Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

[KrangPrime]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

was browsing other message boards and found this. apparently the reason paul feig passed on ghostbusters 3 was because "was that he couldn't conceive of a way to set the story in a world where ghosts are proven to exist and the world has recovered from giant monster attacks and rivers of slime."

how bad of a story teller do you have to be that you couldn't continue the story in a world where ghosts are known to exist? and what difference would it make? There would be LEGIONS of people like peck who would refuse to believe they existed even with proof right infront of them... any hope of this being good continues to be gone.

 

[TexasFright]

The Evolution of “Ghostbusters III”

I worked on a pretty fun article on Ghostbusters if anyone is interested in a read.

So torn on the new movie but I hope it's done well. Just wished the ole boys could have all gotten back together again.



http://www.flickchart.com/blog/the-evolution-of-ghostbusters-iii-in-hollywood/

 

[CB2001]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

was browsing other message boards and found this. apparently the reason paul feig passed on ghostbusters 3 was because "was that he couldn't conceive of a way to set the story in a world where ghosts are proven to exist and the world has recovered from giant monster attacks and rivers of slime."

how bad of a story teller do you have to be that you couldn't continue the story in a world where ghosts are known to exist? and what difference would it make? There would be LEGIONS of people like peck who would refuse to believe they existed even with proof right infront of them... any hope of this being good continues to be gone.

And not to mention the franchises of other Ghostbuster units that'd spring up after the events of New York (twice). I mean, ghosts rising from the grave can't just be a New York thing.

 

[AJTaliesen]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Yeah black nerds are a myth like unicorns.


That is exactly what they are doing with Ghostbusters, they are not replacing the old characters they are new characters. But alas it's still a gimmick cause they are female.

Respectfully, I think you have it backwards. Female characters are not necessarily a gimmick, but they pretty obviously wanted a gimmick and chose to make female characters the one they went with.

Also, look at the timeline. It's not that they announced a cast and we all went "wait! Girls can't do things!" The fact that they are women was what they lead with and ALL they lead with. THATS the entire hook. Girls doing things. Like it's 1950 and we're all going to howl with laughter at the idea of Lucy working in a candy factory.

 

[Vivek]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

So if they had said they are making a new Ghostbusters film with new characters and didn't mention anything else.

And two months later if they announced the female cast names, they would have been accepted more graciously by the fans? And the casting choice would not be accused as being a gimmick then?

Yeah, I find that hard to believe. The outrage would have been far more severe and mean spirited.

 

[batguy]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

So if they had said they are making a new Ghostbusters film with new characters and didn't mention anything else.

And two months later if they announced the female cast names, they would have been accepted more graciously by the fans? And the casting choice would not be accused as being a gimmick then?

Yeah, I find that hard to believe. The outrage would have been far more severe and mean spirited.

I disagree about the backlash being far more severe. I think it might have been similar.


The fact is most of us here are male. Many of us in the age bracket used to play with GB toys & dress up in GB suits. Doing an all-female cast has a way of making us feel kicked out of the club this time.

I'm not calling it fine & dandy that women didn't feel "allowed in the club" the first time 30 years ago. But let's be realistic. The original all-male cast was the far more plausible setup (especially at the time) and there wasn't a big existing fanbase of women GB fans to feel upset about a total gender change.

I do think the male audience needs to keep it in perspective, accept a little challenge to the GB status quo, and give this all-female cast a chance to work. But I don't think the male audience needs to apologize for questioning this change whatsoever. At the very least it's a risky choice that brings one obvious drawback and makes us doubt the motivations of the producers this time.



I actually hope the choice to use a female cast doesn't bear the brunt of the blame if this ends up being a weak GB reboot all around. So far this reboot doesn't smell great either way, male or female cast. The traditional female GB fans may come to regret this casting change ever happening if the new movie is a pile of poop on all fronts but the public fixates onto that one change for the reason.

To put it another way - the first major film character to ever be done all-CGI was JarJar Binks. That was a risky new move which got a lot of press coverage at the time. It would have been a real shame if the public had screamed "Oh God, no more CGI characters!!!" after that. The CGI work on JarJar was not what made the character unpopular and it's not what sunk Ep#1 as a whole.

 

[mattycsi]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

The problem I have with this, is that it is not Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters are Venkman, Zeddmore, Stantz and Spengler and they were played very well by the actors in the first 2 movies. Ghostbusters is not a film about ghosts, its about that crew and their experiences.

By replacing them in their entirety makes it completely obvious the name is being used as a ticket draw only. I'm sure it will have nod backs to the originals, but now this would just be a feeble marketing ploy to get original fans interested.

Imagine an Indy reboot, but Indy isn't in it! Or reboot Rocky, but have it be about a black bantamweight called Dave from California, but still cal the film Rocky!

 

[JOATRASH FX]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

This is going to turn into #bustergate

(For the record: A-OK by me with an all-female team if the first two movies would have been acknowledged.)

 

[mattycsi]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

This is going to turn into #bustergate

(For the record: A-OK by me with an all-female team if the first two movies would have been acknowledged.)

Fine by me too, if the originals are in it somewhere and its centred in the same universe then I'll give it a chance. But it sounds like a complete do over, and Im not interested, at all. Female cast or otherwise.

 

[Vivek]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I do think the male audience needs to keep it in perspective, accept a little challenge to the GB status quo, and give this all-female cast a chance to work. But I don't think the male audience needs to apologize for questioning this change whatsoever. At the very least it's a risky choice that brings one obvious drawback and makes us doubt the motivations of the producers this time.

Absolutely. They are expressing what they feel, their approval and frustration is valid.

Most if not all of the comments here seem level headed and isn't laced with sexism as some of the comments I have seen online elsewhere.

And it's certainly not only men who are opposing this reboot, there are plenty of women opposing the reboot altogether for similar reasons.

I am choosing to look at this from a different perspective solely cause it's not re-telling the stories of the original characters nor remaking their stories.

By replacing them in their entirety makes it completely obvious the name is being used as a ticket draw only.

Indeed. For example if they called them Ghosthunters or Ghostfacers (yeah I know they are both existing IPs) the movie would be less marketable.

But regardless of a new title, it would still be termed as a copy of Ghostbusters and might even be accused of plagiarism.

I am hoping they surprise the audience by setting it in the same universe as the original two movies, even though it may not be necessarily all that obvious.

 

[KrangPrime]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Most if not all of the comments here seem level headed and isn't laced with sexism as some of the comments I have seen online elsewhere.
.

that's the other thing I hate these days. people who's first thought has to be 'i'm not sexist....but...' we live in a world today where the pc nature of it has us afraid of expressing ourselves.....just because we might be labeled as one thing or another by some crazy person willing to twist own our post into their own crazy ideals. we can't just talk anymore without someone instantly getting offended at some little thing.

I don't think i've seen one post yet that hates the idea of women on the gb team. alot of them have just been strongly worded against this idea, and rightly so....but most everyone seems to WANT women on the team....especially dan and ernie. it's this whole reboot thing being forced down our throats as a 'great idea' by untalented executives at sony that people seem to hate.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Vivek,

Your last point -- that the film would be unfavorably compared to Ghostbusters -- ends up being the case regardless of what they choose to call it. The only insulation from this is (A) adopting the Ghostbusters name, and (B) actually connecting it to the original films so it's seen as a true continuation, not as a reboot/remake. If that had been done well, I think you'd see some grumbling about an all female team seeming like a crass attempt at pandering to an audience demographic, but it might've been able to continue on its own merits once it showed it was funny.

But I still think that, if your film is so derivative that everyone would say "Bah, it's just a crappy Ghostbusters knockoff," calling it "Ghostbusters" but still basically telling the same crappy knockoff story doesn't make it better. The thing is, Hollywood believes this because it knows that enough people will go see it purely for the name. I mean, they know branding works. That's why they do it. That's why they do it in the laziest possible way: slapping a name overtop an otherwise generic/humdrum product. Until folks start demanding better of Hollywood and these films start losing money repeatedly...that's not gonna change. They need to see a pattern of these kinds of reboot films failing at the box office before they're gonna stop, and quite simply, that's not gonna happen any time soon. Not when you've got films like 21 Jump Street making good enough money to warrant a sequel.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Hey Art, would you feel a lot better if this all-female team of Ghostbusters were a bunch of close-minded scientists who choose to believe in outrageous theories without having any supportive evidence? That alone would probably make these new Ghostbusters better than the originals.

 

[Vivek]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

NeilT, that's the power of the internet. We can express ourselves the way we want (of course some things like usage of language also depends on the rules of the site/forum/web platform assigned by the owners).

If somebody has a problem with your expression, they can choose to express to retaliate that. It's an endless exchange. You can choose to ignore them or back your statement. Of course you don't own an explanation to anyone, but sometimes you may feel compelled to do so to prove them otherwise. Sometimes we can't change people's opinions about us nor about our statements. So if you feel you have done no wrong, don't bother trying to explain yourself to others unless you really want to. So talk away.

Also anyone who says "I am not sexist" or "I am not racist" are deluding themselves. Unless one is a toddler or a little kid who hasn't yet been affected by the outside world and social norms, we are all racists and sexists in some form or the other in our deep dark thoughts, it's human conditioning which instills that. But it's how we cope and overcome that minutia of racism or sexism in us, by our words and actions is what makes all the difference.

 

[KrangPrime]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Hey Art, would you feel a lot better if this all-female team of Ghostbusters were a bunch of close-minded scientists who choose to believe in outrageous theories without having any supportive evidence? That alone would probably make these new Ghostbusters better than the originals.

I can't even wrap my head around that last part of the sentence. NOTHING is better than the original team. The ORIGINAL team is why we fell in love with this property in the first place. if you think that this new group will be better just because they are women, then you arn't really a fan of ghostbusters. you are just coming on board because it's an all women team.

and normally there would be nothing wrong with that....IF THEY WHERE NOT CHANGING EVERYTHING FROM THE GROUND UP LIKE THE ORIGINALS NEVER EXISTED SO SOMEONE COULD PUTTHEIR OWN STAMP ON A FRANCHISE RATHER THAN COMING UP WITH AN ORIGINAL IDEA and be ahero instead of a goat.

 

[renaissance_man]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I won't be going to watch this at the cinema, heck I doubt I will watch it all. When the cast has Kristen Wigg and the terrible Melissa McCarthy it will only be a matter of time before there will be a line in the film along the lines of:

"Oh, she can't even a Ghost date"

I feel the problem with all female cast lead films is there is always an element of "man bashing". It's the reason I think female stand-up comedians don't have the universal appeal that male stand-up comedians do, and the "man bashing" gets old very quickly. Look at someone like Billy Connolly a very funny man who has observations about a whole host of universal themes common to both men and women, on the flipside you have someone terrible like Queen Latifah or Sarah Millican with the "oh no hee di'nt" and man bashing respectively type material, that is generally only funny to women.

Why not have a mixed sex cast? I know the original was all male, but that was the 80s where films tended to lean towards male leads/heroes, are they making it an all female cast because they feel they have to balance out the bias from the first two?

Sorry Sony or whichever studio is making this, but I won't be watching.

 

[Vivek]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Your last point -- that the film would be unfavorably compared to Ghostbusters -- ends up being the case regardless of what they choose to call it. The only insulation from this is (A) adopting the Ghostbusters name, and (B) actually connecting it to the original films so it's seen as a true continuation, not as a reboot/remake. If that had been done well, I think you'd see some grumbling about an all female team seeming like a crass attempt at pandering to an audience demographic, but it might've been able to continue on its own merits once it showed it was funny.

Yeah that indeed should have been the ideal approach, backlash would be there regardless but it would have been embraced once it earned its place by being funny or scary even.

Creatively they could have worked the existing lore into the mix, but I can understand why Feig didn't want to do that. They want to have those early fresh moments of discovery of ghosts to hold more weightage and make an impact in the world. It needs to be the phenomenon no one has embarked upon, which is when their role as Ghostbusters becomes important. Of course there are dozens of scenarios fans will offer to retain the original lore in the modern world. But for the writer there would be lot of back and forth checking that needs to be done while writing the screenplay that doesn't contradict the established lore, which could prove to be stifling for their story.

 

[KrangPrime]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Creatively they could have worked the existing lore into the mix, but I can understand why Feig didn't want to do that. They want to have those early fresh moments of discovery of ghosts to hold more weightage and make an impact in the world. It needs to be the phenomenon no one has embarked upon, which is when their role as Ghostbusters becomes important. Of course there are dozens of scenarios fans will offer to retain the original lore in the modern world. But for the writer there would be lot of back and forth checking that needs to be done while writing the screenplay that doesn't contradict the established lore, which could prove to be stifling for their story.

and that's where I feel you are wrong. If you are a good enough writer, you should be creative enough to work around established problems while still expanding and respecting them. anything else is just lazy. like the star trek reboot who thought the only way to make the world exciting again was to rehash old stories done 25 years ago with 'new young fresh actors'.

Extreme Ghostbusters dealt with this very fact in the pilot. Egon was teaching a class on paranormal life lines as if ghosts truly existed. yet of the students who took the course...only two where open to the idea. Kylie knew for a fact they existed even though she never saw one. roland was open to the possibility yet was skeptical. Eduardo didn't care one way or another, and Garret believed it 100%. Once they saw their first ghost, it was all amazing discovery and to them it was brand new...while egon and the audience knew it was there all along.

this whole idea that the team has to discover their first ghost and be shocked and appalled by it in order to get things moving, I believe it is just bad writing. there are tons of ways to do it where the world knows ghosts exist. ghost insurance in the video game, also set up by the real ghostbusters cartoon, is a fascinating idea to explore. Plus, you would also be continuing the original idea Aykroyd came up with. in his first draft of ghostbusters, the world knew ghosts exists, and the ghostbusters had been around for years and where almost tired of busting every day because it had become routine...

 

[Vivek]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Extreme Ghostbusters was a good example of bringing new blood while acknowledging the old mythology. Real Ghostbusters was of course brilliant and the best incarnation of the team after the first movie and was outright spooky sometimes.

This reboot might end up having nods to the original movies but likely not as being part of the same universe.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Why not have a mixed sex cast? I know the original was all male, but that was the 80s where films tended to lean towards male leads/heroes, are they making it an all female cast because they feel they have to balance out the bias from the first two?

The 80s tended to lean more towards male leads/heroes? Oh my god! So much has changed!

Marvel Cinematic Universe List:

1. Iron Man (Male Lead)
2. The Incredible Hulk (Male Lead)
3. Iron Man 2 (Male Lead)
4. Thor (Male Lead)
5. Captain America: The First Avenger (Male Lead)
6. The Avengers (Male Lead with dominate male cast)
7. Iron Man 3 (Male Lead)
8. Thor: The Dark World (Male Lead)
9. Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Male Lead)
10. Guardians of the Galaxy (Male Lead with dominate male cast)
    
    *MARVEL MOVIES STARRING A BUFFED WHITE GUY NAMED CHRIS COMBO!*
    
    
11. Avengers: Age of Ultron (Male Lead with dominate male cast)
12. Ant-Man (Male Lead)
13. Captain America: Civil War (Male Lead)
14. Doctor Strange: (Male Lead)
15. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (Male Lead with dominate male cast)
16. Thor: Ragnarok (Male Lead)
17. Black Panther (Male Lead)
18. Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 (Male Lead with dominate male cast)
19. Captain Marvel HOLY #$!* A FEMALE LEAD CHARACTER!!!!!!!

And that's only if Captain Marvel is lucky. The film may not even be about her just like the Transformers movies weren't about the freaking Transformers.

Granted I don't know who the characters will be in the third and fourth Avengers movie or who will take the center stage of the story, but there will be a central character. Does anyone really need convincing that Tony Stark is the focus of every Avenger movie? Robert's name is the only name that goes before the freaking title. Maybe a female character will be the lead in the next Avengers movie after Age of Ultron.... But I highly doubt it because Kevin Keige believes that turning female characters into McGuffins, stuffing them into fridges, being man-handled around and knocked out constantly more than vindicates them of any gender bias.

Ren, you need to get a broader perspective on the problems of gender bias in the entertainment industry because this crap is going on strong in almost every medium.