|
http://icantgetlaidinthistown.blogspot.ca/2011/07/summer-of-89-part-3-hundered-million.html?m=1 Interesting essay about GB2. I'm not sure if all of his facts are correct, though; near the end, he states that Reitman is the reason gb3 'will never happen' (written in 2011). Is that true?
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I hope the movie turns out to be the original Ghostbusters exists in the new film universe as the 80s movie, its sequel, a video game and a few cartoons series and comics. I love that idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Timby posted:Amazing that people are giving up on a movie just because the starring cast members don't have testicles. I'm not giving up on it as much because of sex as I am that those are some huge, HUGE boots to fill, and given the current styles of movie making, isn't going to be anywhere near as awesome as the original. And no matter how much it's shouted and repeated this is a reboot, it's still going to be compared to the original that it will not measure up to
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:http://icantgetlaidinthistown.blogspot.ca/2011/07/summer-of-89-part-3-hundered-million.html?m=1 Incredible read. They wouldn't make Ghostbusters 2, but they had to make Leonard Part 6  After reading the article maybe the reboot can work if it comes from a place of trying to be original and entertaining, and not being made for the sole purpose of making money through nostalgia. CaptainHollywood fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I hope the movie turns out to be the original Ghostbusters exists in the new film universe as the 80s movie, its sequel, a video game and a few cartoons series and comics. This is clever and it would be an awesome way to take everyone's complaints head-on and make it work to their advantage. Everyone in the city would have to doubt ghosts are real except for the few who actually are getting spooked, until it blows up in a big catastrophe much like the first film. It would be a way to make the structure of GB1 work for you without it feeling like a total rehash, and even though it IS a reboot if done properly it wouldn't necessarily feel like one. I like it. It won't happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
The one sort of downside to it is that it could become something like another Sony big-budget supernatural comedy remake: Bewitched. A film that treated the idea of the concept of Bewitched was not only an in-universe TV show, but there was an in-universe plot that was playing out that mirrored and was aware of that 'fictional' property, too. I'll throw this out there. SF/Fantasy/Horror-Comedy is a very difficult genre of film do to well and be received well. No matter the opinion on the new GB cast and direction, it's a genre that has produced several huge budgeted flops in the last 20 years, all things considered, in addition to the hits. It' seems like a formula that is hard to try to get to work right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:http://icantgetlaidinthistown.blogspot.ca/2011/07/summer-of-89-part-3-hundered-million.html?m=1 It is not, and the author makes a ridiculous leap of logic to reach that conclusion. He's right in that no sequel could move forward without the consent of Reitman, Aykroyd, Ramis and Murray, but Murray was always the hold-up, and while Sony commissioned scripts with and without his character, they were always reluctant to move forward with a Murray-less sequel, seeing him (correctly) as the glue that really brought the first movie together and as the biggest marketing asset they could get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I'm not giving up on it as much because of sex as I am that those are some huge, HUGE boots to fill, and given the current styles of movie making, isn't going to be anywhere near as awesome as the original. And no matter how much it's shouted and repeated this is a reboot, it's still going to be compared to the original that it will not measure up to This 'lightning in a bottle' poo poo is straight ridiculous. Fans have lost all sense of perspective, and it's like "oh woe! Nothing will ever be as good as the first time. There'll never be a funnier comedian than Ernie Hudson! His powers were sent by Zeus himself, and now the gods have forsaken us!!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This 'lightning in a bottle' poo poo is straight ridiculous. Fans have lost all sense of perspective, and it's like "oh woe! Nothing will ever be as good as the first time. There'll never be a funnier comedian than Bill Murray! His powers were sent by Zeus himself, and now the gods have forsaken us!!!" Now your post makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This 'lightning in a bottle' poo poo is straight ridiculous. Fans have lost all sense of perspective, and it's like "oh woe! Nothing will ever be as good as the first time. There'll never be a funnier comedian than Ernie Hudson! His powers were sent by Zeus himself, and now the gods have forsaken us!!!" To me, "lightning in a bottle" means a film that was in the right place, right time, and achieved some sort of inexplicable je ne sais quoi. Ghostbusters is a fine example because they made the same movie, same ingredients, in 1989, and it was just off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:To me, "lightning in a bottle" means a film that was in the right place, right time, and achieved some sort of inexplicable je ne sais quoi. Ghostbusters is a fine example because they made the same movie, same ingredients, in 1989, and it was just off. For a good example see MiB compared to RIPD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:For a good example see MiB compared to RIPD. Or even better; MIB to MIB II.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Or even better; I appreciate what MiB 2 was trying to do, much like GB2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This 'lightning in a bottle' poo poo is straight ridiculous. Fans have lost all sense of perspective, and it's like "oh woe! Nothing will ever be as good as the first time. There'll never be a funnier comedian than Ernie Hudson! His powers were sent by Zeus himself, and now the gods have forsaken us!!!" I should have known that you'd eventually out yourself as a white supremacist. Look, some movies just capture the spirit of the age and just capture the work and vision of many people working well together perfectly and beautifully, like flies in amber. It would be like trying to make more Star Wars movies after the early 1980s, which thank god nobody has tried.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:To me, "lightning in a bottle" means a film that was in the right place, right time, and achieved some sort of inexplicable je ne sais quoi. Ghostbusters is a fine example because they made the same movie, same ingredients, in 1989, and it was just off. They switched cinematographers from László Kovács to Michael Chapman - which isn't a downgrade, but is going to have a much different result. And more importantly: despite having a similar plot structure the sequel is, thematically, completely different. The whole narrative centers around a single mother's fears that her baby will grow up 'wrong'. The original film was about Venkman trying to prevent Dana from falling in love with Louis - an 'unnatural' pairing that he likens to "dogs and cats, living together!" With such a totally different meaning, the only way to 'keep things the same' would be to take a totally different approach and make Dana the protagonist who takes over where the four guys left off. Hopefully you see the joke here: the simplest way to save Ghostbusters II would be to take the focus off the four dudes and have it center around a female protagonist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Or even better; Hangover 1 to Hangover 2. You can't simply 'repeat' an original product. This is what most sequels fail to realize. Books understand this (such as Harry Potter and in turn the movies), where the original concept gets expanded instead of repeated. Even this year had Dumb and Dumber To, which was almost the exact same movie as the original. In fact this is the biggest issue: Dramas, Thrillers, Action movies are kind of pre-designed to have sequels. People like watching explosions and violence and just mixing it into different scenarios will make it work. Comedies are different - especially funny ones. You can't simply "repeat a joke" and you also don't know if the new jokes will work either. The exception seems to be animated movies because the target demo is different. I just rewatched Ghostbusters the other day and what still makes the movie "click" is: 1. Every scene introducing a character tells you everything you need to know about that character - without spoon feeding. 2. The movie has perfect pacing- scene by scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Hopefully you see the joke here: the simplest way to save Ghostbusters II would be to take the focus off the four dudes and have it center around a female protagonist. Secret Ghostbusters movie: An entire film is about a non-Dana character dealing with horrific supernatural stuff happening in her life and her baby and no one believes her, she's all alone facing the horrors of the otherworldly, then the final 10 minutes of the film is her finally calling Ghostbusters who solve all her problems and leave her with a bill and a wrecked apartment. Ghostbusters theme song cheerfully blaring and taking us to credits as she curls up in what's left of her ruined apartment, clutching her baby, speechless. Sort of an American version of Big Man Japan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:http://icantgetlaidinthistown.blogspot.ca/2011/07/summer-of-89-part-3-hundered-million.html?m=1 My favourite part about this was about Columbia CEO David Puttnam who apparently hated every single facet of the modern Hollywood blockbuster. Also that word of mouth effect on Star Trek V, wow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Or even better; MiB 3 was pretty good though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Antti posted:My favourite part about this was about Columbia CEO David Puttnam who apparently hated every single facet of the modern Hollywood blockbuster. I like the idea that the original GB was supposed to be Aykroyd and Belushi fighting ghosts in outer space. In other words, fittingly, Men in Black.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Secret Ghostbusters movie: An entire film is about a non-Dana character dealing with horrific supernatural stuff happening in her life and her baby and no one believes her, she's all alone facing the horrors of the otherworldly, then the final 10 minutes of the film is her finally calling Ghostbusters who solve all her problems and leave her with a bill and a wrecked apartment. That's not entirely necessary, but think of the ending of Ghostbusters 2:  Which character is missing from this painting? You have the four guys arranged inside that circular composition, each holding their symbolic object. But where's Dana? Sidenote: Egon erroneously identifies the painting as "Late Renaissance, I think. Caravaggio or Brunelleschi." Filippo Brunelleschi died over fifty years before the Late Renaissance and, though he did paint (and is often credited with developing fixed-point perspective), he was really an architect. The painting looks nothing like Caravaggio either, most obviously lacking his trademark high-contrast chiaroscuro. The painting more closely resembles (to the extent that it resembles anything) the work of High Renaissance artists like Raphael or Del Sarto, albeit with chintzy rays of light and anachronistic studio-lit photorealism. In the Late Renaissance, you would typically see complex, exaggerated poses designed to show off the painters' technical virtuosity. You also wouldn't really see this sort of symmetrical composition, which would be considered unfashionably 'rational' and 'balanced'. It's most notable that the characters aren't interacting with baby Oscar in any way - not even looking at him. That's something you'd never get in a real Renaissance painting. They took a few stabs at including symbolic hand gestures, and have Murray staring up at heaven, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
Except he doesn't say that at all. The line is: Egon posted:"Early Renaissance, I think. Raphael or Piero della Francesca." Both of whom are firmly Renaissance artists and did do pieces similar in style to the GB painting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Except he doesn't say that at all. The line is: Welp, I was quoting the final draft of the script. I guess someone tried to fix the art-world technobabble. However, they didn't do too well. That painting doesn't look like Della Francesca's work at all, and Raphael was around seven years old when the Early Renaissance ended. In fact, the entire High Renaissance roughly corresponded to Raphael's lifetime, ending with his death in 1520.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Also, it's a joke. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Jokes are meaningful. The entire conflict of the film is summarized by the painting being changed from an angry man standing by himself to an innocent baby surrounded by these guardian figures. The ghostbusters are saving Oscar from a lovely single-parent upbringing, which is a bizarre message. And then they depict this metaphorically through the restoration of a "Renaissance" painting. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
All I can say is that it would have been better had the guys been surrounding Dana, who was holding Oscar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Welp, I was quoting the final draft of the script. I guess someone tried to fix the art-world technobabble. lol jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
I wrote that the dialogue is not accurate and, in fact, neither version of the dialogue is accurate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's not entirely necessary, but think of the ending of Ghostbusters 2: Important question, would she have been depicted as semi-topless to match the outfits of the rest of the gang? I don't fully know how the artists of the referenced era depicted female characters in such works and I want to imagine Dana there with some cultural/artistic/historical accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:MiB 3 was pretty good though. It really was yes. That is a good sequel. It takes the idea, expands upon it, and even adds in a nice emotional core to the whole thing. It's a little slow, and not as flashy as the other films; but the story isn't rushed and ends up working out in the end. It still gets me all vlakempt. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Important question, would she have been depicted as semi-topless to match the outfits of the rest of the gang? I don't fully know how the artists of the referenced era depicted female characters in such works and I want to imagine Dana there with some cultural/artistic/historical accuracy. Well here's an actual painting by Raphael, of the Madonna with child flanked by two saints. The second is a slightly later painting by Del Sarto, and depicts roughly the same subject matter (although the two saints are different characters). 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:33
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It really was yes. That is a good sequel. It takes the idea, expands upon it, and even adds in a nice emotional core to the whole thing. It's a little slow, and not as flashy as the other films; but the story isn't rushed and ends up working out in the end. I've only seen the first half of MiB3 but I thought Tommy Lee Jones looked completely bored with the whole thing, it was kind of distracting.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
He's only it in it for a little bit and is replaced by the Josh Brolin, who's amazing as Young Kay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:I've only seen the first half of MiB3 but I thought Tommy Lee Jones looked completely bored with the whole thing He really was. Dude had no interest in doing the movie which resulted in them coming up with the time-travel idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Timby posted:He really was. Dude had no interest in doing the movie which resulted in them coming up with the time-travel idea. That's annoying to hear, since by all accounts he was absolutely having a ball throughout the first one. I remember hearing stories of how, like, Will Smith hated the slime scene at the end and was constantly complaining about how gross it was, and in response Jones was all like MORE SLIME
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:That's annoying to hear, since by all accounts he was absolutely having a ball throughout the first one. I hope that's the reason why Edgar's thorax survives the gut explosion just to get blown up by Linda Fiorentino and drench them in a second wave of hideous brown bug goo, that's magnificent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:I hope that's the reason why Edgar's thorax survives the gut explosion just to get blown up by Linda Fiorentino and drench them in a second wave of hideous brown bug goo, that's magnificent. Apparently, Linda Florentino is a terror to work with 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Apparently, Linda Florentino is a terror to work with I've heard that a few times. I remember Kevin Smith being very diplomatic about it, but also dropping major hints that Dogma wasn't a fun shoot due to her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
MIB3 is a perfect sequel to MIB1. They're directly related in events and themes. It's actually BETTER for the overall story to ignore MIB2 because it's so out-of-place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:03
|
|
