Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Solo4114 said:

At this point, I think the best response is simply "Who cares?"

I mean, seriously, every bit of news coming out about this since they announced it's actually happening has been either neutral or bad. Given the direction it sounds like he thinks he's headed, I think this will be a total ****ing disaster of a film. It might as well not be called Ghostbusters at all.


I've gotta be honest here, I tend to think that it's basically impossible to do a 50/50 split of genuinely scary and genuinely funny. Hybrid horror-comedies only really work on a 25/75 split or vice versa.

Scream: 25% comedy, 75% horror
Scary Movie: 75% comedy, 25% horror.

Know which movie tried to do it 50/50?

Club Dread. And it honestly was...just not that great. It couldn't decide if it was funny or scary, and as a result, kinda whiffed it on both. It wasn't terrible, it just...wasn't that great. Moreover, it KILLED the success of the Broken Lizard guys, and coming off of Super Troopers, too, when they could seemingly do no wrong.


It sounds like Feig is going for that same kind of 50/50 split. The original had a few jump scares, but otherwise was straight-up comedy. Like, not even 25/75. More like 95% comedy, 5% scares.


I just think this is going to end up being complete garbage.......and in a weird way, I'm actually kind of excited to see just how bad things end up going. And the thing is, to do the movie he says he wants to do, he'd actually be better off not calling it "Ghostbusters," if only because (A) that sets up invidious comparisons, and (B) it tells people "This is gonna be a funny comedy, not anything really scary." Feig could do something like, say, Slither, and get the kind of vibe it sounds like he's going for. Comedic horror, basically. But Ghostbusters is not comedic horror. It's not even scary comedy. It's just comedy.

He should just go make his own ****ing movie and call it "Paul Feig's Spook Patrol" or something.

Click to expand...

You just said everything I'd hoped to articulate since the news broke that he was looking to make this a horror-comedy. Thanks you.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Honestly... I would really like to see them take a plot twist from the Real Ghostbusters cartoon and flesh it out on the big screen.... the episode when they had to fly to Paris and discovered that it was being infested with spirits, only to discover that the Eiffle Tower was actually just a big containment device that was breaking down and they had to fix it while fighting off the ghosts. Was a great idea and plot to say the least!

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Club Dread. And it honestly was...just not that great. It couldn't decide if it was funny or scary, and as a result, kinda whiffed it on both. It wasn't terrible, it just...wasn't that great. Moreover, it KILLED the success of the Broken Lizard guys, and coming off of Super Troopers, too, when they could seemingly do no wrong.

Click to expand...

The Dukes of Hazzard remake had a lot to do BL's loss of clout too. Warner Bros dumped more money into that show than they admitted and they were prepped for sequels.

The coastal blue state audience may never have realized it, but that remake was a seriously blown opportunity in the south & midwest rural markets. The fact that BL's version still performed tolerably at the box office was a testament to how much more successful a good Dukes remake would have been.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

It's such a shame that it has taken so very long for a new Ghostbusters film to come about. I wonder how long this flop will prevent a decent Ghostbusters film from ever seeing the light of day. Sigh. I wish they would have stopped with the video game. I think the video game is way better than this film could hope to be.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

MooCriket said:

It's such a shame that it has taken so very long for a new Ghostbusters film to come about. I wonder how long this flop will prevent a decent Ghostbusters film from ever seeing the light of day. Sigh. I wish they would have stopped with the video game. I think the video game is way better than this film could hope to be.

Click to expand...

This hits on one of my fears. If it flops, they'll say it is the franchise's fault. If it is successful, they'll say it is solely because they made the right creative decisions. Either way, the idea of a continuation (even with new blood) gets pushed aside.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

batguy said:

The Dukes of Hazzard remake had a lot to do BL's loss of clout too. Warner Bros dumped more money into that show than they admitted and they were prepped for sequels.

The coastal blue state audience may never have realized it, but that remake was a seriously blown opportunity in the south & midwest rural markets. The fact that BL's version still performed tolerably at the box office was a testament to how much more successful a good Dukes remake would have been.

Click to expand...

I swear to god, I had ZERO idea that Broken Lizard was behind that film. All I saw was Stiffler, Jessica Simpson grinding on a car, and Johnny Knoxville and figured "Pass." But I had no idea those guys were involved at all. That seems like a real misstep for them to take on such a project. While I think the brand name would've been successful in the south and midwest, I actually question whether anyone could really do a remake/reimagining of that film in such a way that it'd perform well. I lean towards "probably not." The Dukes of Hazzard seems to me to be a concept that's basically locked in stasis in the early 80s. It just doesn't translate well outside of that era.

MooCriket said:

It's such a shame that it has taken so very long for a new Ghostbusters film to come about. I wonder how long this flop will prevent a decent Ghostbusters film from ever seeing the light of day. Sigh. I wish they would have stopped with the video game. I think the video game is way better than this film could hope to be.

Click to expand...

monolith21 said:

This hits on one of my fears. If it flops, they'll say it is the franchise's fault. If it is successful, they'll say it is solely because they made the right creative decisions. Either way, the idea of a continuation (even with new blood) gets pushed aside.

Click to expand...

The game was terrific. I'm actually more bummed that we won't see any sequels to the game, because it was a TON of fun to play, and was actually pretty well made (even if Bill kinda phoned in hi lines). That said...I honestly don't think any film sequel was ever going to really do it right. At best, you'd get a Bill Murray cameo in a film featuring Dan and Ernie as corporate execs overseeing a franchise operation. That this was such an obvious plot, and yet nobody could actually seem to bring it to fruition...to me, that just tells me you're probably better off letting the franchise go.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I live in the south and trust me, no one here liked the Dukes movie.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Laspector said:

I live in the south and trust me, no one here liked the Dukes movie.

Click to expand...

I agree... I live in the south and the whole loving your car thing was way over pushed and Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg was a total and complete mistake. Willie was a great Uncle Jesse and Knoxville was a pretty good Luke, but I think Owen Wilson may have been a better Bo and Megan Fox would have been a much better Daisy. And you can't tell me that John Goodman wouldn't have killed it as Boss Hogg!

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Solo4114 said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh man, this is gonna be a trainwreck!!!!!



Maybe this will finally teach people to stop trying to re-do old films/IPs.

Click to expand...

well, I've said all I need to say on this thread. so, basically this guys grand, creative idea is to reboot the series is as follows.....
-reboot EVERYTHING. Keep nothing the same. (are they even going to keep the theme song, or are they going to have some no name rapper re record it to keep it 'modern?)
-Steal Plot lines from major movies and TV shows and claim it as inspiration (Night of the Museum, Walking Dead)
-**** off 95% of the fan base where just about EVERY post is filled with thousands of replies of hate within hours...
- Cast one of the most annoying women in hollywood in your movie (because that's all he seems to do) and make it an hour of fat jokes....(because that is all she seems to do)
-Give original actors a token producing credit so they don't bash the movie on twitter (why else would dan still say he wants to see a GB3 if he supports this movie so much?)

Am I missing anything?

That's like Remaking Popeye as a smart ace attorney who goes around beating people to a pulp once he finds out they are guilty of a crime, because that serial killer show Dexter inspired you.

Now I WANT this movie to be made just to see that it brings in only $500,000 and disgraces Sony even further. But, considering TMNT was a big hit of the summer....sigh. I don't trust audiences to be smart anymore.

in other news, those action figures are awesome. Screw Mattel. that's how it should be done.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I saw the trailer for "Spy" yesterday and while you really shouldnt' judge a film by trailer alone (Kingsman for example had an awful trailer, but was actually very entertaining) but if it was any indication of the direction Rebootbusters is heading this will indeed be a train wreck of epic proportions.

I also feel very conflicted this week... here I am absolutely hating this, but absolutely loving that Blomkamp might be ignoring Alien 3 and Resurrection in his take on the series...

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Solo4114 said:

I swear to god, I had ZERO idea that Broken Lizard was behind that film. All I saw was Stiffler, Jessica Simpson grinding on a car, and Johnny Knoxville and figured "Pass." But I had no idea those guys were involved at all. That seems like a real misstep for them to take on such a project. While I think the brand name would've been successful in the south and midwest, I actually question whether anyone could really do a remake/reimagining of that film in such a way that it'd perform well. I lean towards "probably not." The Dukes of Hazzard seems to me to be a concept that's basically locked in stasis in the early 80s. It just doesn't translate well outside of that era.
.

Click to expand...

I think there's also the element that some things are just better as a TV show. I don't recall any extended plot lines or anything on the show. Just drive around in the dirt for 30 minutes with 5 minutes of jokes and the obligatory country singer at the bar at the end. I think they could've started up the show again and done OK with it. But as a movie, I think it misses altogether. I can't think of anything in Dukes that said 'this would make a good movie'.

The more I read on the new GB (NGB) it seems like they're trying to push everything aside, do their own thing, but capitalize on just the name. That has all the earmarks of flop on release.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I would love to see Dan and Erine in an executive office working the phones while in strolls a disheveled Bill. He claimed loudly, "I'm here for my check.", picks it up off the desk, turns to the camera and gives the classic Bill smirk, walks out of the room and that's it. No more Bill.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

jcoffman99 said:

I would love to see Dan and Erine in an executive office working the phones while in strolls a disheveled Bill. He claimed loudly, "I'm here for my check.", picks it up off the desk, turns to the camera and gives the classic Bill smirk, walks out of the room and that's it. No more Bill.

Click to expand...

And then the movie ends abruptly before it can get into the crap Paul Feig thinks is Ghostbusters.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I swear to god, I had ZERO idea that Broken Lizard was behind that film. All I saw was Stiffler, Jessica Simpson grinding on a car, and Johnny Knoxville and figured "Pass." But I had no idea those guys were involved at all. That seems like a real misstep for them to take on such a project. While I think the brand name would've been successful in the south and midwest, I actually question whether anyone could really do a remake/reimagining of that film in such a way that it'd perform well. I lean towards "probably not." The Dukes of Hazzard seems to me to be a concept that's basically locked in stasis in the early 80s. It just doesn't translate well outside of that era.

Click to expand...

It wasn't very good. Maybe not as bad as its dismal critical reception, but it was a comedy that wasn't very funny. And of course it totally lacked the innocent warm mojo of the old TV show (big surprise). The recent Auto Trader commercials were a better Dukes throwback.

Broken Lizard basically took the Dukes IP and hung it on a movie that felt more like it belonged in the Smokey & the Bandit universe. It was PG-13 rated. Lots of gratuitous cussing.

This was probably the best scene in the movie. It's a car chase but it's also just one of the better-working scenes overall. And there were zero fake CGI effects in the car stunt work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JMyrVZpe7g

I think there's also the element that some things are just better as a TV show. I don't recall any extended plot lines or anything on the show. Just drive around in the dirt for 30 minutes with 5 minutes of jokes and the obligatory country singer at the bar at the end. I think they could've started up the show again and done OK with it. But as a movie, I think it misses altogether. I can't think of anything in Dukes that said 'this would make a good movie'.

Click to expand...

There was a good remake movie possible with Dukes. Maybe more than one. But only if they set it in the 1970s, and only if they took it a notch more seriously than the mainstream recalls Dukes feeling like.

The first little batch of Dukes TV episodes were actually more grounded & PG-13-ish than what it became later. Watch the opening credits - most of that footage does not look like the California G-rated mojo that Dukes had later.



Go back a few more decades and it's surprising how much truth there was in Dukes. Even the wilder elements like the ludicrous small-town corruption. Young guys running around in souped-up cars, delivering whiskey & racing on dirt ovals & windy gravel roads. Routinely running from the cops and actually getting away. Illegal moonshine being a big industry. Etc.

The whole thing was farfetched by the early 1980s. (And old muscle cars could never withstand being dropped 15-20 feet out of the air!) But the basic premise of Hazzard county was more plausible in the 1920s-1960s.



It's partly just a regional bias thing that makes Dukes impossible to remake well today.

I mean, the popularity & ratings of NASCAR racing rivals NFL football. When's the last time NASCAR was taken the slightest bit seriously by Hollywood? It's literally a huge sport involving billions of dollars and risking death. There's enough drama in there for a Moneyball or Any Given Sunday treatment. But it's still a Burt Reynolds joke to Hollywood. They still can't imagine doing it with a straight face even today.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

batguy said:

I mean, the popularity & ratings of NASCAR racing rivals NFL football. When's the last time NASCAR was taken the slightest bit seriously by Hollywood? It's literally a huge sport involving billions of dollars and risking death. There's enough drama in there for a Moneyball or Any Given Sunday treatment. But it's still a Burt Reynolds joke to Hollywood. They still can't imagine doing it with a straight face even today.

Click to expand...

Nascar is 50 or so cars going around in a circle where only the front 3 or 4 cars ever move out of position or gain ground. it's the US equivalent of Soccer. not much drama there.
Now, eliminate 3/4ths of the cars, make it 7, and THEN you've got a race worth watching with danger and drama.

as far as reboots go, I'm more worried about this inspector gadget reboot. the first season was pure spy comedy gold. take out gadget and leave only penny, and you have a great spy show. they havn't been able to replicate that simple formula since. especially with that stupid talking gadget mobile that takes up all the screen time.

I have a little more hope for the dangermouse reboot, but not much.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Nascar is 50 or so cars going around in a circle where only the front 3 or 4 cars ever move out of position or gain ground. it's the US equivalent of Soccer. not much drama there.
Now, eliminate 3/4ths of the cars, make it 7, and THEN you've got a race worth watching with danger and drama.

Click to expand...

They make serious movies about baseball all the time. That sport can be boring enough to make your brain bleed.

I'm not even a NASCAR fan. I couldn't take watching all that corporate sponsorship in my face all the time, never mind the racing. But its an example of the coastal culture bias in Hollywood. They make movies about open-wheel european racing periodically too, which IMO is at least as boring as NASCAR onscreen. The sheer money involved in NASCAR is more than enough to be justifying Hollywood's attention. It's been that way for a long time.

as far as reboots go, I'm more worried about this inspector gadget reboot. the first season was pure spy comedy gold. take out gadget and leave only penny, and you have a great spy show. they havn't been able to replicate that simple formula since. especially with that stupid talking gadget mobile that takes up all the screen time.

Click to expand...

Inspector gadget definitely falls under "way more likely to be done wrong than right." They'll probably never put Penny (and Brain) in the forefront of a movie like they did the cartoon. But IG himself wasn't really main-character material. So the characters will probably get changed.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

batguy said:

There was a good remake movie possible with Dukes. Maybe more than one. But only if they set it in the 1970s, and only if they took it a notch more seriously than the mainstream recalls Dukes feeling like.

Click to expand...

Agree with the more seriously, disagree with the need for 70's.

Dukes could easily be done now. Lot's of old shows could be.

Every year they do this to another old show/movie. Sometimes it's a serious attempt, and sometimes it's like some humorless parody.

And somehow, even though the results are almost universal, hollywood still hasn't noticed that the quirky parodies almost all fail horribly. There are one or two exceptions (Dragnet), but for the most part, it's a bad formula that continues to be crap no matter how often they try it.

On the other hand, when they take it seriously, it does well. Batman, the fugitive, mission impossible... Doctor Who is actually a great example. They could've made him all cheesy and 70's-ish....maybe cast Mike Myers as the doctor, but it would've been craptastic.

Dukes was a crapfest because there was not even a mild attempt at making a good show. Just a cash grab on known tropes and cliches from the original. Batman would've flopped just as bad if they had showcased Christian Bale and Liam Neeson fake punching each other then the whole screen going orange with a giant "Pakow!" written across it. Maybe some idiot producer waxing about how it's all about keeping the feel and integrity of the original or some other such nonsense.

The bottom line is: a show about two brothers hoodwinking a corrupt small town sheriff could actually work amazingly well today. Not to mention that an exploration of corrupt officials, the South's ongoing search for an identity, and the limitations inherent on some of the major car manufacturers more recent offerings is, if anything, just as relevant now as it was in the 70's.


edit: as for actually escaping the cops, as a TV show, sometimes they got lazy about it, but in several episodes, this was always part of the corruption. It's not like Roscoe and Boss Hog didn't know where the Dukes lived, or didn't know who was driving the massively obvious orange car. But they usually couldn't call for outside help because in most of the storylines, they were actually up to something massively illegal and were only chasing the Dukes to prevent anyone outside from finding out.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

It comes down to being "cartoony". A lot of old shows feel cartoony by todays standards, but the remakes do them a terrible disservice when they treat that cartoonishness as intentional. Look at Kirk. There were what...10 episodes about him getting the girl? George Costanza from Seinfeld has a better batting average, but it's become part of the mythos, even though by 60's TV standards, Captain Kirk was actually an incredibly dynamic character. When they put those cartoony moments in the new movies it just felt cheap.

And yes, (back on topic) I'm afraid this is going to be a HUGE problem for Ghostbusters mostly because it's 10 times harder with comedies. The originals were intentionally cartoony, but with an elegance that I just don't see any evidence that we're going to get from this group. A big part of it is originality. You can get away with a lot more cornyness if you're (forgive me) going where no one has gone before. In a remake you have to tread lightly. Christopher Lloyd and Raul Julia did it in Adams Family, but Nicole Kidman and WIll Ferrel fell on their corny corny corn holes in Bewitched. It's a tough needle to thread and this group doesn't have the best track record it.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Agree with the more seriously, disagree with the need for 70's.

Dukes could easily be done now. Lot's of old shows could be.

Every year they do this to another old show/movie. Sometimes it's a serious attempt, and sometimes it's like some humorless parody.

And somehow, even though the results are almost universal, hollywood still hasn't noticed that the quirky parodies almost all fail horribly. There are one or two exceptions (Dragnet), but for the most part, it's a bad formula that continues to be crap no matter how often they try it.

On the other hand, when they take it seriously, it does well. Batman, the fugitive, mission impossible... Doctor Who is actually a great example. They could've made him all cheesy and 70's-ish....maybe cast Mike Myers as the doctor, but it would've been craptastic.

Dukes was a crapfest because there was not even a mild attempt at making a good show. Just a cash grab on known tropes and cliches from the original. Batman would've flopped just as bad if they had showcased Christian Bale and Liam Neeson fake punching each other then the whole screen going orange with a giant "Pakow!" written across it. Maybe some idiot producer waxing about how it's all about keeping the feel and integrity of the original or some other such nonsense.

The bottom line is: a show about two brothers hoodwinking a corrupt small town sheriff could actually work amazingly well today. Not to mention that an exploration of corrupt officials, the South's ongoing search for an identity, and the limitations inherent on some of the major car manufacturers more recent offerings is, if anything, just as relevant now as it was in the 70's.


edit: as for actually escaping the cops, as a TV show, sometimes they got lazy about it, but in several episodes, this was always part of the corruption. It's not like Roscoe and Boss Hog didn't know where the Dukes lived, or didn't know who was driving the massively obvious orange car. But they usually couldn't call for outside help because in most of the storylines, they were actually up to something massively illegal and were only chasing the Dukes to prevent anyone outside from finding out.

Click to expand...

Watch any real police chases video show. People don't run from the cops and get away. They get followed by a chopper until they crash and then they get 2 years added to their jail sentence just for running.

Most of the countryside is covered in suburbia, not windy dirt roads that might have 1/2-mile between houses. There is some amount of traffic jamming during the day even outside the big urban centers. There is no "The old bridge is washed out, Bo!"

Dirt-poor young guys don't abuse classic 1969 Dodge Chargers. They don't build a dirt-track racers that are also street-legal. They don't communicate with CB radios. Its harder to have a huge rebel flag on the car without ruffling some feathers.

The illegal drug trade in rural America is a lot more crystal meth than moonshine now.



But if the setting is several decades ago then all these aspects of it are believable. Not just "we can come up with an excuse good enough to make the audience suspend their disbelief if they want to root for it."

Re: Ghostbusters 3

AJTaliesen said:

It comes down to being "cartoony". A lot of old shows feel cartoony by todays standards, but the remakes do them a terrible disservice when they treat that cartoonishness as intentional. Look at Kirk. There were what...10 episodes about him getting the girl? George Costanza from Seinfeld has a better batting average, but it's become part of the mythos, even though by 60's TV standards, Captain Kirk was actually an incredibly dynamic character. When they put those cartoony moments in the new movies it just felt cheap.

And yes, (back on topic) I'm afraid this is going to be a HUGE problem for Ghostbusters mostly because it's 10 times harder with comedies. The originals were intentionally cartoony, but with an elegance that I just don't see any evidence that we're going to get from this group. A big part of it is originality. You can get away with a lot more cornyness if you're (forgive me) going where no one has gone before. In a remake you have to tread lightly. Christopher Lloyd and Raul Julia did it in Adams Family, but Nicole Kidman and WIll Ferrel fell on their corny corny corn holes in Bewitched. It's a tough needle to thread and this group doesn't have the best track record it.

Click to expand...

It's not just elegance. It's subversiveness that infuses a particular generation of comedy writers' works. Animal House, old school SNL, Caddyshack, The Blues Brothers, Ghostbusters, Stripes, even up to Groundhog Day, what do all of these films have in common?

They usually feature a bunch of too-smart-for-their-own-good wiseasses who have zero respect for incompetent authority figures and moral conventions. What you've got here, basically, is comedy borne of the protest movements of the 60s and 70s. These were writers and actors who were incredibly talented, and also incredibly disillusioned with finding out that the people who ran their world were phonies, incompetents, or downright evil, that the values they'd been taught always won the day (in their 1950s/early 60s childhoods) were, in fact, completely disregarded by the people in charge in favor of expediency, profit, and power.

The comedies that came out of this were all about basically doing what they wanted, all with a sardonic smile. They were only referential to past films and comedies and such insofar as they were turning convention on their heads (e.g. hiring Elmer Bernstein to write the Animal House score). Nowadays, the comedies simply act like that old Chris Farley sketch where he interviews people and asks questions like "'Member that time you said that funny thing?! 'Member?! That was cool..." You ask me, that's a big reason why these comedies fail.