Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

[Kerr Avon]

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.

Yup, easier for them to steal an existing property, try to shoe horn women into it instead of developing a new property with women in it and then try to shove it down our throats with keyboard social warriors telling us how terrible we are if we don't accept it. Screw 'em.

Regarding the proton pack, isn't it ironic that they chose to put what looks like a stove top burner coil in a pack for women and a pink heart to remind us it's for women? :facepalm

 

[blewis17]

If the shoe fits

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.

This.

If it's not the original continuity, then it's either a reboot or alternate universe GB story, right? I guess in my mind's eye I see a scene where the women "cross the streams" and for a few brief seconds, they are staring into a portal. On the other side are the original GB guys, looking back at the girls, maybe a confused look on their faces. They could do a digital Egon here, even "youngify" the guys to look like their 1980s selves. A quick nod to the original, and then back to the main plot.

Having cameos of Murray, Hudson, and Akroyd as other characters would just seem silly, right?

Yeah, I'm afraid this is going to be Bridesmaids with proton packs.

Oh well.

 

[Endless Wonder]

I guess in my mind's eye I see a scene where the women "cross the streams" and for a few brief seconds, they are staring into a portal. On the other side are the original GB guys, looking back at the girls, maybe a confused look on their faces. They could do a digital Egon here, even "youngify" the guys to look like their 1980s selves. A quick nod to the original, and then back to the main plot.

Having cameos of Murray, Hudson, and Akroyd as other characters would just seem silly, right?

Cameos by the original guys isn't needed, in my opinion.

Honestly, I quit wanting a third film with the original crew a long time ago. Even back in '09 when the video game was hot and there was a rekindling of the idea, they were all well passed their prime of being able to pull it off convincingly(with the exception of Ernie Hudson). I don't even want a passing-of-the-torch story. Just have it follow a team of new Ghostbusters, maybe a franchise outside of New York, who are ALREADY in business, give me some of the day-to-day action, and build up to the main threat. We've seen how the Ghostbusters become the Ghostbusters twice now(soon to be three times). I want to see a film where the Ghostbusters are being Ghostbuters.

As long as it's well written, acted, and directed with likable characters, I'm good. I feel that Sony spent far too much time on only one particular type of sequel instead of branching out and expanding the universe.

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

...

That's not a track record. That's an accomplishment. And if you think it's easy making a successful female lead comedy, well....

Huh. I can still remember Bette Midler films, Sandra Bullock raking in quite some cash with her Miss Undercover films, and all those comedies with Doris Day that have long been forgotten or never even been seen by the current audience. And there is that new comedy hit with a female lead, I think it´s called "Shades of ..." something ...

...
Regarding the proton pack, isn't it ironic that they chose to put what looks like a stove top burner coil in a pack for women and a pink heart to remind us it's for women? :facepalm

Yes, absolutely. If that is not sexist, then what is? It at least is a really bad stereotype. Or creates stereotypes. Stereotypes of course are important characters in a comedy, so that the audience has an easy and quick way to relate to them. But in this case a little seriousness may be okay. Or don´t they want to be taken seriously? I just hope that we don´t get a "bubble gum repair" scene.

 

[KrangPrime]

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. /QUOTE]

plus I would stand to argue not even many people would know who paul feig is. if someone mentions bridesmades, they might know him from that, maybe freaks and geeks. but he's not really a big name star where people are thinking 'I wonder when the next paul feig movie will be!' from what I can gather, his movies seem to stay in the public memory for a short term and then fade away.

Kristin Wig I never really heard of, same goes for leslie jones and kate mcK. the only one I've heard of in the entire cast is McCarthy and she comes off as super annoying. add to that a director who doesn't care about the original movie, and this thing just screams train wreck. i'm amazed it gets any positive recognition online.....

 

[jlee562]

The fact you haven't heard of them means nothing. Less than nothing.

 

[cboath]

The fact the director wants nothing to do with the original should, though.

FWIW, Wiig and McKinnon are recent SNL alumni. Not sure about Leslie Jones, is she Apatow's wife?

2 of the 3 Feig movies listed above i thought were terrible, so, that gives me large pause for this, and frankly, rightfully so.

 

[jlee562]

Leslie Jones joined the SNL cast this season I believe. I think McKinnon is still on the cast.

 

[Jeyl]

The fact the director wants nothing to do with the original should, though.

Why? Everyone keeps saying he wants nothing to do with Ghostbusters, but everything I've been seeing that they've been releasing are things I would easily associate with the Ghostbusters franchise. He's making a Ghostbusters movie and they're advertising it as a Ghostbusters movie. So what the heck are you talking about?

 

[Westies14]

Why? Everyone keeps saying he wants nothing to do with Ghostbusters, but everything I've been seeing that they've been releasing are things I would easily associate with the Ghostbusters franchise. He's making a Ghostbusters movie and they're advertising it as a Ghostbusters movie. So what the heck are you talking about?

He turned down the job three times claiming he didn't have interest, didn't know what to do with it. What he's making is something new, which was the condition upon which he took the job. He quite specifically did not want to make a Ghostbusters movie, but a "Nu-Ghostbusters" movie replacing original characters, situations and themes with variations that he's more comfortable with. They've reshaped the property to fit a director instead of finding the perfect director for the existing property. Of course Paul Feig has agreed to make a movie called "Ghostbusters," but when you see posts like that one this is the distinction they're referring to.

 

[KrangPrime]

He turned down the job three times claiming he didn't have interest, didn't know what to do with it. What he's making is something new, which was the condition upon which he took the job. He quite specifically did not want to make a Ghostbusters movie, but a "Nu-Ghostbusters" movie replacing original characters, situations and themes with variations that he's more comfortable with. They've reshaped the property to fit a director instead of finding the perfect director for the existing property. Of course Paul Feig has agreed to make a movie called "Ghostbusters," but when you see posts like that one this is the distinction they're referring to.

and his something new idea sucked so terribly, now who knows what we are in store for...but it won't be ghostbusters.

You'd think someone at sony would be higher up than amy pascal andcould have stopped this whole mess from ever starting. I'd have rather they sued bill murray for his rights and then dan, ivan and ernie could wrap things up properly.

 

[Jeyl]

He turned down the job three times claiming he didn't have interest, didn't know what to do with it. What he's making is something new, which was the condition upon which he took the job. He quite specifically did not want to make a Ghostbusters movie, but a "Nu-Ghostbusters" movie replacing original characters, situations and themes with variations that he's more comfortable with.

You know, some movie goers usually don't like the idea of a film director not making a film their way. Some would prefer it if the director's vision was the driving force of the movie instead of the mandated check list that they enforce on the director to begin with. The most commonly bad hollywood stories have always been the films that the studios took away from the director. You are literally criticizing a director for doing what I would want any director to do. If he wants to take this franchise in a different direction, I want to see what that direction will be. I can definitely assure you that he's not doing this film out of smite because he's got way too much respect for the talent that is involved.

And look at it this way. If the film turns out to be a disaster (Which it still could be! No one's perfect), we all know who will carry the blame.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd think someone at sony would be higher up than amy pascal andcould have stopped this whole mess from ever starting. I'd have rather they sued bill murray for his rights and then dan, ivan and ernie could wrap things up properly.

Than you'd be dealing with the fans who will bad talk this film because to them, Ghostbusters is nothing without Bill Murray. So congratulations. You've not only made a film they don't want to see, but did it by treating Bill Murray as the bad guy.

 

[Westies14]

What a total mischaracterization of what I wrote. Trolliest thread.

Who's to say a director who was excited about the existing franchise/continuity couldn't have executed their vision solidly? Right after they finally cornered Feig, Sony was presented that sort of alternate approach and scurried to explore whether or not they could get Feig's contracted film to follow that one. For the record, I've still never indicated that Feig's film will necessarily be bad. I've only expressed disappointment that they dumped the continuity so casually. Ghostbusters was big enough and flexible to warrant an extension - even one with an entirely new cast - to be at least fully explored. They hired a director who refused that exercise. That's not a criticism of the director or his approach, but the studio who sadly has control of this beloved franchise. Anyone who argues that this development was given thought or care at all is ignorant to a glut of publicly available information. It's just how it rolled out, and that's crummy.

 

[cboath]

You know, some movie goers usually don't like the idea of a film director not making a film their way. Some would prefer it if the director's vision was the driving force of the movie instead of the mandated check list that they enforce on the director to begin with. The most commonly bad hollywood stories have always been the films that the studios took away from the director. You are literally criticizing a director for doing what I would want any director to do. If he wants to take this franchise in a different direction, I want to see what that direction will be. I can definitely assure you that he's not doing this film out of smite because he's got way too much respect for the talent that is involved.

And look at it this way. If the film turns out to be a disaster (Which it still could be! No one's perfect), we all know who will carry the blame.

- - - Updated - - -



Than you'd be dealing with the fans who will bad talk this film because to them, Ghostbusters is nothing without Bill Murray. So congratulations. You've not only made a film they don't want to see, but did it by treating Bill Murray as the bad guy.

I might agree with that if it was the director driving the entire thing from day 1. When it's an existing property you're trying to capitalize on, with a basic storyline already (least I think they had it), you want someone who will do well and maybe even do their own thing within those confines. Take Marvel as a case in point, I don't think any director of any of those movies got to do just whatever the hell they wanted. They were given a framework to work within and the freedom to do most anything within it. They have a plan they're working from and the directors have to stick to those plans.

That said, I've got no problem with the director doing his thing. Thing is he STILL could easily have done that within the very BASIC confines of the first two movies having taken place and this exists, 20-30 years after that. It respects the original, alienates no one, AND would still give him the freedom to do whatever the hell he wants to be honest. The originals could be completely forgotten or went missing shortly after part II, sold it off, got sued into bankrupty, died, the list goes on. Saying i'll do it if i can wipe out everything beforehand is a lazy cop-out and a lack of creativity if you ask me. Especially when you're using their work, logos, etc to sell YOUR version.

 

[KrangPrime]

Especially when you're using their work, logos, etc to sell YOUR version.

at this point i'd like to correct that word version with 'vision'. that's what this all feels like to me. someone's grand idea of a reboot that if popular, could have boosted their career or careers to the point of stardom. far easier to do that with an existing property than start from scratch. even if you alienate a fan base. although I hope most companies would be smart enough not to do that.

 

[Jeyl]

Thing is he STILL could easily have done that within the very BASIC confines of the first two movies having taken place and this exists, 20-30 years after that. It respects the original, alienates no one, AND would still give him the freedom to do whatever the hell he wants to be honest. The originals could be completely forgotten or went missing shortly after part II, sold it off, got sued into bankrupty, died, the list goes on. Saying i'll do it if i can wipe out everything beforehand is a lazy cop-out and a lack of creativity if you ask me. Especially when you're using their work, logos, etc to sell YOUR version.

I don't believe it would have been that simple. For starters, the idea about the Ghostbusters going bankrupt and sued was already done with Ghostbusters 2, complete with everyone not believing the events of the first movie. Just like how The Lost World: Jurassic Park tried to sell the sequel by having no one outside of the main characters believe that there's an island with Dinosaurs on it in. That kind of story progression doesn't work especially in Ghostbusters when you had the whole world at stake with thousands of eye witnesses watching the events unfold. The option to reboot the series with a brand new set of characters where ghosts are only now being discovered is the best option, especially if you want these characters to be their own thing without being underneath the shadows of the original team who saved the world twice already.

 

[jlee562]

What a total mischaracterization of what I wrote. Trolliest thread.

As Obi Wan said, "you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

Fwig has to prove that he can direct not just a comedy but also an action movie with horror elements. I'll plop down theae mext few weeks and watch all his movies so I can actually assert his degree of directorial talent.

 

[KrangPrime]

to be perfectly honest, I always liked the design of this proto pack. thrower was the same though.

heh, someone posted this on the RPF FB page. maybe we should make a thousand of these and have a permit for a bon fire in front of sony pictures studios ;lo) or SDCC

 

[jlee562]

I feel sorry for whomever thought that was a good use of their time.

"...hate leads to suffering."