/heroes" and I made a list of the most popular and successful leads/heroes franchise right now to show that nothing has really changed. And where the devil did you get the impression that I was making the argument that they should have gender swapped the characters? There already exists female equivalents to the male heroes. Not replacements or reboots, but characters that share similair traits.

Iron Man -> Rescue
Pepper Potts dawns an Iron Man suit specifically designed for her. Her deeds in the suit play out much differently than Tony because of how different a character she is. She wasn't given a last minute plot change so that she can randomly kill the villain when it was totally unneeded.

The Incredible Hulk -> She-Hulk
A pretty popular character who embodies the strength of the Hulk but not the insane monstrous behavior. The image of an green and extremely buff lawyer who simply just wants to stick to her day job would be a neat character to follow.

Thor -> Sif/Lady Thor
Sif was already a charismatic character who was fun to watch in both the Thor movies and her appearance in Agents of SHIELD. Lady Thor has also been a unique spin on the tale with a goddess like character who speaks the way Asgardians do on the outside, but modern english on the inside. It's like she's two different characters and doesn't realize it. And despite being honored with the name Thor, she is not a gender swapped version of Thor given that the original Thor character still exists.

Spider-Man -> Spider-Woman/Girl
A lot of variations on this one. We have Spider-Girl who is Peter Parker's daughter, one who is Gwen Stacy with the cool white hoody design, Spider-Woman who is not solely related to Spider-Man himself.

See? There's a lot of female characters who embody the familiar traits that most of the general audiences know about yet still remain unique characters. They don't replace their male counter parts, they co-exist alongside them. That's a lot more than what this Ghostbusters movie is doing. And this list doesn't even cover the female character who don't even have male counter parts. There's Captain Marvel, Moondragon, Phyla-Vell, Squirrel Girl. Lots of options to play around with.

Riceball said:

While there haven't been that many female dominated action movies since the '80s I'd argue that there have been more movies centered around or featuring strong women in their cast. Of course, lately Hollywood has been reboot/remake and sequel happy and many of those properties don't feature women and so they try not to screw with things too much more by gender bending the roles.

Click to expand...

Yes, you could argue that there have been more movies centered around and/or featuring strong women, it's just not a very good one considering the over abundance of male lead films and the arguments against having an all-female Ghostbusters team. Because if you honestly believed that, this new Ghostbusters movie shouldn't be bugging you in the slightest, because that's what we're getting. A movie that's more centered around women. But since you can't argue anything against this move without coming off as incredibly sexist, we're resorting to arguments like gimmicks and exploitation. Why is the argument against gimmicks so prevalent when there are far more important details than can make or break a movie like this? Of all the movies I've ever seen, I can't think of one that was terrible solely because something about it was a gimmick. It's not a good argument to make period because it doesn't say anything about the quality of the end film.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

To be honest every idea I have heard Dan Akryoyd give for the 3rd film sounded universally terrible,

And considering the steaming pile the 2nd film was, having some else come up with the ideas might not be a bad thing.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

NeilT said:

How this guy got involved and suddenly took control of everything away from them, along with sony is the big mystery.

Click to expand...

Not as big a mystery as you think.

Ivan Reitman said:

“I am very involved. I’m a producer of the film. I wasn’t giving it all up. I suddenly felt that ‘Ghostbusters’ didn’t necessarily need me as a director, at least I didn’t need to direct ‘Ghostbusters,’ let me put it that way. Having done the other two and with the passing of Harold and with Bill Murray seeming disinterested in being in it, I thought it was better for me just to produce it and to make sure we’re going to have the quality and style of what is appropriate for another version of that film. But the franchise could benefit from somebody else’s point of view. I’ve done it twice before and it will be great to get somebody else to lend a hand as well.”

Click to expand...

And Dan Akroyd?

“The Aykroyd family is delighted by this inheritance of the Ghostbusters torch by these most magnificent women in comedy. My great grandfather, Dr. Sam Aykroyd, the original Ghostbuster, was a man who empowered women in his day, and this is a beautiful development in the legacy of our family business.”

Click to expand...

So that's two major Ghostbusters players giving their blessing to the new film. Still think it's a mystery? We can't ask Hardold Ramis what he thinks because he's no longer with us. And burying any franchise or intellectual property simply because the creator passed away is one of the stupidest things you can do.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Jeyl said:

So that's two major Ghostbusters players giving their blessing to the new film. Still think it's a mystery? We can't ask Hardold Ramis what he thinks because he's no longer with us. And burying any franchise or intellectual property simply because the creator passed away is one of the stupidest things you can do.

Click to expand...

last I heard Ivan Reitman pulled out. probably around the time this whole reboot crap started up. I think that was an old quote from him.

As for Dan Aykroyd, you can't tell me he's not annoyed by having this thing taken completely out of his hands. What else do you expect him to say? He's been trying to get 3 started up for so long as his primary mission in life.... and thanks to bill murray mostly, it never happened. Hell, in those leaked documents even sony stated they where thinking of suing murray to get him to comply. As for Ernie Hudson, at least he was brave enough to state 'no comment'...and only recanted a few days later. most probably because Sony said 'get on board or you'll never work for us again...' they either said the same thing to dan, or dan is just playing nice because ghostbusters is his baby and he just might be happy to see anything go forward at this point

About the only thing I've heard dan say that was for sure his own free will was that he'd love to see women ghostbusters. and anyone who doesn't belongs back in the 40s.

As for ghostbusters 3 ideas being terrible.. all we've seen are xcerpts from ghostbusters in hell. and the characterizations described (goth and punk like teens being the new ghostbusters) DOES sound terrible. but, that's where you had Harold ramis and probably a lesser extent, Ivan Reitman, come in to ground Dan's ideas down to reality so a more wide berth of the audience could relate. remember the original ghostbusters idea also had aliens in it (If I'M remembering right!)

-edit for the most part, I actually liked part two. expanding on the slime was a great expansion of the universe.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Jeyl said:

So that's two major Ghostbusters players giving their blessing to the new film. Still think it's a mystery? We can't ask Hardold Ramis what he thinks because he's no longer with us. And burying any franchise or intellectual property simply because the creator passed away is one of the stupidest things you can do.

Click to expand...

You should know by now that few people in Hollywood ever truly speak their minds, all you have to do is watch any press junket to hear all the praise about how good so and so was to work with, how big a pleasure or honor it was to work on the movie, blah, blah only to hear rumors about how much they really hated it. Case in point, ST 1 - VI, it's a pretty well established and known fact that aside from Nimoy & DeForest most everyone in the main cast never liked Shatner yet in all of the interviews that came out when the movies were released there was nothing but praise for Shatner, including from arguably his most vocal critic, George Takei. The fastest way to find yourself blacklisted and out of work in Hollywood, or pretty much any industry, is to publicly bad mouth others, esp. when it goes against the grain of the narrative that the studio wants.

Personally, I have no problem with either the new movie being a reboot or having an all female cast, what I do have a problem with is the women that they cast for this movie and the direction that this cast suggests the movie will go in. If they're dead set on the reboot, all female cast route I would have much preferred a better cast of truly funny women that can act, of which there are many out there just none that are big names like Melissa McCarthy.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Riceball said:

You should know by now that few people in Hollywood ever truly speak their minds, all you have to do is watch any press junket to hear all the praise about how good so and so was to work with, how big a pleasure or honor it was to work on the movie, blah, blah only to hear rumors about how much they really hated it. Case in point, ST 1 - VI, it's a pretty well established and known fact that aside from Nimoy & DeForest most everyone in the main cast never liked Shatner yet in all of the interviews that came out when the movies were released there was nothing but praise for Shatner, including from arguably his most vocal critic, George Takei. The fastest way to find yourself blacklisted and out of work in Hollywood, or pretty much any industry, is to publicly bad mouth others, esp. when it goes against the grain of the narrative that the studio wants.

Click to expand...

Here's the difference though. When William Shatner got his way, the films suffered. All the films have stories about him arguing over one thing and another. One of my favorite examples was when he pushed to have George Takei's role in ST VI cut down, it created a pretty big plot hole. I have yet to hear any news or rumors of Paul Feig being unreasonable to work with. He seems to be the kind of guy who really respects the talent in his movies whether they be the behind the scenes or the actors. For crying out loud, they keep working with him! I'd be happy if he took over filming duties for one of my IPs.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

renaissance_man said:

Even worse, it was actually THREE GUYS Sam, Ben and Sock.:devil

Click to expand...

Well, Ben was always more of a third wheel, it was mostly about Sam and Sock. Plus, they did have Andi, who was in the same vein as Ben so I didn't include them.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Jeyl said:

Here's the difference though. When William Shatner got his way, the films suffered. All the films have stories about him arguing over one thing and another. One of my favorite examples was when he pushed to have George Takei's role in ST VI cut down, it created a pretty big plot hole. I have yet to hear any news or rumors of Paul Feig being unreasonable to work with. He seems to be the kind of guy who really respects the talent in his movies whether they be the behind the scenes or the actors. For crying out loud, they keep working with him! I'd be happy if he took over filming duties for one of my IPs.

Click to expand...

you seem to be doing everything you can to have us think that this is a good idea. I applaud you for your creativity at least. but you missed the point.

this wasn't about william shatner getting his way. this was about cast members lying about loving shatner when they secretly hated him behind the scenes.

for all we know, Paul Feig is a GREAT guy. Mellisa McCarthy is a doll to be around...and all that. but, based on the characters they've PLAYED, and the history they have with the DIRECTOR, and all we've heard coming out....SO FAR...NOTHING has convinced us that this will be a good idea.

And they could have stopped alot of it simply by saying 'We are going to keep the fire house. we are going to keep the old packs and add new updated packs to the mix. we are going to keep the car.' No, they did none of that. they said 'we are reworking EVERYTHING and the only thing that is staying the same is the name.'

It's as simple a matter as that.

if people still don't get that, then there is no helping them. no matter the angle they wish to sell it on. especially with alot of your posts where it seems you are more interested in the idea of women ghostbusters than the actual idea of ghostbusters themselves and the universe and ideas they inhabit that so many men AND women still love to this day and don't want to see replaced...

alot of this also could also have been avoided if they just started a whole new paranormal comedy idea. but they didn't.. because executives are dumb and lazy and un creative people in general.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

NeilT said:

they said 'we are reworking EVERYTHING and the only thing that is staying the same is the name.'

Click to expand...

That's some accusation. Care to share us a link to an actual interview where anyone involved in the making of this new movie says that it will be Ghostbusters in name only? And simply saying 'reboot' does not count. Having nothing to do with the source material outside of using the name is not the definition of a reboot.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Jeyl said:

That's some accusation. Care to share us a link to an actual interview where anyone involved in the making of this new movie says that it will be Ghostbusters in name only? And simply saying 'reboot' does not count. Having nothing to do with the source material outside of using the name is not the definition of a reboot.

Click to expand...

I'll see if I can find it. If I remember right, it was in the multitude of leaked documents, along where paul feig had notes about his proposed plot for the movie.. about the only thing they said they want to keep is keeping he film in NY because 'the city is as much a character in it as the ghostbusters'

edit - and if someone beats me to the punch, PLEASE post it.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Jeyl said:

That's some accusation. Care to share us a link to an actual interview where anyone involved in the making of this new movie says that it will be Ghostbusters in name only? And simply saying 'reboot' does not count. Having nothing to do with the source material outside of using the name is not the definition of a reboot.

Click to expand...

Does this work?

http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/paul-feig-has-a-vision-for-his-ghostbusters.html

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I'm quite looking forward to it..

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Edraven99 said:

Does this work?

http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/paul-feig-has-a-vision-for-his-ghostbusters.html

Click to expand...

http://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-3-hard-reboot-scary-paul-feig/

yeah, that was a start, this one also works....So basically no ambulance. No proton pack as we've come to know it. If they are working for the government there's probably no jumpsuit either. and the fire house is most likely out. (probably some bland government building made to resemble the firehouse as a 'cute nod') and even if they even had some of that, the idea would STILL suck, because of how it all got started. The Arrogance of Paul Feig saying 'You know, I really love working with funny women, so why not go with that?' So, instead of, lets just let this thing develop naturally...instead i's, lets slant it from the start to go along with the reboot. especially when he KNOWS the majority of fans are going to hate the idea of a reboot. but the idea of a reboot WITHOUT Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston? Oh, let the poop filled bags land on doorsteps .

and you're right. this thing shouldn't even be called a reboot. it needs a new term because it doesn't follow the typical reboot formula.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Edraven99 said:

Does this work?

http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/paul-feig-has-a-vision-for-his-ghostbusters.html

Click to expand...

Ok, let's take a look here.

"scarier and more hi-tech" than the original Ghostbusters: The villain will be a convicted murderer, ideally played by Peter Dinklage, who turns into a ghost after his execution is hit by "a supercharged electrical storm." This gives him the power to raise an army of other ghosts, which could be made up of famous villains throughout history. It's like Night at the Museum! These ghosts will in turn have to be busted by "four very different women" who have to "figure out in funny, scary and action-packed ways how to save New York City and the world."

Click to expand...

Things that this new Ghostbusters movie will have in common with the original.

Set in New York? √
High-tech equipment? √
Team comprises of four members? √
Introducing Ghosts to a world that has not seen them before? √
Ghosts brought upon by an evil person? √
Saving the world? √
Funny, scary and with action? √

If this new Ghostbusters movie was going to be Ghostbusters in name only, none of these points would have been in the interview. They're taking Ghostbusters and doing something different with it. Shouldn't that be the general direction for any follow-up movie at least? Not even Ghostbusters 2 did enough to differentiate itself from the first movie to make it stand out on it's own.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

but if you're trying to introduce a new audience to the world of Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston....changing EVERYTHING but the basics is not ghostbusters. any other paranormal movie could use that same critera, so they might as well just call it 'the four funny females who bust ghosts' movie

No Ecto 1 hearse? Not ghostbusters. No Firehouse or Slimer? Not ghostbusters. No jumpsuits? Not Ghostbusters. Proton Packs that look so different they might as well be something else? Nope...not buying it. Turning Janine into Bob from account temps for the token male character? Not Ghostbusters. No Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston? Sure as hell fire not Ghostbusters....AT LEAST if it was a proper sequel, you have them train the new team and then keep them on for support in the sequel.


might as well be this universe. also just as bad.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

NeilT said:

but if you're trying to introduce a new audience to the world of Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston....changing EVERYTHING but the basics is not ghostbusters.

Click to expand...

The film was called "Ghostbusters", not "The world of Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston". This is like complaining that the Daniel Craig Bond movies are a poor way to introduce new movie goers to the Roger Moore Bond movies. No freaking duh.

The original 1984 "Ghostbusters" movie is a classic gem that deserves to be in the lists of the most important films ever made. Nothing will change that even if this movie turns out. Ghostbusters as a brand is something I deeply miss. I mean, if you gave a kid a proton pack, are they going to play as a specific character from the film, or be a Ghostbuster? I know if I ever suit up as a Ghostbuster, the red letters are going to read Ted.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I think that you both have valid points...

A reboot does not have to be 100% faithful to the source material, otherwise you might as well make a shot for shot remake...

However, there are certain elements that are intrinsically associated with a franchise or a character, that if they're enough of them missing, you might as well be just slapping a name on a movie just for the brand recognition.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Jeyl said:

The film was called "Ghostbusters", not "The world of Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston". This is like complaining that the Daniel Craig Bond movies are a poor way to introduce new movie goers to the Roger Moore Bond movies. No freaking duh.
.

Click to expand...

I had to laugh at this for personal reasons. a person I loosely know feels just as strongly about James Bond as I do about ghostbusters and Turtles.. Having never seen James Bond, I can't comment on this point. but he claims that they've changed james bond so much from the 60s, with the last few recent movies..it might as well be a totally different franchise with another character.

Even though the film may be called Ghostbusters, Peter, Ray, Egon and winston are the ONLY ones people care about at this point. There hasn't been an expansion of the property enough to find out if people will care for anyone else in that universe WITHOUT the four main guys present. It worked for star wars, doesn't mean it'll work for ghostbusters. and mostly because the actors who played those guys have such a strong presence in the last 3 decades of film and TV, they are imbedded in our memories with fine memories from 4-64.

IDW didn't reach a mainstream audience (especially considering the book got cancelled).....to figure out what people thought of the new characters introduced (only ones I cared for was Oritz and the Rookie)...And even WITH the four main guys present, it doesn't always work. Lots of people still don't care for Extreme Ghostbusters for one reason or another. You have to find the right mixture of characters to make it work.

And I agree with you. I hope they find some way to bring this brand back. but honestly, it shouldn't be that hard to do with a creative enough person.the video game writers proved that. I just don't think this current team has enough talent do that, especially after all I've heard from the director.. even if it was a straight on normal reboot with new guys playing the old characters.

I hope other people are finding this interesting heh...my head is starting to hurt keeping track

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Jeyl said:

The film was called "Ghostbusters", not "The world of Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston". This is like complaining that the Daniel Craig Bond movies are a poor way to introduce new movie goers to the Roger Moore Bond movies. No freaking duh.

The original 1984 "Ghostbusters" movie is a classic gem that deserves to be in the lists of the most important films ever made. Nothing will change that even if this movie turns out. Ghostbusters as a brand is something I deeply miss. I mean, if you gave a kid a proton pack, are they going to play as a specific character from the film, or be a Ghostbuster? I know if I ever suit up as a Ghostbuster, the red letters are going to read Ted.

Click to expand...

You inadvertently disprove your own point by using, as an example, a series where the character has remained the central character through SEVEN different actors.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

The whole idea of this remake is a bad joke. I'll gear up and hand out copies of the original on opening day. Ghostbusters is the perfect movie. It cannot be improved upon. A sequel could be fun. A remake...stupid and pointless.