Wha? is that supposed to be...funny?
On another note:it just occurred to me that I haven't thought of Ghostbusters as a comedy in a long time,seriously since I was a kid to me it's always been a sci-fi movie with some humor thrown in.
GHOSTBUSTERS Pre-Release - film discussion only, no social commentary please!
- Thread starter Westies14
- Start date
Wha? is that supposed to be...funny?
On another note:it just occurred to me that I haven't thought of Ghostbusters as a comedy in a long time,seriously since I was a kid to me it's always been a sci-fi movie with some humor thrown in.
KrangPrime
Master Member
If they get Vanilla Ice, that's it, i'm out of here...
How much..how MUCH doyou want to bet that this is where the theme song gets introduced? the concert gets stopped....the band makes something up on the spot, and becomes a huge number one hit? Only thing worse than rap music is metal music. that EGB theme song took a LONG time to get used to with them screaming at us, and still, it's nowhere near as good as the original
Solo4114
Master Member
Erm....ok.
So, Dan's scene isn't going to be the "I ain't afraid of no ghosts" scene? It's just:
"Where ya headed?"
"Chinatown."
"Nah." >vroom<
>exasperated hands in air<
And that's it? Honestly, what the hell is the point of that? That's like the (wisely) deleted scene of Akroyd and Murray as bums in the park from the original. There's literally no reason to have it except to say "And Dan gets a milisecond of screen time."
As for the metalhead concert thing, ok, whatever. Pretty much this all just keeps coming back, for me, to the notion of "Why'd ya bother?" Why make it this different if you want to capture what made the original great? Why reference the original as much as they appear to be, if you want to make yours different? And why not...just do a sequel? You can literally do all of this in a way that maintains the original material, writes out the old cast who are dead or don't want to be in it, and still connects to the original story.
I think I've figured out the reason for the reboot, though, and the desire to avoid continuity. Originally, Feig proposed some idea involving government coverups in sequels to this relaunch film. However, they may very well ditch that (I'd figure that a ghost T-Rex would be hard to cover up, as would possessed soldiers). The thing is, by rebooting the continuity, their sequel options are wide open. They can take the story in any direction they want, once they've done this highly derivative relaunch film. Government conspiracies, secret societies, inter-dimensional alien space gods, whatever. And that, ultimately, is way more important to them. Only some of those would work in the original continuity. Government coverups? Definitely not. Alien space gods (think C'thulhu)? Nope. Not at all. But secret societies or necromancers or other stuff in that general wheelhouse, that'd fit with the old stuff. The thing is, the old stuff does limit what you can do with the story. I don't think it does so in a bad way, but I recognize that for a studio looking to relaunch a brand, there's value in not having any storytelling options foreclosed.
KrangPrime
Master Member
It was my understanding that this is just what the script says his seen was, to try and surprise the reveal of 'I ain't afraid of no ghosts' line. But if that REALLY is what is being done? Why would a cabby refuse to take them to chinatown? doesn't make any sense based on that alone...
KrangPrime
Master Member
also, the old series dealt with Chuthulu in one of the better episodes of the series.
They dealt with Vampires.
they dealt with things that could be considered space alien gods..
they dealt with inter dimensional gods
I think the story was unlimited in the old series. and the sky could have been the limit. had you someone with enough creative vision that fit the old universe.
They dealt with Vampires.
they dealt with things that could be considered space alien gods..
they dealt with inter dimensional gods
I think the story was unlimited in the old series. and the sky could have been the limit. had you someone with enough creative vision that fit the old universe.
Solo4114
Master Member
Ok, so it's like Neil said. Basically, on paper, it's written in a way that hides the fact that he does the stupid self-referential line.
Kinda like the old "Obi-Wan is your father" stuff when they were shooting The Empire Strikes Back.
KrangPrime
Master Member
I would also like to thank westies for these photos... not sure if he is taking them, is allowed to take them, or is getting them from another source...
but they are cool to see, even if I think this thing is going to be the dragbonall evolution of ghostbusters ;o)
but they are cool to see, even if I think this thing is going to be the dragbonall evolution of ghostbusters ;o)
KrangPrime
Master Member
finally, some new news to digest ..... this must mean something to someone. I hate metal and rap music myself....so it means nothing to me. some unknown named phil X( to me anyway) on ghostbusters soundtrack..
https://instagram.com/p/5kiQegQiqz/
Westies14
Master Member
Here's some more on the concert scene for you! http://www.bostonherald.com/inside_...015/07/old_boston_bands_to_haunt_ghostbusters
KrangPrime
Master Member
heh, found it funny that the article was stating they are paying tribute to some classic heavy metal bands, but i'd wager 98% of the audience has never heard of them ;o)...
I wonder why they chose metal? of all things? wouldn't a classical concert have been if not funnier and another 'cute throw back' to the profession of dana barret?
...like everything else with this film? :unsure
Westies14
Master Member
Unfortunately for those of us who live here and know the music scene, it still places the event in Boston. The Bosstones did do the late scene in a movie thing in Clueless in the 90s!
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, I guess they're banking on the fact that the band won't be that well known outside of Boston or the hardcore scene (which isn't exactly an enormous scene amongst movie goers anyway). Probably like how they're banking on people's unfamiliarity with Boston and NYC geography and architecture to sell the major scenes.
I expect they'll get some second unit stuff for just wide exterior shots that don't feature the cast in NYC, just to throw in a few landmarks (e.g. Flatiron building, helicopter footage of the Manhattan skyline, etc.).
I get that they want to be budget conscious, but to me it also suggests, perhaps, that Sony only has so much faith in the project itself, and hence is watching the bottom line.
KrangPrime
Master Member
we saw that much the minute they flip flopped at the mention of russo brothers..
I mean, honestly. didn't the smurfs shoot in NY? that could have been set anywhere. anything they lost from shooting cost, they'd make up in PS4 sales alone.
hence why I believe it really was set to take place in boston...then all the hate, then the change back to NY
Solo4114
Master Member
As I've mentioned (I think in the other thread?), I don't see the Russo Bros. thing as a real "flip flop" exactly. My sense is that Amy Pascal wanted a stable of talent with proven track records of making money under her roof. Towards that end, she liked the idea of the Russo Bros. working for her, along with Chris Pratt and Channing Tatum. All of those names are associated with bringing in big bucks lately. They're all hot names. So is Paul Feig, for that matter.
I don't see wanting to have yet more money-making talent to command as indicative of a lack of faith in Feig's version. Really, I see it as having nothing to do with Feig at all. The only conflict was in keeping all parties happy somehow, so that they'd all continue to work for her. (Which she couldn't figure out how to do, ultimately.)
I have no idea where the Smurfs was shot. It might be that they did primary filming in some other town that stood in for NYC, and then did pickups and 2nd unit stuff in NYC the way this film will. I don't know if this was originally set to be in Boston. My guess is that the precise city didn't really matter, probably, until/unless someone said "You know, it should really be NYC."
I don't actually think it matters if it's Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, or Des Moines, for that matter. The old film had a "New York" vibe to it, but there's no reason why a reboot would need to.
I don't think fan backlash caused much to change, to be honest. As I've said, I don't think anyone involved in this project is all that concerned with the fans who'd express disdain for the film. At best, you'd get the kind of response that JJ Abrams gave to the people who were pissed about the new Enterprise design and that whole "Warp Nacelles Quarterly" comment. The studios don't care about those fans. They're vocal, but they don't make up a significant enough portion of the target audience for the studios to care. Plus, the studios assume they'll show up anyway because they can't stay away, even if it's only to "hate-watch" the film. (Which, of course, is stupid because the studio gets paid either way, but that's beside the point.)
Basically, I think the studio probably has pushed less to make the film "less original" and more to make the film resonate more with people who are familiar with the old film, but aren't folks who've memorized every line of dialogue. They want to meet the casual fan's expectations and look/feel "close enough" to the old stuff to let people feel comfortable trusting the new film.
That's ultimately what the whole branding thing is about anyway: a desire to make consumers feel subconsciously "comfortable" with their ticket purchase; to reassure them that "You liked that other thing, and this thing is like that, so you'll like this, too." That's why they're making the film visually...hmm..."referential" to the old film. It's not a straight 1:1 copy job, but it's meant to look like, y'know, Ghostbusters. Mostly. Close enough.
I don't see wanting to have yet more money-making talent to command as indicative of a lack of faith in Feig's version. Really, I see it as having nothing to do with Feig at all. The only conflict was in keeping all parties happy somehow, so that they'd all continue to work for her. (Which she couldn't figure out how to do, ultimately.)
I have no idea where the Smurfs was shot. It might be that they did primary filming in some other town that stood in for NYC, and then did pickups and 2nd unit stuff in NYC the way this film will. I don't know if this was originally set to be in Boston. My guess is that the precise city didn't really matter, probably, until/unless someone said "You know, it should really be NYC."
I don't actually think it matters if it's Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, or Des Moines, for that matter. The old film had a "New York" vibe to it, but there's no reason why a reboot would need to.
I don't think fan backlash caused much to change, to be honest. As I've said, I don't think anyone involved in this project is all that concerned with the fans who'd express disdain for the film. At best, you'd get the kind of response that JJ Abrams gave to the people who were pissed about the new Enterprise design and that whole "Warp Nacelles Quarterly" comment. The studios don't care about those fans. They're vocal, but they don't make up a significant enough portion of the target audience for the studios to care. Plus, the studios assume they'll show up anyway because they can't stay away, even if it's only to "hate-watch" the film. (Which, of course, is stupid because the studio gets paid either way, but that's beside the point.)
Basically, I think the studio probably has pushed less to make the film "less original" and more to make the film resonate more with people who are familiar with the old film, but aren't folks who've memorized every line of dialogue. They want to meet the casual fan's expectations and look/feel "close enough" to the old stuff to let people feel comfortable trusting the new film.
That's ultimately what the whole branding thing is about anyway: a desire to make consumers feel subconsciously "comfortable" with their ticket purchase; to reassure them that "You liked that other thing, and this thing is like that, so you'll like this, too." That's why they're making the film visually...hmm..."referential" to the old film. It's not a straight 1:1 copy job, but it's meant to look like, y'know, Ghostbusters. Mostly. Close enough.
Westies14
Master Member
The story, as far as I know, has always been in NY and always been the self-referential rehash of the original that we're seeing unfold through production. I'm not sure why the idea of changing things to appease fans keeps coming up. If they cared an ounce about what the few really vocal fans of the old film(s) want (and they don't), we wouldn't be looking at a Feig reboot to begin with.
Similar threads
