Please post pictures.
Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Star Trek '09 may be referred to as a reboot, but it isn't actually a reboot.
If something is connected to the existing continuity or lore of a given thing, it is not, by definition, a reboot.
From what is glimpsed in the trailer I wonder if there won't be an alternate timeline in play at some point.
Because no one except Aykroyd actually wanted to make Ghostbusters 2, Ramis, Reitman, Aykroyd and Murray had language inserted into their contracts specifically stating that no Ghostbusters 3 could be made without the consent from all parties. Ramis is dead, so obviously he's out of the picture, But Reitman was never happy with any of the scripts that were produced, and Murray always steadfastly refused to read them. According to last year's leaks, Sony actually considered suing Murray and arguing that he had abrogated his contract but decided that embroiling the lynchpin of the cast in a legal mess would be a pretty bad PR look.
So that's when it was decided to kick Reitman out and pursue the idea of a remake / reboot, first approaching Phil Lord and Chris Miller, then going to Feig when Lord and Miller backed out.
A
Amaris
Guest
Okay, but I'm not as steady as I used to be, so hold really still. <punctures wall>
Oops, let me try that again.
I don't think they demand it. I think they just want to see a decently made film by someone who at least gets what made the original special and try to capture that. I think the new Ninja Turtles film captures the spirit of the cartoon. Transformers however.......
Stupid kids. **shakes fist**
The director referred to it as a reboot so that'll do for me, even before you consider just about every piece of media about the film also refers to it as a reboot. Sorry I proved you wrong and all that, move along.
What they did with Trek was genius.
Sure, but that's no excuse for nerd rage.
Maybe the humor is broad because it's trying to appeal to as many different countries concept of humor as possible? The original and even GB2 were made for US audiences and could have things that would be considered funny only in the US, international box office just wasn't a thing back then. Now, it's huge, so they need to make this for all countries' audiences, not just US audiences, and that could be why so many things are "dumbed down" as some might put it. I'm just not interested in this very much, but I'd like to be (and hoping to be) pleasantly surprised.
The irony in that is while the humour is using broad strokes, it feels very narrow in its focus, and that is perhaps is part of what turns me off from it. There's nothing really much there that I find appealing.
How so? He got his check for his cameo appearance. He didn't write or produce the film; it's not like he's going to have a back-end revenue participation deal, considering the movie could have been made with or without his involvement. Isn't it the least bit possible that the notoriously enthusiastic (and borderline batshit crazy) Aykroyd actually, I don't know, enjoyed the movie?
IMDB has him listed as a producer and one of the writers. So, yeah, he does have a dog in the race. Also his praise is so effusive as to be corny. It ain't that good even if it's good.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000101/#producer
He's listed as an executive producer, even he actually did nothing on the actual making of the film I assume since he's got a EP credit then he sees some financial benefit from the movie performing well.
Well, as you say, the guy is sort of crazy so that skews his views in of itself. He may well have enjoyed the movie but it seems like, I dunno, enthusastic hyperbole to say it's better than the original. That's almost like a fan-boy coming out of "Civil War" and declaring it the "best movie ever!!!" it's just an enthusiastic high from just coming out of the movie. Even if the movie is good, it's hard to see it as being "better" than the original given how much of a classic the original is, how much impact it had on not only popular culture but the notion of summer blockbuster action/comedies. People quote lines from the movie constantly, even people born in the last couple decades who're too young to have the movie be that big a part of their childhood as it was for me.
30 years from now people will still be referencing the "Twinkie scene," or quoting the original movie, referencing it's scenes and lines. I highly doubt many people will be looking back on, fondly, this one and doing the memorable scene where Kristen Wiig has a freakout and needs to be drug out of a restaurant while clutching onto a table; or the memorable scene where McCarthy is back-slapped by Jones in order de-possess her then McCarthy says the memorable, unique, line of "That's going to leave a mark."
The movie could, *could* be good, but from the trailers it just looks like a generic summer comedy that's an Adam Sandler short of being a miserable time in the theaters.
Well, as you say, the guy is sort of crazy so that skews his views in of itself. He may well have enjoyed the movie but it seems like, I dunno, enthusastic hyperbole to say it's better than the original. That's almost like a fan-boy coming out of "Civil War" and declaring it the "best movie ever!!!" it's just an enthusiastic high from just coming out of the movie. Even if the movie is good, it's hard to see it as being "better" than the original given how much of a classic the original is, how much impact it had on not only popular culture but the notion of summer blockbuster action/comedies. People quote lines from the movie constantly, even people born in the last couple decades who're too young to have the movie be that big a part of their childhood as it was for me.
30 years from now people will still be referencing the "Twinkie scene," or quoting the original movie, referencing it's scenes and lines. I highly doubt many people will be looking back on, fondly, this one and doing the memorable scene where Kristen Wiig has a freakout and needs to be drug out of a restaurant while clutching onto a table; or the memorable scene where McCarthy is back-slapped by Jones in order de-possess her then McCarthy says the memorable, unique, line of "That's going to leave a mark."
The movie could, *could* be good, but from the trailers it just looks like a generic summer comedy that's an Adam Sandler short of being a miserable time in the theaters.
An EP credit can mean anything in this day and age. Hell, Reitman has a producing credit on this new movie, but he had literally nothing to do with its development; it was a bone they threw to him shortly after Ramis died and they decided to take the remake tactic. And generally speaking, people with producer titles receive a flat fee (if any fee at all). It's the stars who get the juicy back-end participation.
Edit: And again, this movie could have been made with or without Aykroyd's involvement. There's no reason for Sony to give him any participation.
Yeah, I'm imagining he had to be credited as such as it was likely a stipulation in the contract, and I wouldn't doubt if Ramis were added as an EP as well. I think of it as the equivalent of nodding their heads and acknowledging its existence. It's just saying, "Yes, this is based on a franchise we created."
I mean, look at Spielberg. He gets credited as an EP for a ton of things, yet I doubt he's involved in most of them other than a shadow of an idea and signing off on them.
I mean, look at Spielberg. He gets credited as an EP for a ton of things, yet I doubt he's involved in most of them other than a shadow of an idea and signing off on them.
Similar threads
