Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Riceball
Master Member
Like I said previously, my personal dislike for the new proton pack has nothing to do with my general dislike of this film. I, for one, have not and never will say that this movie is going to suck just because of the new pack design, I just don't like the design regardless of how I might feel about the movie. I'm sure that many of the critics of the pack here feel the same, they're just not liking the design and they'd still hate it even if they're liking the idea of this reboot. What's wrong with disliking something as an item unto itself, haven't any of you supporters not liked something in a film or show that you liked? For instance, while I'm not a huge fan of JJ's Trek movies I did enjoy them while at the same time I really didn't like the design of the Enterprise.
Yeah. Just look at those funny girls. And look at those uniforms! It's like I've been transported back in time to 'Clueless' and 'Mean Girls'. And the Proton Pack? Straight out of Teen Witch.
Ghostbuster's Proton Packs were almost entirely black and had four big red lights on the bottom. This Proton Pack is not black and features some parts that look like they were obtained in some practical manner. How does that make it more 'dark and gritty' looking than the original?
Endless Wonder
Sr Member
If the shoe fits
Anyway. I'm not going to go through the entire thread but I'll give everyone the cliff notes on my thoughts, because I know everyone cares :lol
Ghostbusters in my favorite film of all time. I have no issue with the new film having an all female team. I think that's awesome as I've wanted to see female Ghostbusters since I was a kid. I personally don't understand why it's even an issue for some(most?) people.
What I AM upset about is that this is not in the original continuity and wish they would have tweaked the script to set it in the original universe. They could tell basically the same story they're telling now with a few adjustments and I wouldn't have an issue with it. The original universe has so much potential for expansion and I really hate that they threw that out the window in favor of starting over from scratch.
Love the new uniforms. Kind of like the new pack. I love they retained the "cobbled together" approach rather than go for the oh-so-popular Apple sleekness. However, I agree it looks more like a fan made custom pack. Very uninspired compared to the original.
Now that seems to be even worse. They do not seem to have enough faith into the "girl squad" to come up with something original. The Ghostbusters logo is the second best known brand logo in the world, right after the Coca Cola design. If the continuity was broken, why use the original logo? I am really curious to see if it´s really a deviation from or a continuation of the oriignal franchise, in some weird way.
KrangPrime
Master Member
damn it, I just can't do it. I'm too set in my grumpy ways to have any hope for anything sony related! ;o)
Solo4114
Master Member
Why use it?
Marketing. Duh.
The whole idea behind remakes/reboots/re-whatevers like this is to capitalize on the inherent goodwill associated with the brand, not with something like the continuity. That's the whole point. That's the only point of using the brand.
Look, remember the first live-action G.I. Joe film? Remember how it basically had nothing to do with the continuity established in any of the cartoons or comics? The only things in common with the source material were some costumes, character names, names of organizations, and that's....really about it. Everything else was totally generic. You could easily strip out any of those names and costume designs, rename the characters, redesign the costume, and change nothing else about the film, and you'd just have a generic action film. Call it "American Commandos" where the team is led by "Cpt. John R. Bridger, code name: LIGHTNING BOLT" and they're going up against a terrorist organization known as "The Unseen Hand." Bam. Same movie, different names, same story.
And nobody would have gone to see it because the film, the story itself, was, quite simply, a piece of ****.
BUT, slap the bare minimum of IP dressing on it, and you've got a success. Or at least enough of a success to warrant a sequel and buzz of a possible trilogy.
That is why the logo is there, even though they're jettisoning continuity. That's how Hollywood works nowadays. Grab an old property, strip out the name and a few other bits, and repackage it for modern audiences with a fresh, new, marketable cast. Then sit back and watch the cash roll in.
jlee562
Sr Member
LOL.
You are not serious.
And if you are, this is a ridiculous argument. Ghostbusters may be popular, but the logo is not more recognizable globally than say....McDonalds. Michelin. Nike. BMW. Apple.
Yes, I am. It is mentioned in the German Wikipedia article, the source unfortunately seems to have left the internet http://www.oxmonline.com/ghostbusters-exclusive-interview But since the article was from 2008 I think it can be safe to say that at one point the logo was indeed so popular that it rivals the Coca Cola logo. And without knowing the source of the claim I can absolutely see that at least in the 1980ies the logo indeed was so big. And it spawned a lot of copies and hommages.
Westies14
Master Member
Typically, Nike, Coca-Cola, Apple, and the like fill the top of those "most recognizable logos" lists, but those have a focus on retail brands. When you add in icons like Superman's <S> symbol and the Ghostbusters mark, they (of course) rank very high. Second most recognized? Maybe not. Instantly recognized by most people around the world? For sure.
KrangPrime
Master Member
I wonder if there was ever a day where people cared about a brand......or if we all just look back on the past at things as good because things now have sucked even worse ;o)
wonder how this new movie will make us think back on Super Mario Brothers (remember them days?)
My gut tells me this might be a pretty good film.
1.) Paul Feig is of the age where he would have enjoyed the original. So I'd like to think he'd honor the "spirit" of the original.
2.) He's clearly got talent.
3.) He's got a decent track record.
I don't think Ghostbusters is so iconic that it couldn't be rebooted.
As a side note I'm going to commit blasphemy by saying that the original is a flawed film. I saw it in the theater on opening weekend. In the beginning with the librarian ghost I was honestly scared. That mixed with the humor is a tone I wish they kept throughout the film, but they opted to degenerate into 100% comedy and discarded the scariness. I love the original but it's not perfect.
1.) Paul Feig is of the age where he would have enjoyed the original. So I'd like to think he'd honor the "spirit" of the original.
2.) He's clearly got talent.
3.) He's got a decent track record.
I don't think Ghostbusters is so iconic that it couldn't be rebooted.
As a side note I'm going to commit blasphemy by saying that the original is a flawed film. I saw it in the theater on opening weekend. In the beginning with the librarian ghost I was honestly scared. That mixed with the humor is a tone I wish they kept throughout the film, but they opted to degenerate into 100% comedy and discarded the scariness. I love the original but it's not perfect.
jlee562
Sr Member
Careful now, pointing out that Paul Feig has a 'decent track record' is apparently a contentious point in this thread. :confused
I wasn't going to point this out the other day when I was mentioning rotten tomatoes, because it's not at all a fair comparison, but Ghostbusters receives a paltry 67% score on Metacritic (primarily because of a very small sample size). Point being that it did not receive fantastic reviews when first released. The two that Metacritic posted that are noteworthy come from the NY Times and Variety. Some films have a way of taking on a life of their own well after their theatrical release (see: Kevin Smith) and end up having a shelf life way longer than expected. I would not have said that Starship Troopers was still going to be talked about almost 20 years later, especially not based on how easily it was dismissed as something of a B-movie at the time. Yet here we are. Not saying that Starship Troopers has anywhere near the importance or impact of Ghostbusters; but sometimes you just never know.
I wasn't going to point this out the other day when I was mentioning rotten tomatoes, because it's not at all a fair comparison, but Ghostbusters receives a paltry 67% score on Metacritic (primarily because of a very small sample size). Point being that it did not receive fantastic reviews when first released. The two that Metacritic posted that are noteworthy come from the NY Times and Variety. Some films have a way of taking on a life of their own well after their theatrical release (see: Kevin Smith) and end up having a shelf life way longer than expected. I would not have said that Starship Troopers was still going to be talked about almost 20 years later, especially not based on how easily it was dismissed as something of a B-movie at the time. Yet here we are. Not saying that Starship Troopers has anywhere near the importance or impact of Ghostbusters; but sometimes you just never know.
cboath
Master Member
Decent track record doesn't mean good product. As someone else pointed out in this thread (and probably more than once) the last transformers raked it in, but I don't think any calls it good.
I can only speak from my own POV and in the flicks associated with the directed i've not liked (and in a case or two) them and thought one or two were downright awful. They made money though (not sure how), therefore that's considered a good track record - financially, but not qualitatively (that's gotta be worth some scrabble points!)
They could knock it out of the park. It's possible. But from what i've seen, to me, i wouldn't call it probable.
I also believe he's gone on record saying he wants nothing to do with the original, period. Pretty good way to alienate the existing fanbase, no?
There ARE ways they could've gone about this (not saying you want nothing to do with the original for starters) and they seem to have decided against all of them. Just read the history of this thread. It is possible to treat the original with respect and still go another way. Too bad they didn't opt for that route.
If this is Bridesmaids's with ghosts, count me out. I thought that was terrible in this cast is a large part of this flick. Hopefully they do loads better here.
I can only speak from my own POV and in the flicks associated with the directed i've not liked (and in a case or two) them and thought one or two were downright awful. They made money though (not sure how), therefore that's considered a good track record - financially, but not qualitatively (that's gotta be worth some scrabble points!)
They could knock it out of the park. It's possible. But from what i've seen, to me, i wouldn't call it probable.
I also believe he's gone on record saying he wants nothing to do with the original, period. Pretty good way to alienate the existing fanbase, no?
There ARE ways they could've gone about this (not saying you want nothing to do with the original for starters) and they seem to have decided against all of them. Just read the history of this thread. It is possible to treat the original with respect and still go another way. Too bad they didn't opt for that route.
If this is Bridesmaids's with ghosts, count me out. I thought that was terrible in this cast is a large part of this flick. Hopefully they do loads better here.
point taken.
I know something of those years.
In the 1980's film critics weren't as universally regarded as they are today and there was nothing like rotten tomatoes to collect data.
When Ghostbusters came out everybody was propelled by word of mouth to see the film. It was well marketed and a bullseye calculated success.
For the record I predicted that Starship Troopers would last. (As flawed as it is.)
Michael Bay has a commercially successful track record. Paul Feig's track record has movies that were both critically and financially successful. For all the money makers Bay has directed in his career, Paul Feig's money makers have the luxury of actually being good. I mean, look at his statistics.
Three films. Bridesmaids, The Heat and Spy.
Female Leads (Box Office Poison)
Rated R (Box Office Poison)
Not a sequel, spinoff or remake of a popular franchise (Loss of potential)
Films are well received. (All Fresh)
That's not a track record. That's an accomplishment. And if you think it's easy making a successful female lead comedy, well....
Similar threads
