Spoilers Ghostbusters (2016): Grading and Review

[Gaith]

I mean, combining 21 Jump Street and Men in Black?! What?! That's just insanity. (FWIW, I've heard of their plans to do this and makes not a damn bit of sense.)

Huh?

21 Jump Street made fun of rebooting an old property with lingering name recognition for the hell of it.
Budget: $42m. International BO: $201m. Critical and audience reception: great.

22 Jump Street made fun of sequels to unexpected hits that just regurgitates the original movie.
Budget: $50m. International BO: $331m. Critical and audience reception: great.

Now Men in Black 23, also written by Lord and Miller, and directed by Muppets Most Wanted's James Bobin, will make fun of gimmicky shared universe movies. "Insanity", you say? If that doesn't sound like a no-brainer green light to you, you not only have no Hollywood business sense whatsoever, you also don't seem to have any understanding of what made 21 and 22 Jump Street so fun. What's more, you contradict yourself by saying you don't want franchises to mindlessly repeat themselves, yet rip on the Men in Black franchise for doing something utterly unexpected.

Ghostbusters is hardly something that lends itself to a wide franchise because how much can you really do with it? "Oh, a team of people with nuclear-powered backpacks go around and fight ghosts and.... well along the way they discover a ghost/someone with paranormal connections trying to end the world. And then, and then... A really powerful ghost comes and they all have to team-up to save the world.... and then they go back to their respective franchises too.... fight ghosts in order to save the world.

This, however, I agree with. In theory, the Ghostbusters franchise could explore all sorts of horror and paranormal tropes, but basically remaking the original in the same city with a huge budget was hardly an auspicious start. Why not set the reboot in Detroit, a city that's lost population over the years, and has literal trouble keeping the lights on at night and emergency services staffed? They could have made a much more authentic, cheaper movie there, with tons of on-location shooting, rather than doubling Boston for NYC (oh, wow, NYC on screen again). Or New Orleans? Tons of existing film tax credits in Louisiana.

 

[Mudd]

Thing is, why do they *need* a "franchise" or an CU?

Because that's the business they're in, Trekker, and even the less successful studios know their business ten thousand times better than you do. Let it go.

 

[BillJ]

Eventually the industry will change again because some movie was an unexpected hit.

I expect that the industry will begin to change when one of these Marvel films craters at the box office. I was watching the Doctor Strange trailer and I think it is a likely candidate.

 

[Zaku]

21 Jump Street made fun of rebooting an old property with lingering name recognition for the hell of it.

Wasn't the movie technically set within the same continuity as the TV series?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

This, however, I agree with. In theory, the Ghostbusters franchise could explore all sorts of horror and paranormal tropes, but basically remaking the original in the same city with a huge budget was hardly an auspicious start. Why not set the reboot in Detroit, a city that's lost population over the years, and has literal trouble keeping the lights on at night and emergency services staffed? They could have made a much more authentic, cheaper movie there, with tons of on-location shooting, rather than doubling Boston for NYC (oh, wow, NYC on screen again). Or New Orleans? Tons of existing film tax credits in Louisiana.

Its called a lack of imagination and trying to bleed the emotional memories of the original film. That's clearly not working out.

 

[Gaith]

Now I wish the new movie featured a scene implying a man performing oral sex on one of the women. I mean, fairness and all.

No objection on the merits, but from what I've heard, a dearth of recycled moments from the original is not one of the movie's weaknesses.

Wasn't the movie technically set within the same continuity as the TV series?

Yes, and that itself was a third-act gag, highlighting the absurdity of maintaining franchise canon over decades. If you point to that scene and say the movie wasn't a reboot, I fear the point may have whooshed you by.

I expect that the industry will begin to change when one of these Marvel films craters at the box office. I was watching the Doctor Strange trailer and I think it is a likely candidate.

They're being careful enough to get it played in China, and I imagine its budget is fairly modest (Ant-Man was reportedly made for $130m, and made $519 worldwide). It may underperform, sure, but Marvel Studios movies have made Disney so much money that even a complete bomb would hardly be a disaster. I think the more plausible big risk is Snyder's Justice League movies tanking, as a large chunk of the general audience that was burned by BvS might not be up for more of that nonsense.

 

[Zaku]

Yes, and that itself was a third-act gag, highlighting the absurdity of maintaining franchise canon over decades. If you point to that scene and say the movie wasn't a reboot, I fear the point may have whooshed you by.

And indeed I used the word "technically" Perhaps a more appropriate definition wold be "soft reboot".

 

[Greg Cox]

I expect that the industry will begin to change when one of these Marvel films craters at the box office. I was watching the Doctor Strange trailer and I think it is a likely candidate.

I don't know. I heard the same thing said about THOR, and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, and ANT-MAN . . ..

Granted, someday a Marvel movie will fail at the box-office, but the internet has a bad track record when it comes to predicting this in advance.

"A talking raccoon? What is Marvel smoking? This is going to be HOWARD THE DUCK all over again!"

 

[Awesome Possum]

I expect that the industry will begin to change when one of these Marvel films craters at the box office. I was watching the Doctor Strange trailer and I think it is a likely candidate.

Marvel is like Pixar at this point, they can survive a few duds. Thor 2 wasn't that great but no one remembers it and they kept going.

 

[Timby]

Marvel is like Pixar at this point, they can survive a few duds. Thor 2 wasn't that great but no one remembers it and they kept going.

Thor 2 is inexplicable to me because I have no idea why you would cast an actor on the level of Christopher Eccleston and then have 95 percent of his dialogue be gibberish.

 

[shapeshifter]

B- is the best I can give to the reboot based on first impressions.

It was funny and I thought even clever at times. I think the film probably had potential to be great but it just wasn't great as presented. I feel too many shortcuts were taken to make for faster pacing.

Perhaps better editing and/or including some of the deleted scenes in a future directors cut would help. Hopefully that is the plan for future releases.

 

[Marsden]

Maybe instead of setting their goals on making franchises/cinematic universes they should more focus on making good movies and then if one gets off the ground then maybe expand on it and build from there.

But that wouldn't be Hollywood, would it? Common sense statements don't apply to those people.

That goes for all of the studios, not just Sony.

Marvel Studios pulled off something that no one else was able to do and now it's "they did it, why can't we" and I think your statement is the answer, but it's so obvious they can't see it. They are too caught up in their own avarice to believe they did anything wrong, it's X's fault.

Franchise Fatigue is a really popular fill in for X.

 

[BillJ]

Franchise Fatigue is a really popular fill in for X.

If Ghostbusters fails, it would be hard to blame on franchise fatigue. We've had two movies and a cartoon series in thirty years.

 

[Trekker4747]

I think he more means "fatigue of franchises" than "fatigue of this particular franchise."

 

[Aldo]

If Ghostbusters fails, it would be hard to blame on franchise fatigue. We've had two movies and a cartoon series in thirty years.

He just means in general. That was a popular saying when Enterprise was getting low ratings and 'Nemesis' failed to ignite the box office.

 

[BillJ]

That was a popular saying when Enterprise was getting low ratings and 'Nemesis' failed to ignite the box office.

I tend to agree with franchise fatigue where Trek was concerned. They made 620 episodes from 1987-2005, along with six films and a massive amount of novels and comics, among other merchandise.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

It was not franchise fatigue which ended classic Star Trek. It was a lack of innovation and change. Some date the beginning of the decay to Voyager's "Alliances". The fourth season of Enterprise demonstrated, under new leadership, a Star Trek which could have been.

Regardless of its many flaws, the Kelvin Timeline films have been on the whole successful for they are innovative and are reflective of changes in film making. I am anticipating the new series.

 

[nx1701g]

If Ghostbusters fails, it would be hard to blame on franchise fatigue. We've had two movies and a cartoon series in thirty years.

Eh I'll be the first one to do it: FRANCHISE FATIGUE!

Anyway I'm going to be going to see this Friday night. My local Drive in is playing Ghostbusters and Beyond back to back.

 

[LJones41]

But that wouldn't be Hollywood, would it? Common sense statements don't apply to those people.

That goes for all of the studios, not just Sony.

Marvel Studios pulled off something that no one else was able to do and now it's "they did it, why can't we" and I think your statement is the answer, but it's so obvious they can't see it. They are too caught up in their own avarice to believe they did anything wrong, it's X's fault.

Franchise Fatigue is a really popular fill in for X.

Hollywood has been doing franchises since the 1930s. Why complain about it now?

It was not franchise fatigue which ended classic Star Trek. It was a lack of innovation and change. Some date the beginning of the decay to Voyager's "Alliances". The fourth season of Enterprise demonstrated, under new leadership, a Star Trek which could have been.

In your opinion? Because this is not my opinion. For me, the downfall of the TREK franchise can be attributed to all of the post- "First Contact" movies and "Enterprise".

 

[Marsden]

Hollywood has been doing franchises since the 1930s. Why complain about it now?

Hollywood has been making movies since the 30s, why talk about them anymore?