Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[Mudd]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

There's no reason that the movie can't be good and successful with a female cast. That should be obvious.

That said, the idea is a Hail Mary because no one really has any idea how to make Ghostbusters a good and successful movie. The movie is destined to make Ghostbusters fans unhappy and bomb unless big CG monsters destroy enough stuff loudly enough to sell a lot of tickets overseas.

 

[wulfio]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

It's not bad decision making if he was only interested in it for the money, but I think it was more than that. I think it was a franchise that he enjoyed being a part of. He could have passed on the third one, especially when it was revealed that it'd be a video premiere only, but he did it because he enjoyed doing it.

Ok. let me try this from another angle...

I am not speaking from the perspective of Rick Moranis and what his life goals are. This is not a discussion on the metaphysics of Rick Moranis's career choices.

I am replying to the people who complained about the quality of his movies, who judged his talent based on their impression of his movies. He made poor decisions, in the vein of propelling ones career to A list status. Thus those people, who did not like his movies, thought he was not talented. I simply pointed out, that he picked some projects, that painted him in a bad light. Whether he enjoyed them or not is irrelevant. But I pointed out that in the 80s, the trajectory of his career painted him in a good light. And I pointed out some of the projects that he did that showed his talent. Do you get it? Do we need to argue more semantics?

 

[Lance]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

The only thing I hope they remember was that the original Ghostbusters movies, while a good mix of many different elements, were effectively comedies first and foremost. If they take the premise and turn it into a generic Hollywood blockbuster, well it might work, but it'll lose the essence of what the franchise was about (which was basically a bunch of ordinary schlubs doing an extraordinary job).

The protagonists have got to have that every-man appeal. And the script has got to be skewed towards comedic elements. I can't countenance what a 'serious' Ghostbusters would be like.....

 

[Reverend]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

The only thing I hope they remember was that the original Ghostbusters movies, while a good mix of many different elements, were effectively comedies first and foremost. If they take the premise and turn it into a generic Hollywood blockbuster, well it might work, but it'll lose the essence of what the franchise was about (which was basically a bunch of ordinary schlubs doing an extraordinary job).

The protagonists have got to have that every-man appeal. And the script has got to be skewed towards comedic elements. I can't countenance what a 'serious' Ghostbusters would be like.....

I don't entirely disagree...but I'm not sure I'd describe Egon as an "every-man."
Indeed all three of them are weird in their way to a certain degree. Only Winston, Dana and Janine are everym- ...uh every-people.

As for the comedy...it's one of those lightning in a bottle films. The whole thing was a very, very strange mix of styles and personalities that'd be next to impossible to re-create. You could even say the filmakers were either certified geniuses or authentic wackos!

 

[the G-man]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

There's no reason that the movie can't be good and successful with a female cast. That should be obvious.

That said, the idea is a Hail Mary because no one really has any idea how to make Ghostbusters a good and successful movie. The movie is destined to make Ghostbusters fans unhappy and bomb unless big CG monsters destroy enough stuff loudly enough to sell a lot of tickets overseas.

What Dennis said.

I'm especially nonplussed by the fact that Feig says this will be a reboot. A reboot is just a variation on "remake." If they were going to do this, it would have been more creative to have the female GB's be employees of the originals.

I understand that Feig says he wanted to reboot so he write a film where the public didn't believe in ghosts. That also shows a bit of the Hail Mary mentality. Furthermore, the far that the writers can't do a good GB film without that led to one of the weakest parts of GB II, namely the idea that after the crew saved NYC everyone suddenly decided it was all a hoax.

They should put a little more thought into it (at least as much as the Real Ghostbusters cartoon) and figure how to tell a compelling story in a world where ghosts are recognized as real. That might give the movie a chance to be something truly original and fun, and not just a distaff copy of the original.

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Yeah I'm insecure because there hasn't been a successful franchise with a female in a lead role in the 21st century.

Successful sci-fi/fantasy franchises in the 21st century with strong female leads:

The Hunger Games
Underworld
Resident Evil
Twilight
Frozen

Also, just because, successful sci-fi/fantasy franchises in the late 20th century with strong female leads:

Alien
Halloween
Tomb Raider
Terminator

Frozen is not a franchise. Not yet anyway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_(franchise)

The fact that it's now crossed over to a TV show and a sequel was greenlit only a couple months after its release (plus, of course, the omnipresent Disney brand) means franchise status.

. And how many men here loved that Movie?

I wouldn't say loved, but I liked it. It's Disneyfied X-Men, after all.

Twilight targets tween girls.

And the teen boys who go with them on dates. But additionaly, I'm not a fan of Twilight, but the action scenes are why my dad watches the movies.

Terminator? From number 2 onwards Arnold was the star.
Tomb Raider is a far more successful game than movie franchise. Alien, yes I agree.

Kinda moving the goal posts though, aren't you? You asked about females taking the lead in such franchises, and they did. Besides, while Arnold was always the star, for the first two Sarah was calling the shots, and bringing up Tomb Raider's success as a game relative to the movies is an attempt to invalidate the fact that there were two movies that still made millions -- in other words, nobody ever said that a successful video game and a successful movie were mutually exclusive, so pitting them against each other is silly. After all, why would the games and the movies be in competition with each other when they're the same brand?

How so?

I'll just refer you to this post.

So then the both of you disagree that these films aren't targeting female audiences? The 51 percent of cinema audiences. Do you also think Michael Bay setting parts of Transformers 4 in China has nothing to do with pandering to an audience? I'm not saying that Pander = failure. If you can get your heads around that.

You're definitely saying that this next movie is pandering and that its quality will plummet because of that. So yes, you *are* equating pandering with failure, or that the film is pandering in the first place. You're doubling back from your posts here:

But go find your own franchise first and see how that works because I think they're gonna lose the male audience at the very least because many of us are expecting a Bridesmaids, Girl Power and Sex in the City appealing to women type of movie. Unfortunately there's not much inbetween girl comedy and male movies that feature women in short skirts. There is still not yet a successful female comic book movie out there and I think this movie is going to fall on it's frickin ass and kill it for another two decades.

So yes, you're saying it's pandering and you say it right up there that pandering = failure, both critically and financially. Rather than discuss the content of the project, you're more concerned about the superficial and maintaining sexist standards in movies -- women aren't good enough to lead "your" franchise, and that somehow men are being victimized here by mentioning the 51% viewing audience, but you conveniently leave out that films starring women are considerably and consistently below that figure and thus do not properly represent them: https://www.scribd.com/doc/235824941/Gender-Inequality-in-Film-2007-2013-Final-for-Publication

Again, you subscribe to the very-refuted theory that only women will watch female-lead movies, but that women will watch male-lead movies, and that's messed up.

 

[Timby]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

My enthusiasm for a new GB film was high in the mid to late 90s when it was heavily rumored. But if I recall correctly, Sony wasn't interested in doing anything with the IP. I blame them for waiting this long to try and get another film in theaters.

Sony / Columbia has been trying to make another Ghostbusters film as early as 1992. Lack of interest on the studio's part has never been the problem -- it's been lack of interest in doing it without Bill Murray. (Plus the fact that Aykroyd was never able to write a script that everyone liked.)

 

[Lance]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

The only thing I hope they remember was that the original Ghostbusters movies, while a good mix of many different elements, were effectively comedies first and foremost. If they take the premise and turn it into a generic Hollywood blockbuster, well it might work, but it'll lose the essence of what the franchise was about (which was basically a bunch of ordinary schlubs doing an extraordinary job).

The protagonists have got to have that every-man appeal. And the script has got to be skewed towards comedic elements. I can't countenance what a 'serious' Ghostbusters would be like.....

I don't entirely disagree...but I'm not sure I'd describe Egon as an "every-man."
Indeed all three of them are weird in their way to a certain degree. Only Winston, Dana and Janine are everym- ...uh every-people.

As for the comedy...it's one of those lightning in a bottle films. The whole thing was a very, very strange mix of styles and personalities that'd be next to impossible to re-create. You could even say the filmakers were either certified geniuses or authentic wackos!

Yeah I do agree with that actually. It's a bit like another Dan Ackroyd movie for me, The Blues Brothers. Both films were such a mixture of so many different elements that serendipitously all managed to work so well together. In the case of Ghostbusters it's roughly equal parts action/comedy/horror/romance; for BB there's elements of comedy/romance/car chases/epic music.

As such, in my experience, they're both movies which have a lot of cross-market appeal.

I guess my point was that they could so easily manage to misunderstand that appeal, or simply fail to replicate it, and instead boil it all down to something lacklustre.....

 

[Aldo]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Do you get it? Do we need to argue more semantics?

I was going to go along with your post and accept your point, until I came to this part. Is there really any need for the attitude? We were having a simple conversation and you have to be an ass about it.

 

[Saul]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

You're definitely saying that this next movie is pandering and that its quality will plummet because of that. So yes, you *are* equating pandering with failure, or that the film is pandering in the first place.

Not in every case is pandering failure. But with this film I think making it an all female cast will not work.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

You're definitely saying that this next movie is pandering and that its quality will plummet because of that. So yes, you *are* equating pandering with failure, or that the film is pandering in the first place.

Not in every case is pandering failure. But with this film I think making it an all female cast will not work.

Why?

 

[137th Gebirg]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

It'll be fine with an all-female cast. Just please no more Melissa McCarthy. I find her completely unfunny, obnoxious and unwatchable - much like Rosanne Barr, Fran Drescher and Sofia Vergara. There are so many other talented comediennes out there. Give 'em a shot!

 

[kirk55555]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

It'll be fine with an all-female cast. Just please no more Melissa McCarthy. I find her completely unfunny, obnoxious and unwatchable - much like Rosanne Barr, Fran Drescher and Sofia Vergara. There are so many other talented comediennes out there. Give 'em a shot!

This is my only real worry about the movie. Paul Feig has directed three movies with Melissa McCarthy, and I find her extremely irritating. Plus, she really does one kind of humor, which even if I liked (and as I already established, I don't) I think she just wouldn't work with a Ghostbusters movie. Even though I think the whole female main cast is a bit gimmicky, I think it could work very well, it just needs a great cast, and I just hope McCarthy isn't cast, which based on the Director's track record is a real possibility.

Speaking of cast, some places on the internet say that Gillian Anderson wants to be in BG3. I've barely watched any X-Files, but I completely support this. I think she could do great, especially as the brains/scientist (which doesn't mean she should be some female copy of Egon, just that a movie like this is almost certainly going to have a super smart character, and she seems like a good fit).

 

[Saul]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

You're definitely saying that this next movie is pandering and that its quality will plummet because of that. So yes, you *are* equating pandering with failure, or that the film is pandering in the first place.

Not in every case is pandering failure. But with this film I think making it an all female cast will not work.

Why?

Well I might ask the same question. Why would an all female cast work opposed to an all male one or even a mixed male and female GB crew? Even Ernie Hudson thinks it's a bad idea http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/index.ssf/2014/10/post_58.html

I dislike reboots in general so that colors my views on this but also I grew up with Ghostbusters and it had always seemed like a boys thing because we had not only the movie but the animated series too and I can't say I remember many girls liking it. Same for Transformers or Knight-Rider.

When I see that they are going to reboot it with an female cast I think firstly it's a gimmick as a way of attracting **cough** pander **cough** to female viewers who would be less inclined to watch a continuation/soft male cast reboot because it's something from the 80s and I think the impression is that it's more of a guys film, no?

I don't know what they are going to do with the film but I don't see how an all female cast serves the story and makes it more interesting now.

Finally, I love Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston in the same way I love Kirk, Spock and Bones, Han, Leia and Luke. If they make this a hard reboot like they are claiming to then why not make it again with those same iconic male (sorry girls) characters?
We just had the 30th Anniversary celebrating this movie and these characters. Why now go for a hard reboot with an all female cast that has no connection to what we are still celebrating today? I have zero interest in that and it worries me that Paul Feig's first impression of making this work and making it funny is making it a female cast. I truly don't want this to be a dumb blonde's (male or female) farting type of comedy movie.

If it works then all the more fucking power to you. I think it won't and I'm more than happy to revisit this conversation 2 or 3 years later and see what happened with this idea.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

As long as they played it straight as a comedy/supernatural story and not some sort of "What corporate suits think females want in comedy" I'd be okay with it. I like the fact that it puts something distinguishing on the franchise that makes it harder to instantly compare to the originals, as opposed to just a reboot with four new guys.

I also kind of like the idea because society still has a "women aren't funny" mindset, which makes it hard for women to get good comedy roles. This could potentially be a really awesome showcase for young comic actresses.

But, truth be told, I'd still go to see a straight reboot/remake or a "next generation" film or anything Ghostbusters related. I'm ready, hollywood. I got twelve bucks right here in my pocket and I might buy popcorn if I can split it with a friend.

 

[Timby]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Well I might ask the same question. Why would an all female cast work opposed to an all male one or even a mixed male and female GB crew? Even Ernie Hudson thinks it's a bad idea http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/index.ssf/2014/10/post_58.html

Ernie Hudson wants his paycheck, nothing more.

Why now go for a hard reboot with an all female cast that has no connection to what we are still celebrating today?

Because Ghostbusters in 1984 was an incredibly happy accident, an amazing confluence of writing, acting, direction and effects, and previous attempts at drawing more blood from that stone have been mediocre at best (Ghostbusters II) and downright abysmal at worst (Aykroyd's attempts to get Hellbent made for fifteen years). It was and is a great and brilliant comedy, but going back to that well is only going to feel like a pale imitation, given that one of the leads is dead and the other has no interest whatsoever in returning. So why not take the basic concept and do something fun with it?

I don't know what they are going to do with the film but I don't see how an all female cast serves the story and makes it more interesting now.

No one can, because we don't even know the story. We literally know three things about the film: Feig is directing it, Feig is co-writing it with Katie Dippold, and Feig plans on a female-led cast. We know nothing else, and all this sturm und drang is no different from a child stomping his foot and throwing a tantrum: "It's not going to have guys in the lead parts, it can't possibly be good!

"

 

[{ Emilia }]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

I grew up with Ghostbusters and it had always seemed like a boys thing

Almost the whole entertainment industry used to be a "men's thing". Why exactly shouldn't this stuff appeal to "girls", too?

The thing is: Nobody is demanding to only have female leads in everything. We can enjoy movies with male leads just fine. The idea that you can't enjoy a movie if the leads aren't your gender is completely bizarre.

But there's got to be some balance, right?
Balance doesn't mean a 50:50 mix. Balance means you'll have a bit of everything: movies with mixed casts, movies with male casts, movies with female casts, anything. Just based on what the filmmaker is going for. Based on creative decisions.

In the past "creative decisions" meant: Most movies had male leads by default.
Things have changed, get used to it.

I just think it's bizarre that you even consider this to be so weird. People are never surprised when movie leads are male, it's still the default. But if they're female it's noteworthy.

There was a Stargate SG1 episode where SG1 meets another SG team that's an all-female team. Everybody noticed that. And I was like: "Eh, and? We've seen a whole bunch of all-male teams and it made nobody stop and think."

because we had not only the movie but the animated series too and I can't say I remember many girls liking it.

I enjoyed the animated series as a kid. You don't own the franchise.
Seeing women introduced into the franchise in a meaningful way is nice for me to see.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Not in every case is pandering failure. But with this film I think making it an all female cast will not work.

Why?

Well I might ask the same question. Why would an all female cast work opposed to an all male one or even a mixed male and female GB crew? Even Ernie Hudson thinks it's a bad idea http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/index.ssf/2014/10/post_58.html

I dislike reboots in general so that colors my views on this but also I grew up with Ghostbusters and it had always seemed like a boys thing because we had not only the movie but the animated series too and I can't say I remember many girls liking it. Same for Transformers or Knight-Rider.

When I see that they are going to reboot it with an female cast I think firstly it's a gimmick as a way of attracting **cough** pander **cough** to female viewers who would be less inclined to watch a continuation/soft male cast reboot because it's something from the 80s and I think the impression is that it's more of a guys film, no?

I don't know what they are going to do with the film but I don't see how an all female cast serves the story and makes it more interesting now.

Finally, I love Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston in the same way I love Kirk, Spock and Bones, Han, Leia and Luke. If they make this a hard reboot like they are claiming to then why not make it again with those same iconic male (sorry girls) characters?
We just had the 30th Anniversary celebrating this movie and these characters. Why now go for a hard reboot with an all female cast that has no connection to what we are still celebrating today? I have zero interest in that and it worries me that Paul Feig's first impression of making this work and making it funny is making it a female cast. I truly don't want this to be a dumb blonde's (male or female) farting type of comedy movie.

If it works then all the more fucking power to you. I think it won't and I'm more than happy to revisit this conversation 2 or 3 years later and see what happened with this idea.

If the movie fails it won't have anything to do with having women as the central cast. That's absurd and sexist.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

It'll be fine with an all-female cast. Just please no more Melissa McCarthy. I find her completely unfunny, obnoxious and unwatchable - much like Rosanne Barr, Fran Drescher and Sofia Vergara. There are so many other talented comediennes out there. Give 'em a shot!

This is my only real worry about the movie. Paul Feig has directed three movies with Melissa McCarthy, and I find her extremely irritating. Plus, she really does one kind of humor, which even if I liked (and as I already established, I don't) I think she just wouldn't work with a Ghostbusters movie. Even though I think the whole female main cast is a bit gimmicky, I think it could work very well, it just needs a great cast, and I just hope McCarthy isn't cast, which based on the Director's track record is a real possibility.

Speaking of cast, some places on the internet say that Gillian Anderson wants to be in BG3. I've barely watched any X-Files, but I completely support this. I think she could do great, especially as the brains/scientist (which doesn't mean she should be some female copy of Egon, just that a movie like this is almost certainly going to have a super smart character, and she seems like a good fit).

That would be an interesting twist. I could easily see her playing the straight-laced bookish type, although I hope it's not a simple Scully-redux. I also thought the blond woman who played the pregnant cop - her name eludes me - in Fargo (the movie) would be a good choice for GB3.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Not in every case is pandering failure. But with this film I think making it an all female cast will not work.

Why?

Well I might ask the same question. Why would an all female cast work opposed to an all male one or even a mixed male and female GB crew? Even Ernie Hudson thinks it's a bad idea http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/index.ssf/2014/10/post_58.html

I dislike reboots in general so that colors my views on this but also I grew up with Ghostbusters and it had always seemed like a boys thing because we had not only the movie but the animated series too and I can't say I remember many girls liking it. Same for Transformers or Knight-Rider.

When I see that they are going to reboot it with an female cast I think firstly it's a gimmick as a way of attracting **cough** pander **cough** to female viewers who would be less inclined to watch a continuation/soft male cast reboot because it's something from the 80s and I think the impression is that it's more of a guys film, no?

No.

I don't know what they are going to do with the film but I don't see how an all female cast serves the story and makes it more interesting now.

Why? You still haven't explained this element women apparently lack when it comes to science fiction/fantasy story telling. Is it the penis?

Finally, I love Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston in the same way I love Kirk, Spock and Bones, Han, Leia and Luke. If they make this a hard reboot like they are claiming to then why not make it again with those same iconic male (sorry girls) characters?

Because having the same thing every time all of the time doesn't appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, watch the DVDs. Some people want to try different flavors to see which they may like more.

We just had the 30th Anniversary celebrating this movie and these characters. Why now go for a hard reboot with an all female cast that has no connection to what we are still celebrating today? I have zero interest in that and it worries me that Paul Feig's first impression of making this work and making it funny is making it a female cast. I truly don't want this to be a dumb blonde's (male or female) farting type of comedy movie.

If it works then all the more fucking power to you. I think it won't and I'm more than happy to revisit this conversation 2 or 3 years later and see what happened with this idea.

You're free to feel that way, it's just your reasoning is faulty. You've hinged it all on a female cast, as if the lack of four main penises has just ruined this movie for you, but you have yet to explain just why that is.