Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
I happen to like those movies. Guilty pleasure of mine.
Well, sure, I own a Blu-ray of the Street Fighter movie because Raul Julia rocks the house in it, but that doesn't make it a genuinely good movie.
Never said they were. Just that some happen to like them, hence the guilty pleasure 
They're all pure cornball and by no means great.
They're all pure cornball and by no means great.
I like Ghostbusters 2, I think it has a lot of good ideas, I dig the musical score, and it's fun to catch up with the characters.
However, I won't try to defend against any of the criticism because I agree with all of them. It's a cash grab, simple as that. Murray clearly doesn't want to be there, in fact so much so that he is probably the reason Venkman is absent from most of the busting sequences and only really wears the uniform (and proton pack) for a few key scenes. It's a little disappointing, but I'm sure he made everyone jump through hoops in order to get his participation in the film.
Also, you gotta feel bad for Ernie Hudson. In the first film we saw through a new interview that his role was cut down from when he was hired on and when he started filming. You can only imagine how he felt during part 2 where his character is only around because he happened to be in the first film.
However, I won't try to defend against any of the criticism because I agree with all of them. It's a cash grab, simple as that. Murray clearly doesn't want to be there, in fact so much so that he is probably the reason Venkman is absent from most of the busting sequences and only really wears the uniform (and proton pack) for a few key scenes. It's a little disappointing, but I'm sure he made everyone jump through hoops in order to get his participation in the film.
Also, you gotta feel bad for Ernie Hudson. In the first film we saw through a new interview that his role was cut down from when he was hired on and when he started filming. You can only imagine how he felt during part 2 where his character is only around because he happened to be in the first film.
But was it really that much worse than Paul Blart 2?
Agreed. It's a shame the character of Winston was altered so significantly from the original version that was pitched to him, and that Hudson didn't get to do that role.
I never got the hate for GB II. It wasn't as good as the first one, but I thought it was still an entertaining movie
I liked it, too.
My biggest disappointment, which is silly I know, was it didn't follow the continuity of the cartoon. I liked Vigo, and Peter McNicol was a real high point in the movie, but I see all of the other criticisms and really can't disagree. But I see all movies as soulless cash grabs, that's what making movies is all about, or they wouldn't sell tickets.
Is it just me or are people unduly worked up about a remake of a thirty-year-old ghost comedy? I mean, even if it disappoints, what's the big deal? They can just remake it again a few years down the road.
It does seem that some sort of nerve is being touched here, above and beyond whether there are enough laughs in the trailer.
Movies get remade all the time. The classic Bob Hope version of GHOST BREAKERS was the second remake of the original silent version, and the story was remade again with Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin.
The more things change . . ...
It does seem that some sort of nerve is being touched here, above and beyond whether there are enough laughs in the trailer.
Movies get remade all the time. The classic Bob Hope version of GHOST BREAKERS was the second remake of the original silent version, and the story was remade again with Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin.
The more things change . . ...
Last edited:
A good point, I guess it depends on intent. Whether the intent is to revive the spirit of the originals for a modern audience or whether it's just to use the name for free attention. Granted I do not know for sure that the intent of the new Ghostbusters was not to revive the spirit of the original or that the intent of the new Star Trek will be, but if the movie really was created by somebody because they loved the source material, they'd have put care into the quality of writing.
I'll back up a bit and say that sometimes trailers are misleading. I've seen movies whose trailers look like total crap and whose movies not only had nothing at all to do with the trailer, were great. If that's the case here, then the movie is not just a cash grab. But if the quality of writing is as bad as the trailers reflect, then it is.
And if the new Star Trek series is produced by people who don't care about the originals and don't put effort into finding good creative talent, the same will be true for that.
Given that one of the people involved is Nicholas Meyer, who directed THE WRATH OF KHAN, co-wrote the screenplay for THE VOYAGE HOME, and directed THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, I don't think we need to worry that he doesn't know or care about STAR TREK.
But, in a larger sense, it's not strictly necessary that a remake has to closely resemble the original. Look at the reboots of THE FLY, THE THING, THE MUMMY, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, just name a few. Those projects bore little resemblance to their namesakes, but turned out just fine.
Which is funny, because at the time of release I hated that they did take the cartoon into account, with Slimer now being a helpful little spud who hangs around the firehouse. I'm over it now.
Yeah, who wants to see a GHOSTBUSTERS movie starring a bunch of SNL alumni? That will never work.
It's not a matter of being "informed." Nobody is forcing Melissa McCarthy down the audience's throat or trying to trick us into thinking she's popular; she's one of the most bankable stars in the movies these days. And BRIDESMAIDS with Kristin Wiig and McCarthy was a monster hit, and the other two GBs have proven their chops on SNL, just like Murray and Ackroyd back in the day.
You seem to be implying that McCarthy and Co. aren't really popular, but are just a product of hype, but, seriously, you could have made the same case for the cast of the original GHOSTBUSTERS back in the day. McCarthy is just as big a star now as Murray was then (maybe more so) and are we really going to argue that Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson were bigger deals back then than, say, Kristin Wiig or Kate McKinnon are today?
Back in 1984, Bill Murray was not a beloved comedy icon. He was the star of STRIPES and MEATBALLS . . .
Last edited:
I think you're forgetting just how much Murray and Ackroyd had (along with others) made SNL "that" show to watch. SNL has not been "that" show to watch on a matching level since (arguably) the Murphy/Piscopo era. Murray and Ackroyd were part of a cultural phenomenon, and I seriously doubt anyone can say the same of those SNL members cast in this reboot. In no small measure, part of the great pre-release interest (unlike the reboot), then success of the original was due to its participants.
But does any of that effect the quality of the writing, acting, directing, humor, ect.?
And I guess the fact that the cast and director have all been involved in very popular movies means doesn't make them popular enough for people to want to see them do a Ghostbusters movie?
I think SNL alum have a combined rotten tomatoes score somewhere around -130%. Then again, Adam Sandler is at least halfway responsible for that. In any case, this looks like just another uninspired reboot, I think I'd rather have Goodburger 2.
I just realized this movie is getting made by the same Amy Pascal that got in trouble over saying racist things about Obama, I think that's the funniest thing about this whole project so far.
I just realized this movie is getting made by the same Amy Pascal that got in trouble over saying racist things about Obama, I think that's the funniest thing about this whole project so far.
Sure it has an effect on the quality when the number one reason for a reboot is about selling (pushing) certain performers, instead of producing a concept that will pull in as many audience members as possible / a concept the people actually have an interest in seeing. How many in social media are thrilled about this project? Why the unprecedented negative reaction to the trailer, and certain ideas known to be in the film?
We're supposed to sweep her racism under the carpet and smile in the name of this necessary reboot.
A
Amaris
Guest
I'm interesting in seeing these four women play roles that I loved back when they were played by four men. That doesn't change anything for me. I just want it to be fun.
Similar threads
