Ghostbusters trailer *Brand New* (2016)

[The Joker]

Like I say, animated movies experience smaller week-to-week drops than live action films, so a big OW isn't the be all and end all.

That's absolutely correct.

Even if whatever film has a 'good' or 'decent' OW, that's simply not enough to celebrate and throw a parade. There's examples of alot of films that have a very strong OW, only to drop significantly during subsequent weekends, essentially stunting any real consideration for a follow-up. I've used a horror film franchise remake as an example of this previously in this thread, but if you want another, go check out Superman Returns. Which had a fairly strong to decent opening, only to barely crawl to the $200 million mark domestically. Needless to say, those kind of profits stunted any plans Singer and company had for future Superman films, and it took another 7 years for another Superman movie (Man of Steel) to debut.

As I've said before, I really don't care for the stigma this "film" is going to have in association with Ghostbusters, but if there is a positive to all this mess, it's that the notion of a shared Ghostbusters universe that Sony was wishing for, is alot less likely now. Which is good. Had abolsutely no interest in Channing Tatum in a Ghostbusters movie anyways. Duke was enough.

[Silver Nemesis]

I don't know if this has been brought up, I did mention it in my one long rant but just so I'm clear, we're all in total agreement that we would have been just as dismissive of this if it had been an all male team, right? Obviously we wouldn't have all been accused of stuff (me being accused of being sexist is pretty hilarious because, well, you know) but we would have all had the "Why the f*** is this necessary" attitude we had with this before the studio's sh*t started, right? Cause that blows their arguments away.

If this had starred Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Rob Schneider and Chris Rock it would have been equally reviled. And I'm pretty sure the critics wouldn't have been so kind to it either. The problem for me has always lain in the fundamental concept of discarding 30+ years of beloved mythology in favour of yet another needless remake. Particularly when we'd been waiting so long for a real Ghostbusters 3 – since 1989, in fact – and had been repeatedly teased with assurances from Dan Aykroyd that it was getting closer to fruition. Then Sony buys Columbia's catalogue of films, cancels Ghostbusters 3, co-opts the property for a politically-motivated remake, conducts meetings behind Ivan Reitman's back to cheat him out of the deal, conspires to threaten Bill Murray with litigation if he doesn't support the enterprise, produces an overbudgeted CGI-fest filled with unfunny jokes and pointless cameos from the 1984 cast, and then has the nerve to launch a smear campaign against anyone who isn't thrilled about it.

Now I'm not naive enough to think there aren't some people who are opposed to the film on misogynistic grounds. I'm sure there are. But I refuse to believe that the majority of the film's detractors, male or female, fall under that category. And I resent some money-grubbing Hollywood bigwig labelling me a bigot because I decline to fuel his coke habit with my disposable income. It was Sony and the filmmakers who kicked up the fuss about gender. And the irony, according to many of the reviews, is that the film itself is deeply sexist and misandric. All the male characters are portrayed as evil or idiotic. And the film ends with the Ghostbusters defeating the male villain by shooting him in the groin.

If they really wanted to make a progressive Ghostbusters film without insulting the fans or alienating the male demographic, why didn't they simply do a passing of the torch movie where the old actors return – playing their original characters, not random cab drivers – and train a new team comprised of both men and women? I could have got behind a film like that.

As I've said before, I really don't care for the stigma this "film" is going to have in association with Ghostbusters, but if there is a positive to all this mess, it's that the notion of a shared Ghostbusters universe that Sony was wishing for, is alot less likely now. Which is good. Had abolsutely no interest in Channing Tatum in a Ghostbusters movie anyways. Duke was enough.

Good point. The Tatum movie sounded just as bad and would've been a sorry waste of the Russo brothers' talents.

[The Joker]

If this had starred Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Rob Schneider and Chris Rock it would have been equally reviled. And I'm pretty sure the critics wouldn't have been so kind to it either. The problem for me has always lain in the fundamental concept of discarding 30+ years of beloved mythology in favour of yet another needless remake. Particularly when we'd been waiting so long for a real Ghostbusters 3 – since 1989, in fact – and had been repeatedly teased with assurances from Dan Aykroyd that it was getting closer to fruition. Then Sony buys Columbia's catalogue of films, cancels Ghostbusters 3, co-opts the property for a politically-motivated remake, conducts meetings behind Ivan Reitman's back to cheat him out of the deal, conspires to threaten Bill Murray with litigation if he doesn't support the enterprise, produces an overbudgeted CGI-fest filled with unfunny jokes and pointless cameos from the 1984 cast, and then has the nerve to launch a smear campaign against anyone who isn't thrilled about it.

Beautifully stated.

Now I'm not naive enough to think there aren't some people who are opposed to the film on misogynistic grounds. I'm sure there are. But I refuse to believe that the majority of the film's detractors, male or female, fall under that category. And I resent some money-grubbing Hollywood bigwig labelling me a bigot because I decline to fuel his coke habit with my disposable income. It was Sony and the filmmakers who kicked up the fuss about gender. And the irony, according to many of the reviews, is that the film itself is deeply sexist and misandric. All the male characters are portrayed as evil or idiotic. And the film ends with the Ghostbusters defeating the male villain by shooting him in the groin.

Wow.   

Having watched the trailer just a few minutes ago, it just strikes me how incomparable the humor and writing is with the original. The original was about chemistry and totally organic. This one comes across as being about who can spew the most one liners.

If they really wanted to make a progressive Ghostbusters film without insulting the fans or alienating the male demographic, why didn't they simply do a passing of the torch movie where the old actors return – playing their original characters, not random cab drivers – and train a new team comprised of both men and women? I could have got behind a film like that.

Yeah, evidently the 2009 video game is about as close to GBIII that we'll ever get. Makes me wish someone with some actual sense (and well this is Sony we're talking about) would have got Dan Aykroyd and a writer of his choosing, go in and expand upon the plot of the video game, and just made that into a computer animated Ghostbusters III movie. Incorporate what audio of Harold Ramis was recorded for the game, get a sound-alike or whatever for any additional dialogue, and you're off to the races. I mean, Bill Murray dragged his feet on a live action GBIII, but even Bill would have probably lent his voice for a animated project. Especially considering he actually participated in the video game.

Wow. Not familiar with her, but that girl has style.

Jesus marimba!

A lovely beast like that running around... could put steam in a man's strides. 

[Catwoman]

Yeah it was obvious this was going to go the man hater route. Which is just ridiculous, but par for the course here. They do realize that they have done the best job of any movie that I can think of to minimize their audience, right? I mean sure five or six years ago I would have been like "Hell yea stick it to the man! Literally!" but I outgrew that when I realized the men who aren't wretched pigs outnumber the ones who are. You guys are alright, I mean you're not perfect but you're definitely serviceable. I just wish y'all liked me. lol

And colors we're in total agreement, it's the whole remake thing that's the issue. WHY ALL THE FREAKING REMAKES?! Ghostbusters especially don't need to be remade! That legacy and everything still holds up 32 years later and still makes people smile. Trying to reboot it is pitiful. Can Hollywood seriously be that badly out of ideas? Come on now. And ugh, you are so right about them using Seth Rogen inevitably if it had been a guy team. Ughhhh. He makes me ill.

[thecolorsblend]

Yeah it was obvious this was going to go the man hater route. Which is just ridiculous, but par for the course here. They do realize that they have done the best job of any movie that I can think of to minimize their audience, right? I mean sure five or six years ago I would have been like "Hell yea stick it to the man! Literally!" but I outgrew that when I realized the men who aren't wretched pigs outnumber the ones who are. You guys are alright, I mean you're not perfect but you're definitely serviceable. I just wish y'all liked me. lol

And colors we're in total agreement, it's the whole remake thing that's the issue. WHY ALL THE FREAKING REMAKES?! Ghostbusters especially don't need to be remade! That legacy and everything still holds up 32 years later and still makes people smile. Trying to reboot it is pitiful. Can Hollywood seriously be that badly out of ideas? Come on now. And ugh, you are so right about them using Seth Rogen inevitably if it had been a guy team. Ughhhh. He makes me ill.

Here's a rule I'd like to see Hollywood adopt.

Do these Hollywood hacks desperately want to do remakes? Obviously yes. Okay, fine.

Want a challenge, Hollywood? Remake Ishtar. Or Pluto Nash. Or the Room. Or basically anything Ben Affleck did from 2000-2007. Or some other God-forsaken turd bomb.

Remake those things AND TRY TO GET THEM RIGHT THIS TIME. Make an engaging, enjoyable film that puts right what once went wrong.

[The Dark Knight]

Or basically anything Ben Affleck did from 2000-2007.

[riddler]

Yeah it was obvious this was going to go the man hater route. Which is just ridiculous, but par for the course here. They do realize that they have done the best job of any movie that I can think of to minimize their audience, right? I mean sure five or six years ago I would have been like "Hell yea stick it to the man! Literally!" but I outgrew that when I realized the men who aren't wretched pigs outnumber the ones who are. You guys are alright, I mean you're not perfect but you're definitely serviceable. I just wish y'all liked me. lol

And colors we're in total agreement, it's the whole remake thing that's the issue. WHY ALL THE FREAKING REMAKES?! Ghostbusters especially don't need to be remade! That legacy and everything still holds up 32 years later and still makes people smile. Trying to reboot it is pitiful. Can Hollywood seriously be that badly out of ideas? Come on now. And ugh, you are so right about them using Seth Rogen inevitably if it had been a guy team. Ughhhh. He makes me ill.

Here's a rule I'd like to see Hollywood adopt.

Do these Hollywood hacks desperately want to do remakes? Obviously yes. Okay, fine.

Want a challenge, Hollywood? Remake Ishtar. Or Pluto Nash. Or the Room. Or basically anything Ben Affleck did from 2000-2007. Or some other God-forsaken turd bomb.

Remake those things AND TRY TO GET THEM RIGHT THIS TIME. Make an engaging, enjoyable film that puts right what once went wrong.

Those are the remakes I want to see; ones that can be done better. I know it will never happen but I'd love to see a Jaws 3 remake with proper film making (it's obvious they were more concerned with making a 3d movie than making an actual movie. And the director never directed another film). Rather than unearth a film that is fine the way it is, do remakes which add something.


A GB shared universe could have worked if they relaunched it properly. Dan Akroyds initial idea for the first film was having teams of ghostbusters around the country, the idea was nixed for an origin story to show how the team got started. This idea was used in the video game at the end. In doing so they could have had different teams if they so chose; a harlem team of black ghostbusters, a comedic team among the likes of Sandler and his gang, a badass action team, an elderly expendables type team etc. Whether or not it can still be pulled off remains to be seen as they've likely gained far too much negative traction.

One update; it did crack 4.0 on the IMDB so the rating is slowly increasing.

[Silver Nemesis]

Tomorrow's the big day for our chums stateside. Paul Feig's Ghostbusters is about to drop into theatres, and Sony's spared no expense hiring the Enola Gay to deliver it.

[riddler]

Here is a good article written by Harold Ramis daughter Violet http://splitsider.com/2016/07/on-my-dad-harold-ramis-and-passing-the-ghostbusters-torch-to-a-new-generation-of-fans/

her main point is that it is unfair to mark the film as untouchable. Creating a new film for a new generation to cherish and grow up with is not a bad thing and not something her father would have endorsed. By no means is she lumping all the 'haters' into the same boat, I'm sure like most mature people she realizes there's nothing wrong with not liking a film unless it's for reasons other than not enjoying the film

As much as I wanted to stomp my foot and align myself with the opposition, there was no way I could stand behind the viciousness and ugliness that seemed to fuel these fundamentalists. From flat-out rejection of women as funny, to remarks about the actor's looks, to the invocation of GB84 as 'untouchable' and disgust with 'reboot culture' generally, I was shocked by the anger and outrage. Are these people for real? I wondered. Sure, the timing sucks, but damn! I mourn my dad's absence in this world as much, if not more, than anyone, but for people to say that he is "rolling in his grave" or would never have let a female-centered cast happen is INSANE. In his personal life, Harold Ramis was a kind, generous, and gracious person. Professionally, he was always about sharing the spotlight and making the other guy look good. Please, stop using my dad as an excuse to hate the new Ghostbusters. It degrades his memory to spew bile in his name. 

So let's take a page out of the Ghostheads' book and not restrict the Ghostbusters universe from extending as far and wide as it possibly can. Let's be generous and make room for all of the visions and interpretations of what Ghostbusters can be. I still get annoyed when I see blond cartoon Egon, but who cares?! It's a 20-year-old cartoon! The new movie is not the original and it's not trying to be. Give it a chance and go see it! Or don't, that's fine. But resist the urge to hold on so tightly to the past that you choke off new life. I reserve my right as an almost 40-year-old to mutter about how everything was better when I was young, but let's let this generation have their own Ghostbusters. Let's give my nine-year-old daughter a chance to put on a proton pack and feel like a badass. In the spirit of my dad and his love for movies and comedy above all, I'll be there for Ghostbusters 2016 opening weekend with my kids, eating popcorn, wearing my Egon Spengler tribute pin, cheering on the new crew, and laughing loudly, from the heart.

[Silver Nemesis]

I remember when the director of the Bedazzled remake was interviewed back in Total Film #47 (Dec 2000). Unfortunately I don't have the issue handy to provide scans, but I clearly remember him describing his attitude to remakes. He said remaking a good film was a pointless exercise, as it was almost impossible to improve on the original. Instead he argued it made sense to remake bad films, where promising concepts had not reached their full potential. That was why he chose to remake a deeply flawed film like Bedazzled instead of one which was highly acclaimed and beloved.

That director was Harold Ramis.