Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

[batguy]

But they've obviously only noticed the loud shouting of the haters. *sigh*

They've only acknowledged the haters. I'm sure they notice the legit criticisms too. They just don't care.




But, and this is going to get me flamed . . . any franchise that has been AWOL for 25 or 30 years is prime for a reboot. I'm sorry but that's the truth. After 3 decades it's a different audience & culture even if the movie ages well. I would love a GB continuation as much as the next RPF forum member but its not the strongest way to restart GB in the big picture.


The only exception I can think of is the Star Wars OT. That's one exception in the entire pantheon of movies & franchise. And it's mostly because that franchise has been indirectly kept on the public's radar through the SE re-release and prequels.

Even Raiders of the Lost Ark, the friggin' Mona Lisa of 20th century action/adventure movies, is not immune. It needs rebooting more than it needs a continuation.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

any franchise that has been AWOL for 25 or 30 years is prime for a reboot. I'm sorry but that's the truth. After 3 decades it's a different audience & culture even if the movie ages well. I would love a GB continuation as much as the next RPF forum member but its not the strongest way to restart GB in the big picture.

Well... Four years.

Ghostbusters: The Video Game (2009)
Ghostbusters: Sanctum of Slime (2011)

There are a couple of app games more recent even than those. Yeah, they're video games, but the point is they continued the original story and setting and sold pretty darned well. I don't know the breakdown of 40-plus to under-40 who bought and played those games, but I have a feeling the video game market does skew to the younger end. So there's still a youngish audience who wants to see this setting, and not a reboot. Keeping it relevant is the job of the writers, and those games prove it can be done.

--Jonah

 

[MooCriket]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-budget-cut-fox-execs-789896

How can this be good?

 

[KrangPrime]

i'm still wondering how mccarthy and feig had garnered such a high price tag...

one would normally think that type of price would be reserved for people high in demand. they arn't quite at the level yet of say, a Bill Murray or a Sigourney weaver.
maybe that's entry level acting and directing price in hollywood these days.

 

[Westies14]

Those people ARE in high demand. They're sort of the reigning box office comedy kings, especially for their ability to bring women into the theaters.

 

[MooCriket]

Time will tell if they will make half of what they are expecting. Will they bring both male and female viewers in?

 

[KrangPrime]

wanna know just how bad ghostbsuters is going to be. so, do I dare see spy? has anyone bothered with it? imdb reviews seem to think it follows the same feig formula...

just like wes, while i've heard of him, I've never actually seen a paul feig movie, but everything i've heard of them doesn't sound appealing.

oh well, at least charlie brown and snoopy are still boys. he might get that one right.

 

[dbalschi]

I don't agree with the remake at all but if you've never seen a movie of his your opinion of him is now null and void.

 

[Jeyl]

wanna know just how bad ghostbsuters is going to be. so, do I dare see spy?

Rotten Tomatoes Consensus @ 95% Fresh:
"Simultaneously broad and progressive, Spy offers further proof that Melissa McCarthy and writer-director Paul Feig bring out the best in one another -- and delivers scores of belly laughs along the way."

The Mary Sue's Review:
"Spy is Bridesmaids Alums Feig, McCarthy, and Byrne’s Funniest Movie to Date"

Birth.Movies.Death:
"Spy is a very funny movie, a very exciting movie, a movie that could be taken at surface value alone and make for terrific summer entertainment.

NPR's Review:
"And though Spy has clearly been designed around her talents, it also makes room for a nifty supporting cast: Allison Janney as her angry boss; a loose, funny 50 Cent as himself; Miranda Hart as a tall, slender, and hilarious Laurel to McCarthy's full-figured Hardy. It is, in short, a generous, smart, sexy comedy, surrounding this generous, smart, sexy star. About time."

As the NPR review stated, the cast have great chemistry with each other and are very likable. Isn't that an important element for Ghostbusters?

 

[KrangPrime]

I don't agree with the remake at all but if you've never seen a movie of his your opinion of him is now null and void.

that's funny. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to post that.

besides, people usually react to my opinions like they are null and void anyway, so how would I even notice the difference? ;o)

 

[Westies14]

Rotten Tomatoes Consensus @ 95% Fresh:
"Simultaneously broad and progressive, Spy offers further proof that Melissa McCarthy and writer-director Paul Feig bring out the best in one another -- and delivers scores of belly laughs along the way."

The Mary Sue's Review:
"Spy is Bridesmaids Alums Feig, McCarthy, and Byrne’s Funniest Movie to Date"

Birth.Movies.Death:
"Spy is a very funny movie, a very exciting movie, a movie that could be taken at surface value alone and make for terrific summer entertainment.

NPR's Review:
"And though Spy has clearly been designed around her talents, it also makes room for a nifty supporting cast: Allison Janney as her angry boss; a loose, funny 50 Cent as himself; Miranda Hart as a tall, slender, and hilarious Laurel to McCarthy's full-figured Hardy. It is, in short, a generous, smart, sexy comedy, surrounding this generous, smart, sexy star. About time."

As the NPR review stated, the cast have great chemistry with each other and are very likable. Isn't that an important element for Ghostbusters?

Of course, chemistry between the cast is beneficial to any movie. It appears many critics enjoyed Feig and McCarthy's latest outing. That said, lots of directors make great movies. The cast of the English Patient had great chemistry. The success of Spy doesn't make Sony's pursuit or selection of Feig to helm Ghostbusters any more palatable to fans, and it shouldn't. This is a director whom Amy Pascal had to approach several times due to disinterest and his admittedly not having any idea what to do with the property. Ultimately, the way to get him under contract was to scrap everything about the franchise and start over, shaping Ghostbusters to the hot director of the moment rather than finding the best person to inherit their world. They didn't even do it with tremendous confidence - reading the Sony emails it seems they just didn't have any better ideas. When Channing Tatum's version was proposed, they had a few discussions on how possible it might be to dial back Feig's new-universe approach and let the new, new version provide the umbrella under which Feig's team would exist.

The hiring of Paul Feig was not a creative decision but a PR one, through and through. The handing of Ghostbusters has had nothing to do with story or legacy, and if that's not obvious from the press it's on full display in the Sony emails. There's no reason any fan of the franchise should be happy or excited about this.

 

[Jeyl]

The handing of Ghostbusters has had nothing to do with story or legacy, and if that's not obvious from the press it's on full display in the Sony emails. There's no reason any fan of the franchise should be happy or excited about this.

You know, I think that kind of approach to a franchise did alright when Paramount hired JJ Abrams to do Star Trek. Just because you read about it in a leaked email doesn't mean that this sort of practice isn't a common thing in Hollywood nor is it necessarily the wrong course of action to take. We both don't know how the new Ghostbusters film is going to turn out but I can say that if it totally fails both critically and financially, I doubt that will be the end of Ghostbusters.

 

[Westies14]

You know, I think that kind of approach to a franchise did alright when Paramount hired JJ Abrams to do Star Trek. Just because you read about it in a leaked email doesn't mean that this sort of practice isn't a common thing in Hollywood nor is it necessarily the wrong course of action to take. We both don't know how the new Ghostbusters film is going to turn out but I can say that if it totally fails both critically and financially, I doubt that will be the end of Ghostbusters.

It's not really alike at all, in my opinion. Some fans don't like what they did with Star Trek, and many do. But all of them went and saw a take on Star Trek. Familiar ships, characters, aesthetics - they even bent over backwards to try and make the new stuff literally tie in to the old films. Ghostbusters wouldn't even need the retread - it was a property tailor-made for expansion, new characters and situations. "The franchise rights alone..."

It might end up being a good film. I'm not predicting that it won't be funny, or that the cast won't have chemistry, or that it won't be memorable in its own right. The one thing we do know for sure at this early point though is this: It won't, by design, be related to Ghostbusters. They prioritized getting Paul Feig over any - ANY - consideration of the story, of what Ghostbusters is or should be, and they didn't even really want him! It's really well spelled out in those emails. Yeah, lazy mishandling of creative decisions is rampant in Hollywood, but that's exactly what we're complaining about - not the reason we should be okay with it happening to Ghostbusters.

 

[Jeyl]

It won't, by design, be related to Ghostbusters.

Except maybe these parts.

Set in New York? √
High-tech equipment? √
Team comprises of four members? √
Introducing Ghosts to a world that has not seen them before? √
Ghosts brought upon by an evil person? √
Saving the world? √
Funny, scary and with action? √

But don't take my word for it.

"scarier and more hi-tech" than the original Ghostbusters: The villain will be a convicted murderer, ideally played by Peter Dinklage, who turns into a ghost after his execution is hit by "a supercharged electrical storm." This gives him the power to raise an army of other ghosts, which could be made up of famous villains throughout history. It's like Night at the Museum! These ghosts will in turn have to be busted by "four very different women" who have to "figure out in funny, scary and action-packed ways how to save New York City and the world."

 

[Westies14]

It's hard to tell if you're trolling me to see how far I'll try to explain my position, or if you really want me to acknowledge that a hard reboot of Ghostbusters might overlap with the original in some superficial ways. I'm not even insisting that the movie will be bad. It's intentionally separate from Ghostbusters. They're not casting Miles Teller as Venkman and connecting the stories via time travel a la Star Trek. They're not telling the story of a modern-day franchise of the business that started in 1984. The equipment may catch ghosts, but Feig has expressed how much he'd like to change it. It's not GHOSTBUSTERS, or even related to it, no matter how many superficial things are the same. That's what a hard reboot is. They scrapped what existed. And now it's well-documented in their own words that they barely cared and were very eager to push this one to the side when someone hinted at another approach. The people running the show had crummy things to say about Reitman, Feig, and almost everyone in-between. I guess we just want different things out of the movies we watch and the franchises we care about, but it's confusing to me that anyone shouldn't understand where we're coming from even if they're Feig fans and excited to see a whole new version.

 

[Solo4114]

It's a cynical cash-grab based on branding, folks. Maybe the end result won't suck, but how it got made certainly does.

 

[Westies14]

It's a cynical cash-grab based on branding, folks. Maybe the end result won't suck, but how it got made certainly does.

Exactly! Much more succinct than I've been saying it.

 

[jlee562]

Eh, I think the distinction you're trying to draw between JJTrek and the new Ghostbusters doesn't really hold up. To claim what is - by definition - a derivative work, is "not even related" to Ghostbusters is absurdly ridiculous.

 

[Westies14]

Not related to the existing ghostbusters films established characters, events, or world. A hard reboot. Why are you dinging me over semantics? They chose to make a clean break from the original films. It's not related in any meaningful way. It lifts its concept.

 

[jlee562]

Um, because if your point is that reboots are different; yes, thanks for stating the obvious.

You don't like it? Fair enough.

But you don't have the authority to define what is or is not Ghostbusters, because you read someone's emails on the internet.