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

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Movie Talk' started by Westies14, Jul 16, 2015.

  1. Westies14

    Westies14 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,580
    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...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!
     
    Solo4114, SciFiMuseum and Axlotl like this.
  2. OldKen

    OldKen Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,850
    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!!!

    ;)
     
    Westies14 likes this.
  3. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880
    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)..
     
  4. Westies14

    Westies14 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,580
    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 - - -

    No Dinklage, no musical number as far as I know.
     
    KrangPrime likes this.
  5. Michael Bergeron

    Michael Bergeron Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    6,116
    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.
     
    The Terminator and Westies14 like this.
  6. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880
    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? :)
     
  7. Westies14

    Westies14 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,580
    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: Nov 8, 2018
  8. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880
    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.
     
  9. Krull

    Krull Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,526
    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.
     
  10. Josemne

    Josemne New Member

    Trophy Points:
    17
    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.
     
  11. Westies14

    Westies14 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,580
    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.
     
  12. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    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 * that the film was being considered a "reboot") pretty much encapsulates my issues:

    (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.
     
  13. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880
    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?
     
  14. Westies14

    Westies14 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,580

    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: Jul 16, 2015
  15. Axlotl

    Axlotl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,165
    That's exactly what I think this is. Like the 21 Jump Street movies.

    - - - Updated - - -

    That's what's got me scratching my head, too.
     
  16. Westies14

    Westies14 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,580
    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.
     
    rinwen likes this.
  17. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    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 * 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.
     
    Westies14 and KrangPrime like this.
  18. Rylo

    Rylo Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,356
    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.
     
    The Terminator and Wes R like this.
  19. Rylo

    Rylo Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,356
    That's about it. :thumbsup

     
  20. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880
    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.
     
  21. AJTaliesen

    AJTaliesen Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,441
    I'm not so much in the business myself. Most of my friend are, but I've gone more the business/government route because I actually like things like...paychecks that show up on time, and food, and sleep. Honestly, I've had pets that get treated better than Hollywood CGI workers.

    But my understanding is...sadly, that it's not only common, but it's BY FAR the norm. It's a business, they are there to make money. Half the time even the toys start production before the story is finalized. That old commercial where they talk about banging out the script over the weekend wasn't parody, it was practically a documentary.

    Having said that, this movie seems to be as obvious about it as any I've ever seen. Motorcycles...a dinosaur...there's just no pretending that things like that didn't happen because there was a board room meeting and one suit said "They should have motorcycles! Motorcycles are cool!" and another said "What about a dinosaur? That dinosaur movie looks like it's going to be huge this year!"

    In the end, we're just lucky the notes didn't get mixed up and they aren't actually riding the dinosaur.


    But having said that...NOT AT ALL uncommon. Especially with casting. Getting some names attached often precedes much of the funding, so it's often the case that the writer hasn't even been hired before the cast is chosen. From a business side, it makes perfect sense. The names are a huge part of what puts butts in the seats. The same movie starring an unknown vs. starring Tom Cruise could be a 50 million dollar swing. I might be willing to invest some bucks in the next Stallone movie because if its even in English it'll sell some tickets. Doesn't matter if it sucks. As long as it covers the spread opening weekend, before anyone even finds out what a * it is, we'll still make bank.

    But is sucks form a story sense, and is the reason why we get so many oddball sequels that run the exact same gags as each other. Because those suits are not story tellers. They are businessmen, and there is a checklist in a sense. It may not be written down, but "things that movies do that make millions of dollars" is often just thought of as another way of saying "Things we're * well going to do in our next film even if we have to waterboard the writer and director into including it."


    Now for this movie, I have no way of knowing if thats really whats going on here, and even if it is, that does NOT always mean the movie will be bad. The right people can save even the weakest script, and even the most obvious cliches can become funny parodies in the right hands. But it's certainly not the slam dunk they seem to think it is.
     
  22. DakGibralter

    DakGibralter Member

    Trophy Points:
    162
    I think the SNL talent is a good sign. Kate McKinnon is terrific (up for an Emmy this year), and Kristen is obviously having a great and wide-ranging career after she left the show.

    And if you haven't heard of Seth Meyers, Bill Hader, Jason Sudeikis, Andy Samberg, Bobby Moynihan, Will Forte or Amy Poehler, maybe it's time for a refresher. All those people were/are part of the cast long after '05.

    Slightly off-topic, but I think SNL is the most mis-remembered show ever made. From Episode 1, even the best of the best are about 50% watchable, and even fewer sketches are remembered for more than a year or two.

    The "era" that people claim SNL was at its best have much less to do with the quality of the show and much more to do with the "era" that the person speaking was in their teens/twenties.

    Go back and watch any episode with a great Farley, Spade, Ferrell, Chase, Meyers, Carvey, Aykroyd or Belushi sketch in it, and you'll realize the rest of the show is mediocre at best. It's always been incredibly hit-or-miss. The things people remember are single sketches and the great comedians that went on to build respectable careers. Say what you want about SNL as a show (I certainly have/do), but they consistently cast some of the funniest comedians working. The quality of the show has little to do with the quality of the vast majority of their cast, and that's been true since 1975. (Even more off-topic, the writers are also incredible - it's Lorne's insistence on his own sensibilities that is and always has been the double-edged sword of the show.)

    All that said, the ability of the cast to handle the comedy of this film, whatever the quality might be, is something I'm the least worried about.
     
    Solo4114, Westies14 and jlee562 like this.
  23. DakGibralter

    DakGibralter Member

    Trophy Points:
    162
    Also keep in mind that Blues Brothers, Wayne's World, MacGruber, Bob Roberts, Office Space and A Mighty Wind were all based on SNL sketches.
     
  24. AJTaliesen

    AJTaliesen Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,441
    True, although they've also had some stinkers in recent years.

    I should clarify what I said earlier though: while I think the odds are against this being at all original, I do think it will make money.

    When was the last time we had ANY highly anticipated summer blockbuster comedy? Can anyone even remember? This thing could stink up the whole theater, but still probably turn a profit from opening weekend alone. From a purely business standpoint, it looks like a solid investment. I do think butts will be in seats, at least for opening.
     
  25. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Kristen Wiig had decent success with Bridesmaids, and has been also doing some indie work in dramatic roles, apparently with pretty decent reception. At a guess, that's why they went with her. Plus, Feig wanted her. She's part of his crew.

    She's not SNL, but Melissa McCarthy has had several decent-to-hit comedies in recent years and is basically one of the hot actresses for comedy roles in Hollywood. And, she's Feig's muse the way Johnny Depp is Tim Burton's muse. She is, however, a former Groundlings member.

    Can't speak for the other two. The only thing I've heard about Leslie Jones is that she caught some flak for something apparently racially tinged or something on SNL? I dunno. I didn't pay close attention to it. I've never heard of Kate McKinnon prior to her casting in this.

    Frankly, I didn't even find SNL all that funny in the Chris Farley years. The problem with that show has always been its 90 min format. In the Comedy Central 60-min reruns, it was always much funnier, because they could cut the lame bits and only show you the good stuff.

    Anyway, that's as may be. In fairness, SNL has a history of taking cast members from improv groups like the Groundlings or Second City. Sometimes that translates well, sometimes not. In the case of Akroyd and Murray -- both Second City alums -- it proved to be a goldmine. Ramis was also a Second City alum.


    The thing is, a lot of these actors are actually incredibly talented and versatile. But the problem is that they only ever appear as good as the material they're given. There's only so much you can do with crap direction and especially with crap writing. My fiancee LOVES Gilmore Girls and thought McCarthy was terrific on it. But if you give her weak material, a poor director, and/or interfering production suits, there's only so much she can do.

    Kevin Smith in one of those live "evening with Kevin Smith" things talked about shooting that film he did with Bruce Willis. The bottom line is that half the time actors who become known for doing a particular "thing" end up being stuck doing that "thing" because it makes money. People may forget, but Bruce Willis used to be a comedic actor before he was a tough guy action star. Now, though? He's a tough guy action star who works a little comedy into his stuff, and he does his "Bruce Willis thing." McCarthy's recent outings may be more a product of her having done a particular thing well, and then various execs saying "Get her to do that thing she does again. It made money last time."
     
  26. Rylo

    Rylo Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,356
    Yep, they went for the low hanging fruit, that's for sure.

    Tina would've been good as part of a broader cast!

     
  27. Westies14

    Westies14 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,580
    Office Space was out of an SNL sketch??

    I think SNL usually has a great pool of talent mixed with a few one-noters (who can either be lovable, forgettable, or obnoxious in their limited range). For as long as I can remember, the show's been the goal for an improv/sketch comedian. Perhaps it's lost a touch of that allure in recent years, but I'd wager that owes as much to a changing landscape as a decline in SNL's quality. There are a lot of different paths to success for the few comedians who "make it," and certain formats seem to fit different tones or styles of comedy better than a weekly live sketch show airing late on a weekend. Some people who would have once dreamed of joining the cast now emulate Louis CK or Amy Schumer instead of Tina Fey or Bill Murray.

    For the couple decades of SNL material that I do know, I'd say it's about 5% timeless gold, 20% really good, 30%watchable, and the rest is about what you'd expect to fill in the slots if they need to come up with one of these every week and execute it with an outsider of questionable improv talent in pivotal roles...
     
    Solo4114 likes this.
  28. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880

    true, and you also have the immense star power of that first cast that people remember fondly, kind of mixing in with the SNL days.

    Seth Meyers, but only because of his talk show. Bill Hader, but I couldn't tell you from what. Jason who? Andy Samberg? bobby Moynihan, name only...and last name mostly at that. Will Forte and Amy Poehler, name only.

    I couldn't for the life of me call off the top of my head anything I might have seen any of them in. although I've probably seen someone by at least one of all...(Looked up their imdb credits. I've only seen their voice work. and I honestly couldn't have told you from that who they where. Recently saw Inside out, thoroughly enjoyed it...no idea who the lead was)
     
  29. DakGibralter

    DakGibralter Member

    Trophy Points:
    162
    I can confirm that this is sadly pretty true.

    That said, I think people often blur the line between execs and creatives in a situation like this - the branding BS, money chasing, demographic concerns etc. are almost always on the exec side. No self-respecting writer, director or actor working out there today is doing anything but trying to make good work. Creatives don't need to make those stupid considerations, because execs are all too happy to make them for us, whether we want them to or not.
     
  30. DakGibralter

    DakGibralter Member

    Trophy Points:
    162
    Wait... are you serious?
     
  31. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880
    I just don't watch alot of recent stuff. Most of my stuff is from 90s on down. anything in the tv Realm I like, either starts to stink and gets cancelled early....or doesn't last very long (sleepy Hollow, for instance.....) So, when most of the shows you tend to get into don't last past a season or two, your willingness to check out new stuff tends to drop. and with all this reality crap on TV, I watch even less of it. I have not seen Ted 2, or Ted 1 for that matter(one of their credits listed)..... I've only seen a few episodes of the Office. I've seen maybe one or two episodes of shows like the Big Bang Theory (that's on long enough that I feel safe buying box sets). How I Met your Mother, I've only seen in passing. but now that it's ended, i'm checking it out more.

    My TV and movie watching habits have virtually dropped 50% in the last decade or so. I think the last show I watched from start to finish might have just been Spin City. and even that I started to stop once Charlie Sheen hit.
     
  32. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Right. That's about what I figured.

    To be clear, what I see in the email thread is execs doing their ****ty exec thing, and Feig and Reitman trying to walk the line between creative and executive, which I guess is why nobody knows what a producer actually does?

    Anyway, all of the crappy aspects of this film strike me as being down to the execs. The individuals involved may be immensely talented. The film may even end up doing well and being genuinely funny. But if any of that happens it will be a triumph in spite of the executive involvement.
     
  33. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880
    I can't wait to see the replies. yes, I know, I'm a dinosaur. Goes back to watching Bewitched ;o)./
     
  34. DakGibralter

    DakGibralter Member

    Trophy Points:
    162
    Agreed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Ha ha, not from me. You do you, man.
     
  35. Michael Bergeron

    Michael Bergeron Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    6,116
    To kinda sorta not really side with Neil here: Seth I only know because he hosts that late night show nobody watches. Bill Hader I know. Jason I have no clue who he is. Andy I know from Lonely Island, easily the funniest on this list for my taste. Bobby and Will I've never heard of and Amy I know but only from hearing about her, don't think I've seen anything she's in.

    To be completely fair though, I stopped watching SNL in the mid 90's.
     
    KrangPrime likes this.
  36. DakGibralter

    DakGibralter Member

    Trophy Points:
    162
    Well, my original point was that all of them have successful careers outside of SNL.

    I mean, I'm not crazy to say Amy Poehler is a household name. Parks and Rec ran for 7 seasons. She's hosted the Golden Globes 3 times.

    But I digress. Sorry to get off topic.
     
  37. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Neil, to very briefly continue this digression, I HIGHLY recommend Parks & Rec. The first season is a little...odd, but by Season 2, it really takes off and stays good throughout. It has heart, too, and seems to genuinely love the quirks of its characters, as opposed to viewing them purely as fodder for ridicule, if you know what I mean. Some shows have a "tone" where it's like they're laughing "at" the characters. On this show, you're more laughing "with" the characters, or to the extent you're laughing at, it's not a mean-spirited version.
     
    jlee562 likes this.
  38. jlee562

    jlee562 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,685
    Re: Office Space and SNL, Mike Judge originally created the Milton character as an animated series of shorts that aired on SNL in 1991 (apparently the funny years!)
     
  39. Josemne

    Josemne New Member

    Trophy Points:
    17

    No you are not crazy, She is a house hold name, has been in a lot of movies. Has she had some stinkers, yes, but what comedian hasn't? Probably the Best know SNL alumn, and the first one to go big on his own Eddy Murphy had some crappy movies in his time.

    You guys dismiss Seth Myers as the show no one watches, but no one brought up Fallon (who I'm going to guess is the show everyone watches) and he is out of SNL. Sandberg I never liked until I saw him on Brooklyn 99, and if you haven't seen that show you should, really very good.

    There is really nothing wrong with this group of lady's individually and the fact that 3/4 of them came from SNL isn't a problem. The real problem is the direction and concept of the movie, that's what you guys created this thread to discuss. The fact that all of this other stuff keeps coming up is an attempt to pick at low hanging fruit, because the direction of the movie can only be harped on so much. SNL is not the reason this GB will suck or not.
     
  40. DakGibralter

    DakGibralter Member

    Trophy Points:
    162
    To be fair, I brought it up because I agree that the production of the film is unsettling at best, but the cast I'm actually really excited about. I've got somewhat mixed feelings about Kristen and Melissa, but Leslie and Kate are terrific, and Neil Casey and Matt Walsh are seriously two of the funniest dudes in the biz. I think Katie Dippold is a terrific writer as well.
     
  41. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Right, at this point I think everyone seems to be in agreement on that. I'd say the major factors against it are the overarching lack of clear story/creative direction, and the general "same/but different" issue. The split pre-existing fan community is a potential strike against it, but not necessarily one that will matter enough in the long run. (I don't think

    Overall, it sounds and looks fairly uninspired, and still falls into the "Why'd you bother?" category for me. But then, I'm almost certainly not the target audience.


    All that said, I'd say it's a very safe bet that this film will be released to pretty solid success opening weekend. The numbers from that weekend and the second weekend performance (e.g., does it hold +50% of its 1st weekend box office take) will determine whether it's truly a success as a film. Even if it's a marginal success, though, I'd expect Sony to run with a sequel or two because...they need franchises.

    Lastly, let's not forget that at least some elements can be "fixed" with editing. For example, the fact that they shoot a scene with Dan Akroyd saying "I ain't afraid of no ghosts WINK WINK" doesn't mean it might not still end up on the cutting room floor -- or that other "in-jokes" like that might not get cut if the studio thinks it's too self-referential.
     
  42. Westies14

    Westies14 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,580
    Ghost grenades, and Chris Hemsworth's take on Janine springs into action via a stunt double:

    2A94024400000578-3163684-Dream_team_Melissa_McCarthy_44_and_Kate_McKinnon_31_were_picture-a-41_1.jpg

    2A94023A00000578-3163684-Game_face_Both_women_were_in_uniform_and_looked_like_hardcore_ex-a-43_1.jpg

    2A8ACBBE00000578-3163684-Who_you_gonna_call_Chris_Hemsworth_s_stunt_double_filmed_scenes_-a-39_1.jpg
     
  43. jlee562

    jlee562 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,685
    So has anyone seen the TV spots for the new Vacation movie? "So you want to recreate your vacation from 30 years ago?" "This vacation will stand on its own." Etc.

    Got me thinking about the meta-humor that they may or may not include in the script, and what kind of call backs Reitman was pushing Feig for in their discussions. "I ain't afraid of no ghosts" is certainly in the same vein.
     
  44. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880
    is it just me, or does thor look like he dropped muscle for this?
     
  45. Krull

    Krull Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,526
    Wha? grenades?!

    Um..well that's certainly different :wacko
     
  46. Westies14

    Westies14 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,580
    JLee, for the record I've unblocked your posts from my feed. Thanks for joining us over here - I like this discussion far better! Sorry for my part in the arguments on the other thread.
     
  47. DakGibralter

    DakGibralter Member

    Trophy Points:
    162
    These grenades are the first prop I actually like.
     
  48. jlee562

    jlee562 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,685
    Well, I didn't put my best foot forward either. I suppose I can be on the pedantic side sometimes. More than willing to let bygones be bygones. :thumbsup

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh, and the cannon DOES look dumb. When the first pic came out, I was thinking maybe it was a spare part that was perched on top of the handle bars (because it looked like an exhaust)..but..uhh....why are you putting that thing on a dirtbike? You telling me that thing has no kickback?
     
    Westies14 likes this.
  49. KrangPrime

    KrangPrime Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,880
    you can't even really see them all that good though . it seems like two different types of design. the one on the left looks like a small square cartoon missle.
     
  50. Josemne

    Josemne New Member

    Trophy Points:
    17
    LOL, maybe its a vacuum style weapon that sucks the ghost up, like the thing ECTO-1 had in the GB video game back in the day.
     

Share This Page