GHOSTBUSTERS Pre-Release - film discussion only, no social commentary please!

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Westies14

Master Member
Worth a shot! Anyone up for discussing the development, props, and story as they're revealed and as they relate to the original stories? A lot of us are disappointed with what they're trying to do with this film, but there's a whole pointless unreadable thread where you can call us sexist or insist that we're whining or taking our stories too seriously. Please keep that garbage there. We're on the RPF because we love stories and take 'em seriously. That's actually the same reason why we're disappointed that one of our favorites is hitting the scrap heap in the eyes of its parent studio. I'm done posting in the other thread if this one is allowed to stay up. Please respect the topic and the spirit of it if it does.

Anyone who's excited about the film, cautiously optimistic, disappointed, or furious about the new direction - welcome! Anyone who wants to talk about each other (SEXIST!) or mock RPF members for not liking what they've seen (WHINERS! IT'S JUST A MOVIE), you've got your arena in that other obnoxious thread.

To get this one up to speed:

Throwing Chicken's great summary of the Sony emails that led to this film:
http://www.gbfans.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=39324

Breaking down the new film's plot:
http://indierevolver.com/2015/04/17/indie-revolver-exclusive-the-plot-and-problems-of-paul-feigs-ghostbusters/

New packs, costumes, vehicles:

CJk7RsLWUAAZg1K.jpg

CJW6vnDWcAATGo5.jpg

CJQXIcNUcAApwbn.jpg

CIs-4n9UwAAtKkW.jpg

ghostbusters-ecto-2-e1436500101102.png

Discuss - on topic, please!
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

OldKen

Master Member
Nice Westies!

I am def not 100% on board with this movie and some of the "issues".

But I am interested in following the development!

So it would be awesome to see that when the thread gets bumped... There's actually new things to see or discuss!

Play nice kids. We all know who is on what side of the fence by now!!!

;)
 

KrangPrime

Master Member
since it got kind of lost in the other one...

apparently the Giant Ghost T-Rex, Part of Feigs initial script outline, was shot a day or two ago.

Has ANYONE Had a look at the actual script? I'm curious if that stupid 'super ghost that commands armies of the past' plotline is still a part of the movie. If memory calls, they wanted Peter Dinklage to play that part. If it is, there is a GREAT chance that the stupid musical number battle at the end is also still in the movie. I can imagine people with shocked faces just walking out of the theater ;o)..
 

Westies14

Master Member
I'm with you. Here's a bit of news I can share:

They filmed a ghost T-Rex attack monday night, telling the screaming crowd of hundreds of extras that they were running from a fire.

The Aykroyd cameo may be part of a ghost attack montage similar to the ones in the first two movies. In the script, which doesn't mention Aykroyd or include his "I ain't afraid of no ghost" dialogue, the scene in which Wiig hails his cab is in line with "mini ghost events" similar to the skeleton cabbie, slimer in the hot dog stand, and "mink coat coming to life" scenes from the old films. One of these new ones is a flasher in a trench coat scaring a couple walking down the sidewalk. After they react, the reverse angle shows that the flasher is a skeleton. Aykroyd's cameo is cut right against that one.

The first "action" footage has also leaked - it's not much, but you can watch the ecto-station wagon pull out of the very uninspired new chinese restaurant HQ:

http://www.tmz.com/2015/07/15/new-ghostbusters-movie-stunt-video/

- - - Updated - - -

since it got kind of lost in the other one...

apparently the Giant Ghost T-Rex, Part of Feigs initial script outline, was shot a day or two ago.

Has ANYONE Had a look at the actual script? I'm curious if that stupid 'super ghost that commands armies of the past' plotline is still a part of the movie. If memory calls, they wanted Peter Dinklage to play that part. If it is, there is a GREAT chance that the stupid musical number battle at the end is also still in the movie. I can imagine people with shocked faces just walking out of the theater ;o)..
No Dinklage, no musical number as far as I know.
 

Michael Bergeron

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Oh my goodness. THAT is the new HQ? THAT is the garage they're going with for the Ecto 1?

Thus far the majority of images/video I've had a very "meh" response to. Not good, but not awful. This is the first one that is downright hideous.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

KrangPrime

Master Member
the only thing that I actually kind of like so far is the uniforms. If they got rid of the stupid stripes...or moved them down to have one above the utility belt and one below, I could appreciate them more. but yeah. that chinese food HQ seems like another classic line nod. Remember the 'chew your food' scene where they are eating...chinese food?

might be a long shot, but clever, huh? :)
 

Westies14

Master Member
the only thing that I actually kind of like so far is the uniforms. If they got rid of the stupid stripes...or moved them down to have one above the utility belt and one below, I could appreciate them more. but yeah. that chinese food HQ seems like another classic line nod. Remember the 'chew your food' scene where they are eating...chinese food?

might be a long shot, but clever, huh? :)
I referenced the "this magnificent feast here represents the last of the petty cash" line when revealing their new HQ would be a chinese restaurant in the plot breakdown, too! :lol You know they won't be able to resist. For all of his insistence that he get to do a his own original take on the theme, I can't remember a reboot picking up or referencing this many elements of the original that wasn't straight-up parody like Dukes of Hazzard or Land of the Lost. I fear this movie will be relegated to that batch of films.

In that other GB thread, Solo4114 discussed the difference between a reboot and a remake a bit. This movie does not really deserve the it-word "reboot." A film that treads the same ground, as this one does, is a "remake" (unlike GB2's "rehash!"). Same going into business story, same character archetypes (and race, if not gender) on the core team, similar props, vehicles, situations, and production design. Remake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KrangPrime

Master Member
I

In that other GB thread, @Solo4114 discussed the difference between a reboot and a remake a bit. This movie does not really deserve the it-word "reboot." A film that treads the same ground, as this one does, is a "remake" (unlike GB2's "rehash!"). Same going into business story, same character archetypes (and race, if not gender) on the core team, similar props, vehicles, situations, and production design. Remake.
at first I thought that was because his original idea to make it REALLY different was met with such hate that they had to change it (like TMNT making shredder white, only to shoe horn an asian dude in pickup shots, who now has no character development and is just...there). but, now that the Ghost T Rex scene is confirmed... I wonder how much that initial plot outline has really changed.

I now want this to be so bad, it ruins some careers..especially at sony.
 

Krull

Sr Member
With some of the ideas that members have brought up,and the fact that they shot a scene involving a ghost T-Rex....yea I'm a bit horrified at where this could go (i.e. straight in teh crapper) we could have a film worst then GB2 gawd help us.

Other then that I dunno,Ecto 1 looks okay,I have no clue what the bike is for-whatta they gonna do? shoot up alleys if they're in a hurry?? the pack...looks cheap as dook,looks like what a kid might put together after watching the first one and not knowing how to get a better look at it.

Overall I'll sneak a peek but if it goes like I've heard? like I said I'll run for my dear little soul away from this hot mess.
 

Josemne

New Member
I'm ok with the Ecto-1 look, glad they used a newer Cadillac. The logo getting cut isn't great, but it fits the idea that scientist are decorating the thing in a quick way. Heck most people would use the magnetic logos you can order online. The thing I don't like about it is the over size light on top, it looks unnecessarily way to big.

Didn't know the HQ was going to be a Restaurant, that sucks. But it makes sense they could afford and use a commercial space more than a Fire Station.

Then I would guess bike is probably left over from a delivery guy in the Chinese Restaurant and used for errands, a lot easier to move around in NYC on a bike then the huge Cadi for small stuff.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Westies14

Master Member
at first I thought that was because his original idea to make it REALLY different was met with such hate that they had to change it (like TMNT making shredder white, only to shoe horn an asian dude in pickup shots, who now has no character development and is just...there). but, now that the Ghost T Rex scene is confirmed... I wonder how much that initial plot outline has really changed.

I now want this to be so bad, it ruins some careers..especially at sony.
There's nothing out there to indicate Feig ever had any executions in mind far removed from the one we're seeing realized. Films are awfully difficult things to put together - whether they're good or bad. There really hasn't been time in this process to shift gears on the level you're describing here and in the other thread. Besides, Sony does not make creative decisions based on fan reactions. If they did, we wouldn't be here to begin with!

Feig and his vision (or lack of vision) aren't the root problem here. He ought to be making the movies he wants to make, on his own terms. His success has earned him that. The blame for this remake falls squarely on Sony, who put "hiring the 2012-2014 comedy box office king" over "extending Ghostbusters in the best way possible." Everything we're seeing is what was best for Paul Feig rather than what was best for the property. They should have just said no and found someone with more interest - or at least someone who wanted to work the thing through. Feig simply followed Sony's lead in having inappropriate priorities. The first consideration for any director they talked to should have been story - when Feig led with gender, Sony should have walked.
 

Solo4114

Master Member
So, having read through the pre-production thread, I'm curious from those who actually work in the business whether this is all pretty typical of how films get made.

If so, it pretty much confirms my attitude that idiot suits who don't understand or care the first thing about storytelling are running the show, and it is nothing short of a miracle that decent films end up being made at all.

I can't get over how haphazard and focused around "We need this director. We need that star," never mind that they don't even have a story. The following email from Amy Pascal (in response to Ivan Reitman being pissed that the film was being considered a "reboot") pretty much encapsulates my issues:

I agree that everyone is way too nervous about how this issue and how we. present it but it's isn't a sequel to the 80s movies and it is gonna be totally original with completely different characters and our job is to find a clever way to connect the movie to the original franchise so that we can use all the assets and everything that is great about the original franchise
And at the same time we want to create a "hub" /company for classic ghostbusters that
Will make other additional movies and television and
Maybe theater and toys and channels and video games and all the things we talked about .

Paul's movie is gonna be the first one and from what I'm hearing jennifer lawrence and Emma stone and Melissa McCarthy and Amy schumer and liszzy Kaplan just to name a few have already said thy wanted to be in....

Ivan you should never be seen as antagonistic to Paul's ideas ... I don't think with this s vod bull**** that any of us have actually heard Paul's full idea.... I suggest by the end if next week we do that
If we want the movie for summer 2016 which I do that means we need a script by January at the latest And we should probably start thinking what stages are gonna be available since everyone is gearing up for their spring start dates
In also want ing to get a visual effects supervisor ASAP... That is gonn be. Critical to this movie working
(Errors were in the original email because, apparently, producers also don't care about writing legibly.)

This film has been -- from day 1 -- about capitalizing on the brand and the assets that make up the facade of Ghostbusters, rather than about capturing the soul of the original work and channeling that into a modern film. Feig's involvement has been about capturing a different "brand" -- namely the hot comedic director and his usual players.

But seriously, take a look at the email, in particular the segment I bolded.


Let's be clear:

These people have no idea what the hell they want, other than "To make a lot of money and to franchise all aspects of this brand."

They don't care about storytelling. They don't care about respecting the old property (and actually, the emails show a fairly clear trend towards gradually distancing the brand from the original film and Ivan Reitman. To the extent that they "respect" the older stuff, it's a respect for the marketing value of it.

And all of this is reflecting in what gets leaked from the set. The production design, the "nods" and "winks" to the original like Akroyd's cameo, the makeup of the team, it all just suggests that nobody with any clear vision is at the helm, or -- at best -- you have a guy with a fairly clear vision (Feig) whose vision is overridden by corporate hacks who think storytelling is like going to a buffet where you just pick bits of this and bits of that to make your meal.


Ultimately, from reading through the email thread, it seems that Sony acceded to Feig partially because they wanted him on board, but also because they appreciated his vision of a new franchise. Feig's email to them hints at sequels and potential directions for the rest of the story, and my guess is that they saw it, loved it, and decided they wanted to do it...kinda.

Now, I'll say this. If what ends up being on screen is what was -- in broad strokes -- in Feig's email, that is, indeed, a very different direction from the original film. The two big directional shifts in Feig's pitch are:

1. There's an attempt to cover up the ghost incident in NYC.

2. The Ghostbusters end up working with the government, who covers it up and reveals they've been covering up ghost incidents for decades, but now recognizes they need the Ghostbusters. In the future, a government appointed person publicly denounces them, but privately apologizes and backs them, and says she's only doing it because they need to maintain the cover story.


The thing is, from the sound of it, that's not happening. When you're filming hordes of people running away from a ghost T-Rex, or Dan Akroyd being accosted in his cab, it becomes basically impossible to cover up the ghost incident. Again, this strikes me as "we're gonna do a totally original, fresh, different take...except not! Make it different....but make it the same." And all of this just screams to me that the people behind this film do not have a clear direction or vision for where everything is headed. They just new they had to leverage that Ghostbusters property, and they wanted Feig to helm it because Feig is a moneymaker.
 

KrangPrime

Master Member
Ultimately, from reading through the email thread, it seems that Sony acceded to Feig partially because they wanted him on board, but also because they appreciated his vision of a new franchise. Feig's email to them hints at sequels and potential directions for the rest of the story, and my guess is that they saw it, loved it, and decided they wanted to do it...kinda.

Now, I'll say this. If what ends up being on screen is what was -- in broad strokes -- in Feig's email, that is, indeed, a very different direction from the original film. The two big directional shifts in Feig's pitch are:

1. There's an attempt to cover up the ghost incident in NYC.

2. The Ghostbusters end up working with the government, who covers it up and reveals they've been covering up ghost incidents for decades, but now recognizes they need the Ghostbusters. In the future, a government appointed person publicly denounces them, but privately apologizes and backs them, and says she's only doing it because they need to maintain the cover story.


The thing is, from the sound of it, that's not happening. When you're filming hordes of people running away from a ghost T-Rex, or Dan Akroyd being accosted in his cab, it becomes basically impossible to cover up the ghost incident. Again, this strikes me as "we're gonna do a totally original, fresh, different take...except not! Make it different....but make it the same." And all of this just screams to me that the people behind this film do not have a clear direction or vision for where everything is headed. They just new they had to leverage that Ghostbusters property, and they wanted Feig to helm it because Feig is a moneymaker.
All I get from that email is the line from the Simpsons. remember the scene where they discuss the creation of Poochy? it also ends with Krusty walking out of the meeting saying something like 'Something like poochy, only less generic and more interesting...' 'So, poochy good with you guys?' 'yeah, poochy is fine'

My guess is when those emails got leaked, they abandoned that idea, and decided to go with something closer to the original movie and make it more of a remake than reboot.
I didn't care for the government idea anyway. what possible reason could they have to cover ghosts up? Aliens...yes. ghosts? have they been doing it for centuries? because that's as far back as sightings go in our world.

but yeah. Sony has no idea what they are doing, as clear with their other movie franchises. Spiderman getting rebooted three times in under a decade for instance.

But, as I mentioned in the other thread..what changed this time? What made THIS idea be the one that FINALLY got the go ahead after 20 years of false promises?
Was it the death of Ramis? does one less rights holder make it that much easier to gain more control? Did it wear the other players down to finally say, 'OK, lets try it?'
or was something else at work here?
 

Westies14

Master Member
So, having read through the pre-production thread, I'm curious from those who actually work in the business whether this is all pretty typical of how films get made.

If so, it pretty much confirms my attitude that idiot suits who don't understand or care the first thing about storytelling are running the show, and it is nothing short of a miracle that decent films end up being made at all.

It really depends on the scope and studio interest (pre-sold marketability/brand) of the movie. Something like a GHOSTBUSTERS sequel in 2015? Very sad, but very typical. Indie films can be left pretty to their own devices, or if they've got the wrong executive producer they could have studio fingerprints all over them. Once in a while, someone like Christopher Nolan or Tim Burton do well enough that the studios will let them do whatever they want for the privilege of financing and releasing their movies.

When Ghostbusters was made, it was a totally different landscape. Hollywood was still finding its equilibrium after a group of upstarts led by Coppola upended the traditional studio system and in the wake of the first modern tentpole blockbuster (STAR WARS). Filmmakers were still being entrusted to carry out big ideas on their own terms to whatever extent the studios thought could balance out financially, if that makes sense. If you'll remember, Spielberg and Universal allowed Robert Zemeckis entire WEEKS of reshoots on Back to the Future when he felt that Eric Stoltz was "not quite funny enough in the right way" and Michael J Fox had become available.

That's why it's not quite accurate to say that Ghostbusters being part of a family/style of films (including Stripes, Caddyshack, etc) is similar to Feigbusters being an extension of Bridesmaids, the Heat, and Spy. GHOSTBUSTERS is not his and never will be. It'll have a dash of him in it, but it's a studio paint-by-numbers assignment. They told him what he needed to hear to sign the contract and couldn't walk back certain promises (like the reboot aspect) but were never going to let him have control over the product. It's not long after he's signed on that they're exploring in those emails allowing another sequel, continuity-driven GB film to lead Feig's.
 
Last edited:

Axlotl

Master Member
...I can't remember a reboot picking up or referencing this many elements of the original that wasn't straight-up parody like Dukes of Hazzard or Land of the Lost. I fear this movie will be relegated to that batch of films.
That's exactly what I think this is. Like the 21 Jump Street movies.

- - - Updated - - -

..what changed this time? What made THIS idea be the one that FINALLY got the go ahead after 20 years of false promises?
That's what's got me scratching my head, too.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Westies14

Master Member
Honestly, I think Ramis' death took the fight out of Dan & Ivan to get *their version* made. The studio was always ready and there was little resistance in that moment.
 

Solo4114

Master Member
That wouldn't surprise me. That plus the notion of "We've been doing this forever. What the hell are we fighting for anymore? Let's just cash our damn checks and be done with it." It simply didn't make practical sense to fight the machine anymore, and after Harold's death, they were emotionally spent as well. I'd say you go in, get your money, put on a happy public face for pre- and immediately post-release press, and then trash the thing later if it bombs.
 

Rylo

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the entire project looks low-rent and hackish to me. The props look terrible and the actors are boorish.

I've disliked MM for some time, and the other two are exactly what one would expect from SNL cast members. The show has become unwatchable. As I mentioned on the other thread, I fear this film will be one looooong, painful SNL skit.

I'd think the studio has to have some concerns at this point. The on-line buzz over the stunt casting won't translate to dollar signs.

Unfortunate for all concerned.
 

Rylo

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
That's about it. :thumbsup

Honestly, I think Ramis' death took the fight out of Dan & Ivan to get *their version* made. The studio was always ready and there was little resistance in that moment.
 

KrangPrime

Master Member
I've disliked MM for some time, and the other two are exactly what one would expect from SNL cast members. The show has become unwatchable. As I mentioned on the other thread, I fear this film will be one looooong, painful SNL skit.
thats why I don't get culling all this talent from SNL. Most agree the show hasn't been good since Farley years. And I couldn't really name a cast member past probably 2005 other than Tina Fey. so with that, hopes for this go further down.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top