The New Ghostbusters - Part 6

[Steamteck]

so they need "permission" from the all male previous cast?

because that's what I hear every time I read that reasoning

No but the idea it was a continuation and a legacy they were stepping into would have been great. Frankly anyone who is worrying about the gender one way OR the other is part of the problem.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

No but the idea it was a continuation and a legacy they were stepping into would have been great. Frankly anyone who is worrying about the gender one way OR the other is part of the problem.

Why does it matter if it's a legacy? Indiana Jones being still alive didn't make the Kingdom movie better.

A good idea is a good idea. Having the Ghostbusters start from scratch isn't a bad idea.

 

[JMLZ]

Why does it matter if it's a legacy? Indiana Jones being still alive didn't make the Kingdom movie better.

Yes it did. If Harrison Ford weren't in the role, then people would have disliked that film even more than they already did.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Yes it did. If Harrison Ford weren't in the role, then people would have disliked that film even more than they already did.

I majorly disagree. Him being there reminded people of how much better this franchise used to be.

I may not be a fan of TFA recycling but they got one thing right. The old protagonist, Luke, wasn't there competing with the new leads. Leia and Han acted in supporting roles like they were in the original trilogy. There was no confusion that this was Rey's story unlike Indy and Mutt.

Having the old Ghostbusters not being the leads in a Ghostbusters film about a new team of Ghostbusters would be unnecessarily complicated.

 

[JMLZ]

I majorly disagree. Him being there reminded people of how much better this franchise used to be.

Do you think a recast would have done any less?

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Do you think a recast would have done any less?

I think it would have done okay depending on the actor cause the whole Indy's kid story would be gone.

Look at the Apes franchise. Burton tried the outdo the original movie trick and it backfired. Better makeup and a recall to the SOL scene. Now we have an Apes franchise just doing its own thing not competing with the iconography.

 

[The Guard]

Feminists love to show their 'strength' in 'activism' by holding up a piece of paper with an arbitrary word or phrase on it. Most just laugh at people like this instead of respect them more because any true strong, powerful person doesn't need to keep reminding the public of their biological makeup when they already are accomplished.

It's so cheesy and cringeworthy lol

Anybody who follows movies or Awards season knows there's lots of creative and talented women that are responsible for a lot of great things on screen.

Seriously, the whole written out words on paper or skin is no longer affective. Find a new way because people have likely died from the cringe that they have to endure when these things present themselves over and over and over again.

...the hell?

What is happening in this thread?

 

[JMLZ]

I think it would have done okay depending on the actor cause the whole Indy's kid story would be gone.

Look at the Apes franchise. Burton tried the outdo the original movie trick and it backfired. Better makeup and a recall to the SOL scene. Now we have an Apes franchise just doing its own thing not competing with the iconography.

A major draw to seeing Indy:KotCS was the fact that the original star [and director] was returning to a beloved film franchise that had previously gone out on a high note (Crusade). People expected more of the same quality, because there was every reason to (it's Spielberg!). Regardless of how good Kingdom was, Ford performing again was a positive.

Stallone is Rocky. Creed wouldn't have been the same without him.

A change in actor would have lowered people's enjoyment of the film, and it would have lowered people's expectations for it in the first place (like Robocop 2014).

Regarding Apes, you're comparing what at this point could still be called a prequel series (RotPOA and DotPOA) to what is effectively a reboot (GB2016). Here, you mention the end of Burton's film [a callback scene referencing the end of Apes68] as an example of what was wrong with Apes 2001. Yet in Ghostbusters 2016 we've already seen a callback scene with a peaceful ghost that suddenly gets mean (like Eleanor Twitty the librarian in GB84). My point being, I don't think paying respect to a previous film is a negative, or even what detracted from those films.

 

[Zarex]

Could you all be any more dramatic?

You'd think the sky was falling.

Sheesh.

If one more person says "You know what would have been better? A direct sequel with the original guys"...

The original guys didn't want to do it that badly. The original guys weren't going to do it. I'm not saying get over it...it certainly sucks on some level, but can we please stop with this same old tired rhetoric?

The feeling I'm getting is that most folks would have preferred this one to be a direct sequel with the same cast rather than a remake. Sheesh.

 

[bluejake01]

I don't understand all this talk of Indiana Jones. There were three movies. A perfect trilogy, presented out of chronological sequence with a satisfying conclusion. That was it. I did have a nightmare once where I had to sit through a terrible movie, set decades later with monkeys that had pompadours and interdimensional aliens. But, I woke up, realized I didn't have to watch it ever again, and put my Raiders of the Lost Ark Blu-Ray on and had a great day.

If there are things in the new Ghostbusters that make you dislike it as much as I disliked seeing poor Harrison Ford have to stumble through the train wreck that Crystal Skull ended up being, then I recommend rewatching the original Ghostbusters and having a great day.

 

[TheCommissioner]

I don't understand all this talk of Indiana Jones. There were three movies. A perfect trilogy, presented out of chronological sequence with a satisfying conclusion. That was it. I did have a nightmare once where I had to sit through a terrible movie, set decades later with monkeys that had pompadours and interdimensional aliens. But, I woke up, realized I didn't have to watch it ever again, and put my Raiders of the Lost Ark Blu-Ray on and had a great day.

If there are things in the new Ghostbusters that make you dislike it as much as I disliked seeing poor Harrison Ford have to stumble through the train wreck that Crystal Skull ended up being, then I recommend rewatching the original Ghostbusters and having a great day.

what this guy said

I kind of liked Crystal Skull, and they did film some of it at Yale...which is like 10 minutes away from me

 

[bluejake01]

The feeling I'm getting is that most folks would have preferred this one to be a direct sequel with the same cast rather than a remake. Sheesh.

The magic is gone. Harold Ramis is gone. Bill Murray didn't have the interest in being Pete Venkman again, and Dan Aykroyd has seen his best days as a writer come and go. I fear a direct sequel Would have been as bitter sweet to watch as Blues Brothers 2000...which I enjoyed for the music, but recognize that it was a narrative mess.

The video game was so much damn fun, had the original cast and used the ideas that would have been Ghostbusters 3. That will have to be enough, because sadly, life marched on by and made it impossible to revisit the original continuity in a major motion picture.

 

[TheVileOne]

My possible and very possibly unlikely prediction. 2016 Ghostbusters will be 2016's Terminator Genisys...meaning it still might work for some.

 

[JMLZ]

They didn't even bother to make a good looking car.

We had this:

...and now we have this:

 

[Vaibow]

let's face it, ghostbuster was an excellent product of its time - like BTTF. A remake may lose its charm.

But...this reddit review just looks terrible.

 

[def28]

Most people are not gonna understand why the original cast did not play their original characters because Murray, Akroyd, Hudson and Weaver are in the film. And now the film has been confusing people into thinking it's connected as well. It's not in a good place with that.

Multiple films isn't the same as proven. Underworld has multiple films.

They were proven to be hits cause they were hits. It's not really a matter of opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to debate here. If Ghostsbuters made the same amount of money worldwide as Bourne Ultimatum, Ice Age Continental Drift or Star Trek Into Darkness it would be in good shape.

 

[Zarex]

The magic is gone. Harold Ramis is gone. Bill Murray didn't have the interest in being Pete Venkman again, and Dan Aykroyd has seen his best days as a writer come and go. I fear a direct sequel Would have been as bitter sweet to watch as Blues Brothers 2000...which I enjoyed for the music, but recognize that it was a narrative mess.

The video game was so much damn fun, had the original cast and used the ideas that would have been Ghostbusters 3. That will have to be enough, because sadly, life marched on by and made it impossible to revisit the original continuity in a major motion picture.

I have no desire to see the original cast members in Ghostbusters as anything other than cameos or supporting roles. The point I am making is that the new film could have easily been a sequel as opposed to a remake, and that a continuation of the original films would had a much lower bar for gaining acceptance

 

[bluejake01]

I have no desire to see the original cast members in Ghostbusters as anything other than cameos or supporting roles. The point I am making is that the new film could have easily been a sequel as opposed to a remake, and that a continuation of the original films would had a much lower bar for gaining acceptance

Which sounds an awful lot like the easy way out, and frankly I would t want to see them without Ramis and Murray, one passed on and the other refusing to do it. As it is, I loved seeing the original cast each getting a few moments of screen time and not having to play iconic roles in the cheapest and least satisfying way possible.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

i just read the reddit review/summary and it is pretty terrible

 

[Travesty]

Can someone send me a PM or just drop the link to the reddit review.

 

[bluejake01]

i just read the reddit review/summary and it is pretty terrible

Of course it is. The author was focusing on what they thought were the negative aspects. They admitted being angry with the production to start with.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

Can someone send me a PM or just drop the link to the reddit review.

check your inbox

 

[Victarion]

If the Mayhem stuff is true, I'm disappointed.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Ok i read it and there is one aspect that i thought sounded kinda cool for a moment before i really thought about it and it is something to do with the... shall we say logo, which i was abit agape about when i read it because if that is true then wow but also what the hell!

The idea of it sounds like something that would be a cool factor to see on screen but also something that really scrapes the hell out of the nostalgic barrel and once the cool factor leaves and you reflect on what just happened...

If this review is legit then it just sounds like a weird gimmick reboot held up by nostalgia from the original movie

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

Just finished the Reddit review. It's as terrible as the trailer makes the film out to be.