|
zVxTeflon posted:haha this movies gonna be such poo poo I am really trying to remain optimistic about this movie. It's a franchise I love, with a director and actors that I like... but studios are so gutless with valuable IPs that Fury Road still feels like a minor miracle. The rest of the time it's just a popular property stretched over a Screenwriting 101 frame, loaded up with nostalgia bait/sneering at the original. I'm not really thrilled with what I'm hearing, and I hope I'm 100% wrong and this movie is amazing.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:I am really trying to remain optimistic about this movie. It's a franchise I love, with a director and actors that I like... but studios are so gutless with valuable IPs that Fury Road still feels like a minor miracle. The rest of the time it's just a popular property stretched over a Screenwriting 101 frame, loaded up with nostalgia bait/sneering at the original. I'm not really thrilled with what I'm hearing, and I hope I'm 100% wrong and this movie is amazing. I think the biggest problem is they aren't giving people what they want out of a Ghostbusters film. I come back to the James Gunn comments about the lessons learned from Deadpool. Instead of realizing that Deadpool is successful because it was a faithful adaptation of a property that was already popular, they are going to think it was because of cursing and dick jokes. I will be the first to admit I am not the biggest fan of Paul Feig's nor most of the cast's films but I don't know how anyone thought that these people were the right fit for a Ghostbusters film. I also think the immediate push back from all involved to the fanbase was accusations of sexism did not do them any favors. When you have a fanbase that is either outright against it or at best apathetic you have a disaster waiting to happen. I am fairly sure Sony knows it as well, I mean have you ever known a major July tentpole film to not even have a TEASER out by March? This is a $154 million dollar bomb waiting to drop and they are trying to minimize the damage. We will see this wiped under the rug quickly and quietly. We will see a real and proper reboot done in a year or two once the stink wears off a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:I think you need to PM me with details. Or write them here, whichever. I'll just spoiler it here. It was the last scene they showed at the trade show. As I already mentioned, Chris Hemsworth's character gets posessed by a ghost and he turns evil for a while. He is the reason for the police and army to show up in the teaser. He's standing on top of a building / theatre (it was mostly green screen so I can't say for sure) and all these people are standing below him. After a short villain-like speech he starts the dance sequence by mind controlling every one. It's quite cringe worthy and was the one part I didn't like apart from the slime vomit scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Trailer coming March 3rd. Which seems more likely based on that teaser? a) "Haha, we're making a trailer for Ghostbusters look all intense and serious! This is a pretty clever joke." b) "We are absolutely this tone deaf about how not only to market this movie, but probably how we made the entire thing too." Really leaning towards b) here, since there's a precedent for that with countless other movie disasters. Which sucks, because I hadn't been following this movie very closely and was hoping it would be good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I think the biggest problem is they aren't giving people what they want out of a Ghostbusters film. From everything we currently know we'll never get it again; Murray's been adamant about his position on it for a long time now, Ramis has sadly passed away, the guys are all getting up there in age... Those characters as they were portrayed in the movies are pretty much done. We got a great movie, a decent sequel and a pretty OK third installment in the form of a video game in terms of primary entries. I don't think it's possible for many of the various generations of adults living now to think that this movie will ever top the original. Feig seems to be a big enough fan of the property that he wanted to do *something* with it, and the movie that's coming out is their attempt to celebrate what they felt made the franchise great while still standing alone as a film. Sony's pushed for it repeatedly in the past because it's a franchise that they really WANT to capitalize on. They're targeting the same kind of general audience that made the first film a success, the same audiences that went to see bridesmaids, The Heat, and Spy, fans of the lead actresses and probably fans of SNL in general. The GB fans are just a part of it. While I've enjoyed Feig's movies in the past, my concern for this one is, like you've said, that there will be an overabundance of stuff like cursing and dick jokes found in his previous films specifically because these elements are not what I think of when I think of Ghostbusters. What I remember is a film loaded with memorable quips spouted constantly by interesting characters and visuals that treated the subject matter with respect despite being a comedy film. Judging what AlexF has posted there's a vomit moment in there so that's already made me a bit apprehensive about the final film. Intense amounts of swearing like in Spy won't ruin the film for me or anything but it would be nice if they didn't lean on that crutch so hard for this one. That's probably the main reason I've been whining to see a trailer for this already. Lastdancer fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
If the first trailer is anything like the preliminary one they showed us you will have to wait a little longer to form a real opinion. It's all about "Ghostbusters are back" and does not have one single joke or character moment from the scenes we saw. Just some ghosts and then the girls in "bustin' " formation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Didn't Feig go on record to say that not only did he want the film to have actual scary moments, but that it wouldn't be the regular humour he's used in the past? Bridesmaids/The Heat/Spy aren't really family-friendly, but he'd get hung out to dry by Sony if the new GB wasn't able to appeal to young kids as well as older viewers. No one really cares if an 8 year old isn't allowed to or shouldn't see Spy, but for this? I'm betting that the humour will be appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
It'll be as scary as the original. Family friendly scary I guess? As for appropriate humour: All the little quips that'd normally be full of R-rated swearing in a Feig movie were absolutely PG-13.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Lastdancer posted:While I've enjoyed Feig's movies in the past, my concern for this one is, like you've said, that there will be an overabundance of stuff like cursing and dick jokes found in his previous films specifically because these elements are not what I think of when I think of Ghostbusters. What I remember is a film loaded with memorable quips spouted constantly by interesting characters and visuals that treated the subject matter with respect despite being a comedy film. The original GB had cursing and dick jokes quote:Profanity .... but I wouldn't call it an overabundance of cursing and dick jokes. It was a comfortable amount of dick. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:The original GB had cursing and dick jokes True, and we all remember these, but with Feig's usual films, there are way more, including liberal use of 'gently caress'. Not something I mind at all, but not really fitting with GB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Didn't Feig go on record to say that not only did he want the film to have actual scary moments, but that it wouldn't be the regular humour he's used in the past? Bridesmaids/The Heat/Spy aren't really family-friendly, but he'd get hung out to dry by Sony if the new GB wasn't able to appeal to young kids as well as older viewers. No one really cares if an 8 year old isn't allowed to or shouldn't see Spy, but for this? I'm betting that the humour will be appropriate. When I saw Deadpool the other day a couple of ladies brought a group of 5 or 6 kids who all appeared to be well under the age of 10 (after arguing with management because the ticket window followed the theater's R policy and wouldn't sell to them), so I think Feig could do his absolute worst and there would still be plenty of kids seeing it  .I was getting more optimistic about this when the pictures of the bustin equipment and the car came out because it seemed like they at least had the right idea with the general aesthetic, but a lot of the spoilered scene descriptions so far have seemed kinda  . I loved Freaks and Geeks but I'm not really a fan of Feig's past movies, so I guess time will tell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
So if (when?) this movie bombs, will social media explode with   misogynistic Hollywood!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
One of my favourite things Feig was involved in, though I'm not sure how much of the writing was his responsibility. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XScjyEYhhCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOrSZQs2FBU
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:No one really cares if an 8 year old isn't allowed to or shouldn't see Spy, but for this? I'm betting that the humour will be appropriate. From the spoilered scenes so far it's actually sounding a little too appropriate for 8 year olds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I think the biggest problem is they aren't giving people what they want out of a Ghostbusters film. That's why nerds are upset, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a bad movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Nerds would not be happy unless it had the complete original cast and even a decade ago it was decades late for that. I kind of think the concept of ghostbusters is a stronger one than its given credit for and it would not fall apart without the entire cast being there. Just a good writer and a decent cast could combine and make a great movie. Whether it's this movie or not we'll have to see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Acne Rain posted:Nerds would not be happy unless it had the complete original cast and even a decade ago it was decades late for that. I would actually argue the opposite. The property was amazing because of the amazing convergence of tools and talent. The original was special because of the cast chemistry and those writers. I've really always felt that trying to make GB into a marquee franchise just isn't what the concept was built for. I think it only works the way "we want it to" when it has those guys and even then GB2 proved that really isn't enough to carry it forward. I personally wish they would have just left the property alone, they'll never achieve the caliber of film the original was (even if this new one turns out to be a completely fine film), which will leave everyone going well why did they feel they had to make that? It might be bad, but even if it's good its not going to be viewed favorably because of expectations and associations. The Notorious ZSB fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
The Notorious ZSB posted:I would actually argue the opposite. The property was amazing because of the amazing convergence of tools and talent. The original was special because of the cast chemistry and those writers. I've really always felt that trying to make GB into a marquee franchise just isn't what the concept was built for. I think it only works the way "we want it to" when it has those guys and even then GB2 proved that really isn't enough to carry it forward. The original is magical and they shouldn't be The main complaint with GB2 is the contrivances to erase the characterization of the first movie. That obviously is not going to be an issue with a reboot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
The Notorious ZSB posted:I would actually argue the opposite. The property was amazing because of the amazing convergence of tools and talent. The original was special because of the cast chemistry and those writers. There's been several movies that tried really hard to be the New Ghostbusters such as Evolution, MIB, RIPD and Pixels. MIB came close but the others fell wayyyyyyy short.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
I've been reading a few GB articles and just learned all about this crazy bitch of a musical instrument: That's an Ondes Martenot, one of the earliest electronic musical instruments invented by Maurice Martenot in 1928. GB composer Elmer Bernstein used one of them to get the spooky theremin-like noises for the score in the opening library scene. Here's one in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0aflcF0-ys
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:True, and we all remember these, but with Feig's usual films, there are way more, including liberal use of 'gently caress'. Not something I mind at all, but not really fitting with GB. Yeah, exactly. I wrote that right after watching Spy again, and while the GB crew were no saints when it came to language the cast of Spy were something else entirely. There are scenes in that movie where they straight up rely on strings of swears for humor. That's the kind of thing I'm hoping they avoid. I'll have to look up the Feig comment about wanting to the movie to be family friendly, that sounds familiar to me now and gives me hope that they're going to avoid relying on swear humor for this. EDIT: Here we go Paul Feig posted:“I have too much respect for the original one [to do a sequel]. There’s also the feeling that once the world knows ghosts and has seen them busted on such a large scale, they run the risk of becoming pedestrian. There's something fun about introducing our world, which has never seen ghosts to the phenomenon of ghosts. I love origin stories and to introduce new characters. A lot of people accused it of being a gimmick. I guess I can see the cynics' view of it, but for me I just love working with funny women. People said, 'Why don't you do a mix?' I'm just more interested in the idea of lady Ghostbusters. It's the way my brain works… Source Sounds like he has the right idea about it. AlexF posted:If the first trailer is anything like the preliminary one they showed us you will have to wait a little longer to form a real opinion. It's all about "Ghostbusters are back" and does not have one single joke or character moment from the scenes we saw. Just some ghosts and then the girls in "bustin' " formation. It very well could be. I'm hoping it's something more substantial as the rumor was that the effects were still unfinished for the upcoming one. Lastdancer fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I've been reading a few GB articles and just learned all about this crazy bitch of a musical instrument: drat, and I thought it was an actual theremin. Well, time to try and replicate this digitally!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Acne Rain posted:Nerds would not be happy unless it had the complete original cast and even a decade ago it was decades late for that. The Ghostbusters video game teased a sequel where there would be a new west coast branch that could have detached itself completely from the original cast, and I was totally down for that. We never got it though. I don't know why, because the first game was amazing.  I admit I was skeptical about the all-female cast, because I was concerned about the reasoning behind it (is it for novelty purposes, or is it to make a good movie?), but the fact that it wasn't the original team didn't really bother me. I never really considered Ghostbusters as a tightly-knit universe that had lore and ongoing characters you needed to keep up with, and the focus was more on that this was an extermination service that deals with the paranormal, so you could change up characters and locations and build it out like that. Snowglobe of Doom posted:There's been several movies that tried really hard to be the New Ghostbusters such as Evolution, MIB, RIPD and Pixels. MIB came close but the others fell wayyyyyyy short. Evolution was good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:I'm guessing some ghostly force causes the logo on the side of the Ecto-1 to come to life and jump out, like in GB2 with that woman's fur coat. I figured it's a ghostly avatar of Chris Hemsworth. They're both sporting bowties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:The Ghostbusters video game teased a sequel where there would be a new west coast branch that could have detached itself completely from the original cast, and I was totally down for that. We never got it though. I don't know why, because the first game was amazing. Because both Terminal Reality and Atari went bankrupt. (And the game cost a bucketload of money to make; Sony had to give Murray revenue participation to get him to record his dialogue.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Timby posted:Because both Terminal Reality and Atari went bankrupt. (And the game cost a bucketload of money to make; Sony had to give Murray revenue participation to get him to record his dialogue.) Yeah, but that was years after the game's release, and it sold really well and I believe was still really profitable despite the development costs. It just seemed like it was a lock to get another game out. Instead we got, according to Wikipedia, Def Jam Rapstar, Shake it Up: Dance it Up, Kinect Star Wars, and The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct in the years leading up to them shutting down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Original Ghostbusters is funny and clever with a lot of memorable production design and such, but ultimately it's crazy Akroyd libertarian apologism, and Murray's sleepwalking. Ernie Hudson is criminally underused. It's a minor movie. Goonies level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
There's a lot of youthful energy in Murray and everyone else in that movie. Part of what makes Ghostbusters 2 so sad for me is that you see what time has done to these fine young men. Hudson is the exception who always looks great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
porfiria posted:crazy Akroyd libertarian apologism Scientists confirm life after death and start a small business exorcising the dead. A very American film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Scientists confirm life after death and start a small business exorcising the dead. A very The secondary villain in the movie is an agent from the big bad government, butting in and trying to shut down the small, independent business man. And on top of that, he's from the EPA, the tree-huggin'-ist branch of the liberal bureaucracy. And of course, in the end, he wanted to take away their guns. Their unlicensed, unregulated, thermo-nuclear guns. Meanwhile, the main villain is a sexually ambiguous being who makes the heroes question God and threatens to tear down America from the inside. It's even responsible for the destruction of a local church, but indirectly, through one of it's proxies. If you follow the rabbit hole to the most cynical end, the Ghostbusters were making a profit from the exploitation of a (scary) minority. One that can't request fair treatment because they are not recognized as citizens, or even as people in most cases. But there they are, taking away jobs from hard-working, living Americans (most notably taxi and bus drivers). Fairly or not, these groups are accused of sexual assault and kidnapping among other offenses. Those that are frightened by these minorities push the agenda that "They should go back where they come from". Said minorities are captured, rounded up and detained in an undisclosed location unbeknownst to most of the general public where, presumably, they wait, without explanation. God I hate election season. No, I'm not serious about any of the above. Except I do hate election season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:The secondary villain in the movie is an agent from the big bad government, butting in and trying to shut down the small, independent business man. And on top of that, he's from the EPA, the tree-huggin'-ist branch of the liberal bureaucracy. And of course, in the end, he wanted to take away their guns. Their unlicensed, unregulated, thermo-nuclear guns. Meanwhile, the main villain is a sexually ambiguous being who makes the heroes question God and threatens to tear down America from the inside. It's even responsible for the destruction of a local church, but indirectly, through one of it's proxies. No reason to go to all that trouble. If you really want to say that Ghostbusters is a Republican film, you just have to point out the obvious pro-life agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:But there they are, taking away jobs from hard-working, living Americans (most notably taxi and bus drivers). Genuinely laughed at this. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
I think the ultimate lesson of Walter Peck is that you shouldn't put petty assholes in important jobs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:I think the ultimate lesson of Walter Peck is that you shouldn't put petty assholes in important jobs. Or always say 'please'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:I think the ultimate lesson of Walter Peck is that you shouldn't put petty assholes in important jobs. Rupert Buttermilk posted:Or always say 'please'. Or let someone clearly more qualified to talk about the way their systems work talk to the man from the EPA. In Peck's defense (oh god what am I doing!) Peter's the sales guy and clearly standoff-ish. Together, they escalate the situation well above where it needs to be. Peck even attempts to de-escalate things by saying please. However, the movie does clearly come at their first encounter as the big bad government coming to ruin the plucky Ghostbusters' time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Peter Venkman is not a character who could be played by anyone but Bill Murray without becoming a horrifyingly unlikable douchebag.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Peter Venkman is not a character who could be played by anyone but Bill Murray without becoming a horrifyingly unlikable douchebag. This is why, as a child, I immediately gravitated towards Ghostbusters over stuff like He-Man and Transformers. Instead of some impossible wish-fulfilment fantasy characters, it's just a relatable group of nerds and assholes. Like this forum
Avril Lavigne fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Feb 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
MIB is actually on the mark. And is a billion times better than Ghostbusters 2. Jamesman posted:
Also, Evolution has one of my favorite film scores. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcyZ_VnLEgw
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:MIB is actually on the mark. And is a billion times better than Ghostbusters 2. Holy poo poo, I never paid attention to the score. Gonna have to rewatch that movie for the first time in a decade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eokpf08ftpM&t=154s
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 01:36
|
|