Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

[DaddyfromNaboo]

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.

"Ghostbusters" is pretty much already defined. By two movies. And extended into the cartoon world, following the same rules and aettings and characters. Everything else is Filmations GBs or Monater squad or any other show with similar settings. Has there been a poll whod accept a GB reboot and who qould not?

 

[jlee562]

And the point of such a poll would be....? Movies don't get made based on polls...certainly not polls of the RPF, which is not a representative subset of the general population.

 

[Westies14]

EDIT: Must not engage with people who will bend over backwards to argue for the sake of arguing...

 

[Jeyl]

I'm not trying to define anything! Just attempting to clarify: the people making this movie are intentionally making something separate and independent of the original stories. Within the universe they're going to show in their film, the characters we know never existed and the events we've seen never happened. That's not me trying to define anything; it's just discussion regarding the direction they decided to go with the new film. Why are you pretending either to not understand the concept of a reboot or to not accept that these people are aiming to make something new?

What exactly are we losing with this movie? We're not losing the original films, TV show, Video Games, Comics or even the interest in the original team. It's just another movie that wants to do it's own spin on Ghostbusters. And I hate to say it, but the efforts in trying to make a 3rd Ghostbusters movie has had it's unfortunate moments as well with Bill Murray not giving a crap, the passing of Harold Ramis, Ivan Reitman stepping down from directing and scripts that aren't winning anyone over (Ghostbuster's in Hell?). Wanting nothing to do with that is not unreasonable. Going the reboot route is a double edged sword to be sure, but at least it won't have carry any of that baggage that has done more to hold Ghostbusters back than anything else.

 

[Westies14]

Moving the goalposts. In one breath you have me defining a reboot, explaining that despite superficial similarities the filmmakers are trying to create something unrelated to the first films. Now you're arguing the validity of the approach of making something new.

Maybe the something new is good. I'm not saying it won't be! The problem we have as fans of the original franchise is that the perfectly good baby was thrown out with the bathwater without a second thought. They didn't get there as the result of working a script to the point of perfection, realizing late how valuable to the story it would be to jettison what had come before. They didn't find the perfect director to helm Ghostbusters as the studio heads envisioned it before refining the create with him. They chased down a guy who didn't want it and refused the project three times; conceded to let him do whatever he wanted with the name (and not the existing property) in order to get him to sign, and almost as soon as they had him were distracted by the next proposal and explored the politics of dialing back, delaying, or otherwise subverting the reboot without offending Feig. No one can say yet whether the movie will be good - but why should we be happy about how this has gone down? None of this is speculation!

 

[Jeyl]

No one can say yet whether the movie will be good - but why should we be happy about how this has gone down?

Because if the movie is good, why does anything else matter?

 

[jlee562]

EDIT: Must not engage with people who will bend over backwards to argue for the sake of arguing...

Lol, if you think that's what's happening, you are mistaken.

How you think I don't understand what a reboot is, or have somehow denied that this film will be "new," is beyond me, and frankly, nonsensical, considering that my previous post directly contradicts those two points.

Yes, you arguing that a film which uses the intellectual property of Ghostbusters, is "not Ghostbusters," because you don't like that it's a reboot makes about as much sense as claiming Indy IV never happened.

It's a Ghostbusters movie, get over it.

 

[Westies14]

Because this is not a good recipe for shepherding the franchises we care so much about. Because, as you said, this approach to creative decision making is rampant in Hollywood. Because studio executives seem to learn exactly the wrong lessons from every success and ignore what makes people fall in love with a story or with characters. Because while this *might* result in a decent movie, the formula leads to a pile of trash 99% of the time and Ghostbusters deserved more consideration. Because this is where we are in the story of this movie's production - everything to this point has been worrysome, and there's no good movie to point to. Because no case has been made for jettisoning the original films from this one's history; rather the decision was made on the hastily chosen director's disinterest in the property. We're film geeks here. We spend hundreds or thousands of dollars, untold hours on recreating items that characters hold or wear in these movies. Caring an inordinate amount is par for the course - that's a given in these conversations on this forum. I promise not to try and explain it again - but are you seriously telling me you REALLY don't see where we're coming from, even if you don't share those concerns? I just don't buy it.

- - - Updated - - -

Indy IV?

 

[Josemne]

I think people get hung up on the "reboot" word. Its a new movie based on the idea of Ghostbusters. When they replace James Bond every few movies no one talks about it being a reboot. And those movies are as inconsistent a franchise of movies as there is. Yet everyone still considers them all part of the franchise.

We will see if it holds up to the originals, but I have no hesitation in saying it will be a Ghosbusters movie and spoken along side the originals, even if the story does not run consistent thru them.

- - - Updated - - -

Indy IV?

I think he means the last Indiana Jones movie

 

[jlee562]

Because this is not a good recipe for shepherding the franchises we care so much about. Because, as you said, this approach to creative decision making is rampant in Hollywood. Because studio executives seem to learn exactly the wrong lessons from every success and ignore what makes people fall in love with a story or with characters. Because while this *might* result in a decent movie, the formula leads to a pile of trash 99% of the time and Ghostbusters deserved more consideration. Because this is where we are in the story of this movie's production - everything to this point has been worrysome, and there's no good movie to point to. Because no case has been made for jettisoning the original films from this one's history; rather the decision was made on the hastily chosen director's disinterest in the property. We're film geeks here. We spend hundreds or thousands of dollars, untold hours on recreating items that characters hold or wear in these movies. Caring an inordinate amount is par for the course - that's a given in these conversations on this forum. I promise not to try and explain it again - but are you seriously telling me you REALLY don't see where we're coming from, even if you don't share those concerns? I just don't buy it.

- - - Updated - - -

Indy IV?

No, I'm telling you some of things you've said, like saying this movie isn't Ghostbusters, makes no sense.

Yes, I get that you're upset about the studio's process. Why you think this point has escaped anyone is beyond me.

Folks here and on COW sometimes insist that Crystal Skull isn't part of Indy cannon.

 

[Westies14]

I think people get hung up on the "reboot" word. Its a new movie based on the idea of Ghostbusters. When they replace James Bond every few movies no one talks about it being a reboot. And those movies are as inconsistent a franchise of movies as there is. Yet everyone still considers them all part of the franchise.

We will see if it holds up to the originals, but I have no hesitation in saying it will be a Ghosbusters movie and spoken along side the originals, even if the story does not run consistent thru them.

James Bond is an entirely unique beast, a worse metaphor than the Star Trek reboot. You're talking about a franchise which evolved over decades and dozens of films, just reflecting modern audience tastes and keeping the character rooted in current times. They weren't reboots - just lazy sequels. The character was the same person from Connery through Brosnan. You could argue that Daniel Craig's films represent the first actual reboot of the character in the film history, and even so it features the same title character working within the same organization - even answering to Pierce Brosnan's boss! Can anyone point to a true reboot of a beloved franchise that scraps the core characters and elements (not the superficial stuff), nevermind one that people actually appreciate?

I think he means the last Indiana Jones movie

Last Crusade was only the third one.

 

[Westies14]

No, I'm telling you some of things you've said, like saying this movie isn't Ghostbusters, makes no sense.

You're right. It's a team of four, in NY. Busting Ghosts. I'm sure no one will even notice the difference. FFS. The people making the film are the ones saying it's something new, unrelated to the old ones.

 

[jlee562]

You're right. It's a team of four, in NY. Busting Ghosts. I'm sure no one will even notice the difference. FFS. The people making the film are the ones saying it's something new, unrelated to the old ones.

Do you not understand the concept of intellectual property?

Using your logic, TNG "isn't Star Trek" because it doesn't have Kirk.

 

[Westies14]

Do you not understand the concept of intellectual property?

Using your logic, TNG "isn't Star Trek" because it doesn't have Kirk.

Another terrible analogy. TNG is Kirk's universe, just years down the road. They had original series characters on the show, and Kirk himself is shoehorned into TNG-era films.

I realize fans don't own the intellectual property of Ghostbusters. The studios will do what they will with it. They decided to scrap what existed and start over. That's where the conversation started, not the mic drop that ends it.

 

[Josemne]

James Bond is an entirely unique beast, a worse metaphor than the Star Trek reboot. You're talking about a franchise which evolved over decades and dozens of films, just reflecting modern audience tastes and keeping the character rooted in current times. They weren't reboots - just lazy sequels. The character was the same person from Connery through Brosnan. You could argue that Daniel Craig's films represent the first actual reboot of the character in the film history, and even so it features the same title character working within the same organization - even answering to Pierce Brosnan's boss! Can anyone point to a true reboot of a beloved franchise that scraps the core characters and elements (not the superficial stuff), nevermind one that people actually appreciate?

The last 2 planet of the Apes movies I think have been good, and they are reboots.

Last Crusade was only the third one.

LOL, I know a lot of people that feel the same. Heck some people only consider the first one any good.

 

[Westies14]

The last 2 planet of the Apes movies I think have been good, and they are reboots.

Probably comes the closest, but I think those POTA movies are technically prequels. They don't contradict the classic movies or show us a different spin on the same era the way Burton's film did. The first intelligent monkey is even named Caesar, hinting at the old movies' ape ancestry. Even if this were a reboot though, it's kind of a well meaning re-orientation after a pretty universally despised reboot.

It's not even that a reboot isn't one right way to go for Ghostbusters; it's knowing how it became one is truly disappointing. Sony should make a better case for it than "Feig insists on only producing original stories about groups of women, and for a couple months there we thought he might be the best man to sell tickets before hearing about some other possibilities..."

 

[jlee562]

Another terrible analogy. TNG is Kirk's universe, just years down the road. They had original series characters on the show, and Kirk himself is shoehorned into TNG-era films.

"Superficial similarities."

I realize fans don't own the intellectual property of Ghostbusters. The studios will do what they will with it. They decided to scrap what existed and start over. That's where the conversation started, not the mic drop that ends it.

Mic drop? What the hell are you talking about?

I'm alright with a Ghostbusters reboot. I'm not going to say that it's "not Ghostbusters" because it's a reboot.

 

[Westies14]

Semantics. It's not related to the classic Ghostbusters.

How is TNG's existing in the exact same story universe as the original series a superficial similarity???? It's a continuation, plain and simple. The same characters show up in the show! Their history is discussed reverently by the new characters. TROLL.

 

[Josemne]

Probably comes the closest, but I think those POTA movies are technically prequels. They don't contradict the classic movies or show us a different spin on the same era the way Burton's film did. The first intelligent monkey is even named Caesar, hinting at the old movies' ape ancestry. Even if this were a reboot though, it's kind of a well meaning re-orientation after a pretty universally despised reboot.

I haven't seen the original movies in a long time, but as I recall in those Caesar is essentially brought back in time from the Ape earth in the future and ends up left behind after his mother is killed to start the beginning of the end for humans. In the new ones there is a new "origin story", yes the first ape is called Ceaser but it is essentially a reboot.

The difference is that the origin from the first Planet of The Apes made so little sense it needed to be rebooted, and I feel they have done a pretty good job with it.

bringing it back to your point though:

It's not even that a reboot isn't one right way to go for Ghostbusters; it's knowing how it became one is truly disappointing. Sony should make a better case for it than "Feig insists on only producing original stories about groups of women, and for a couple months there we thought he might be the best man to sell tickets before hearing about some other possibilities..."

I get what you are saying because essentially Ghostbuster didn't need to be rebooted, they could of picked it up with a new crew maybe trained by the old ones how ever many years later. And I can see why that would be frustrating for some, specially when you add the reasoning behind it. I'm going to stay hopeful and open to it for now, but who knows I may end up on your side once its out.

 

[Westies14]

I'm going to stay hopeful and open to it for now, but who knows I may end up on your side once its out.

I'll admit I'm hoping it's an easily forgotten footnote to the brand, like Lazenby as James Bond or Burton's Apes movie, but that's just reflective of my preference for the franchise to recognize its origins in the future. If the movie is good, I'll like it for whatever it is. That's really separate from thinking Sony's development and marketing process is a mess - that's all I'm critical of at this point. It's really all we have to consider. The people trying to hold up a hypothetically decent movie as an argument against thinking Sony's mishandled this have nothing to point to, and should one materialize against all odds and against Hollywood's track record that still won't be a validation of Sony's "process."