Ghostbusters 2016 sequel?

Well, at the (now, reduced) risk of being flamed: I liked the film. I don't know if there was enough there for a sequel, but you could say that about the original.

My favorite part is ernies cameo "where's the car?!"

His line at the end of the conversion when she says do 2 castles at a time

"I'm not stacking them like flap jacks"

lol I don't know why I laugh so hard but I do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Watching the video, Dan seemed to volunteer this information and was more than happy to give his 2 cents. Wasn't he the executive producer on the film? Doesn't he share any of the responsibility for its success or failure?
 
Last edited:
Dan, who seemed buddy buddy with Feig, calls him out and says it's FEIG'S FAULT the movie was over budget, and FEIG wouldn't listen to him.

And this is coming from the guy who made Nothing But Trouble....
 
I watched it. It was okay, but it certainly couldn't measure up to the first or second film, and I certainly don't plan to watch it again any time soon (if it came on a movie channel during one of those days where there's nothing else on to watch, maybe I'll consider it).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I think it is deeply unfair to lay this entirely at Feig's feet. If you ask me, the buck stops at the studio C-suite.

Feig never really was that interested in this film to begin with. So, right off the bat, you have a director who's lukewarm on the project. Then they tell him he can do whatever he wants...so he just does his usual Feig film -- which is exactly why they hired him in the first place.

If you say "Go make us a Paul Feig movie with the Ghostbusters IP," and the guy does exactly that, you can't then get pissed when that's exactly what he gives you. Basically, if you hire a contractor based on their reputation, and say "Do one of your things, just with some of my stuff," you can't then be pissed when he does just that and the public doesn't like it.

And none of this mentions how Sony and Feig himself handled the pre-release marketing of this film, which was...

giphy.gif

--EDIT--

On a related note, I am disappointed at how this whole project was handled. There was never anything wrong with an all-female Ghostbusters film in theory. There WAS, however, something wrong with a half-assed C-suite-driven reboot that tosses out the old continuity on the theory that you can just slap a brand on top of any old film, cast people to hit "target demographics," kick it out the door, and rake in the cash.

Certainly not with a $150m budget, anyway.
 
Solo4114 But thats the problem with being the director though, you either get all the good, or all the bad. But I totally agree with your post edit comment though. Maybe they will give new stuff a chance instead of having to rely on reboots etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, The Guardian has officially made itself out to be a schlock website...

https://www.theguardian.com/culture...at-defines-2016-critics-choose-art-literature

They listed the female Ghostbusters film a the most culturally significant film of 2016.

I actually think they're pretty accurate, given what they describe as its cultural significance. It's not so much that the film itself was monumentally important in an artistic sense. Rather, it was the impact it had on culture as a whole, especially in terms of the HIGHLY visible trolls that popped up in the wake of the film. They were part of an overall landscape that went well beyond just this film, and was witnessed throughout the fabric of at least US culture and continues to reverberate today. In that sense, I'd say the film was extremely culturally significant. THE MOST significant? I dunno. But I'm having a hard time thinking of other films that had quite the same cultural impact.

Although, again, it wasn't even so much the film itself as a film, as much as it was what the film itself stood for to a lot of people.
 
Guys, I wasn't for my part blaming Feig, it takes a committee of fools to ruin a film, rarely does one person have such total power.

I was amused that in another thread we discuss the article in which Hollywood execs blame everyone but themselves for failing box office returns. And reading about this film, here's a director playing the blame game for his last film's mediocre performance.

I'll bet you my next paycheck that when Star Trek Discovery is all done, people will come out of the friggin' woodwork to point finger, "J'accuse!" style at the execs, producers, et al who steered that into the asteroid field.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
From the article I read on it, he ripped him for management and not listening to what he and the studio told him which wound up costing them millions. In short, he (dan) and the studio said you need to shoot these scenes for it all to work and he claimed he didn't and then completed and upon completing things 'to a point' realized he did need said scenes and wound up with reshoots that shouldn't have been needed costing an extra 30M IIRC.

Without that, it would have broken even or made more, but they were furious, supposedly, over that aspect. He praised the cast, just ripped Feig for those types of decisions, not the content itself - unless there's another article where he rips Feigs style or content.
 
These movies are just enormous machines with so many working parts, you can't blame just one guy.

In some ways, Aykroyd is as guilty as Feig.

(I say this of the opinion that the movie wasn't good... or bad... it just was)

It was a movie made by a boardroom and directed by a guy who was competent enough, but not right for the job.

Everyone did their best, you can see it on screen, there's some real talent, but the guy steering the ship was over his head, and being given orders by a massive amount of shareholders who probably didn't bother watching it when it was done.

Feig has a lot of good movies in him... all the actors as well... Hell this movie showed the true comedy chops of Thor...


But man, Sony... get it together...

Can't wait for the clean version of Sausage Party :facepalm *they're really doing this to their movies.... clean versions.
 
Guys, I wasn't for my part blaming Feig, it takes a committee of fools to ruin a film, rarely does one person have such total power.

I was amused that in another thread we discuss the article in which Hollywood execs blame everyone but themselves for failing box office returns. And reading about this film, here's a director playing the blame game for his last film's mediocre performance.

I'll bet you my next paycheck that when Star Trek Discovery is all done, people will come out of the friggin' woodwork to point finger, "J'accuse!" style at the execs, producers, et al who steered that into the asteroid field.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Can't speak for anyone else here, but I didn't think you personally were blaming Feig. It struck me that Akroyd sure was, though. And the studio.

From the article I read on it, he ripped him for management and not listening to what he and the studio told him which wound up costing them millions. In short, he (dan) and the studio said you need to shoot these scenes for it all to work and he claimed he didn't and then completed and upon completing things 'to a point' realized he did need said scenes and wound up with reshoots that shouldn't have been needed costing an extra 30M IIRC.

Without that, it would have broken even or made more, but they were furious, supposedly, over that aspect. He praised the cast, just ripped Feig for those types of decisions, not the content itself - unless there's another article where he rips Feigs style or content.

Yeah, it sounds like Feig's reshoots represented a substantial cost overrun, and one that the studio and (apparently) Ackroyd warned against. If Feig ignored that on the front end, and it cost them on the back end, then I can understand being ticked at him. Of course, that doesn't say much about why the film wasn't the hit they wanted it to be. It did decently well, but in the end it was just "Good. You know, fine." It wasn't the film to launch 1000 merchandising deals. It wasn't the start of a bold new franchise to rival Marvel for tentpole status. It was just a comedy film starring some funny women, which is what Feig does.

These movies are just enormous machines with so many working parts, you can't blame just one guy.

In some ways, Aykroyd is as guilty as Feig.

(I say this of the opinion that the movie wasn't good... or bad... it just was)

It was a movie made by a boardroom and directed by a guy who was competent enough, but not right for the job.

Everyone did their best, you can see it on screen, there's some real talent, but the guy steering the ship was over his head, and being given orders by a massive amount of shareholders who probably didn't bother watching it when it was done.

Feig has a lot of good movies in him... all the actors as well... Hell this movie showed the true comedy chops of Thor...


But man, Sony... get it together...

Can't wait for the clean version of Sausage Party :facepalm *they're really doing this to their movies.... clean versions.

Yeah, to my way of thinking, and like I said above, the buck stops at the Sony C-suite. You're pissed at the director? Well, you're the schmucks that picked him. Unhappy at how he didn't handle the budget? Maybe pick a guy who's used to working with big f/x-heavy films, instead of just grabbing the current "hot talent." Pissed about reshoots? Maybe don't tell the guy he can do what he wants....oh, except we have these notes...
 
If you're being serious, he banned himself a month or two ago.

Sent from my Hewlett Packard 48G using Tapatalk

yeah i was serious, i just talked to him about 2 weeks ago. another member PMed me and filled me in on what happened.
 
sorry guys i didnt mean to take this thread off topic. i was confused

as for the film, i am glad they dont plan on making a sequel. i would rather them start something else ghostbusters related. there were many cool cameos, throw backs and easter eggs. and i just recently learned my friends daughters dance instructor was one of the back ground army soldiers!
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top