Ghostbusters 2016 sequel?

In a related article (original piece in Hollywood Reporter), director Paul Feig is blaming everyone but himself for his reboot losing more than $70M. I thought it was mildly entertaining, but couldn't recommend it to anyone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
In a related article (original piece in Hollywood Reporter), director Paul Feig is blaming everyone but himself for his reboot losing more than $70M. I thought it was mildly entertaining, but couldn't recommend it to anyone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Didn't read the article but I don't think Paul Feig deserves all the blame. Studio, producers, writers, actors, plenty of blame to go around....

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Just "a" mirror?! Heck I'm looking at my mug in my avatar pic as I type! Never get tired of that, mate.

OK, decent come back. I'll give you that.

But it does seem like you're poking the beast unnecessarily. You know the mods are going to side with you, so it just feels like bullying if you're out trolling for a fight.
 
Given this particular movie's past history on this board, what was the point of even bringing this up? Just to start crap? Sure seems like it. Good job, trolls.

:lol:lolBwaaaahahahahahahahaha:lol:lol. Oh, my sides! Wait...we're you serious?! :lol:lol:lol
I for one am simply beyond relieved that a sequel will not see the light of day. Faith in humanity restored, at least alittle bit.
 
Given this particular movie's past history on this board, what was the point of even bringing this up? Just to start crap? Sure seems like it. Good job, trolls.

:lol:lolBwaaaahahahahahahahaha:lol:lol. Oh, my sides! Wait...we're you serious?! :lol:lol:lol
I for one am simply beyond relieved that a sequel will not see the light of day. Faith in humanity restored, at least alittle bit.

There have already been two threads about the film locked. Can we let the paste of what once a dead horse just become fertilizer already?
 
There have already been two threads about the film locked. Can we let the paste of what once a dead horse just become fertilizer already?

I did not play a part in any of those past threads being locked. Can't we just let the RPF'rs who are happy that a reboot is dead, be happy...without judging them as trolls. Maybe those not happy, could simply move on?

Not trying to start an argument, just saying my piece. I'll move on now.
 
The argument before was solely about whether the movie should've been made. That ship has long sailed. No argument left I would say!

This section is for ENTERTAINMENT NEWS...

I was just sharing the news.

Dan Aakroyd says some things here that are the polar opposite of what was said by him in the past.

If you don't want to be in a thread where you think there will be an argument, why did you pop in to even read it, let alone comment?

In no way did I want to start stuff... I just thought it was newsworthy that Dan came out with this statement.
 
It was. No reason to obey those who feel there shouldn't be another thread ("oh noes, people with ideas, whatever shall we do, duck and cover!").

I thought it was notable. And I wasn't in the prior threads, IIRC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
wait a minute?! what happened?! did i miss something?!

Aren't we not supposed to talk about Fight Club? I thought that was a rule...


Anyway, as for there being no sequel...I can't say I'm surprised. Mostly, though, that's due to two things: (1) preproduction information that made me suspect this thing was always gonna do poorly, and (2) the fact that audiences generally just...aren't as hyped about a lot of retreads these days as they were before.

The pre-production journey from development hell to finished film is well documented, thanks to the Sony email hacks. And from my point of view, those emails suggested a production that was always designed as a "franchise relaunch" first, and a story a very, very distant second. Maybe third. The financial considerations for "Hey, how do we launch a brand that we can spin off into videogames, comic books, toys, etc.?" always seemed to come first. Sony selected what they perceived to be a "successful" director, who -- let's be abundantly clear -- wasn't really that interested in the project to begin with. To get him on board, they gave him carte blanche to turn the film into whatever he wanted, and he basically did the same thing he always does. Which, to be clear, is fine for original projects, but just seemed like it was thrown together for this project, and solely to bring a reluctant and unenthusiastic "box office draw" on board. That's not a great start to creating a good story. To the contrary, it sounds like nobody involved in this really gave a crap about the story at the outset. Feig just wanted to make a "Paul Feig movie" and not a Ghostbusters movie, and Sony just wanted to relaunch a brand name in association with another brand name. If you're gonna relaunch a franchise, it helps if you have people at the helm who actually care about the history of that franchise and are invested in it. It may not be a requirement, but it sure helps (e.g., compare JJ Trek to JJ Wars -- I would argue that JJ's own fandom and enthusiasm for the projects comes through loud and clear in TFA, whereas Trek feels like a wannabe Star Wars film).

I think Sony's marketing campaign was kinda dumb too, both initially, and then as it developed over time. And everyone's involvement on Twitter didn't help either.
 
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