How is Dan Aykroyd batshit insane?
Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
He made Doctor Detroit and Nothing But Trouble.
It should be noted that all of his successful movies had others to rein him in; Landis, Murray, Belushi, Murphy, Ramis, etc. But with Nothing But Trouble, he was the writer, director, and star, and all the nightmare fuel in that movie is all his responsibility.
That, his absolute belief in the paranormal, selling vodka in crystal skulls to fund his paranormal research, the fact that he wrote Blues Brothers 2000...
I don't know, judging by the posts it seems liking Ghostbusters is a pretty miserable experience.
I'm honored.
I watched the SNL 40th anniversary special, and on the red carpet, there he was, on national TV, holding a bottle of his crystal skull vodka. He was trying to turn an interview with the Today Show reporters into a commercial for his vodka. I just had to facepalm.
Let some franchises fade and create new ones.
I've never bothered to see BB200.
I'd heard he sold vodka, but wasn't aware of why.
I just watched the Nothing But Trouble trailer, and that looks very strange.
Just for the fun of it, here's John Landis' son Max and his ideas for Ghostbusters III. He warns, however, since he didn't pitch it and the reboot was well underway anyway, that it should be treated as fanfiction and nothing more (and sometimes it certainly reads like it).
There are a couple things I like in it, a couple things that are just straight up self-indulgent, and a couple things that would probably be scaled back had it actually been picked up for a movie treatment.
Max, being the son of a legendary film director, knows the cast members on a different level than most of us; with that said, it's funny how the original cast became analogues for their characters: Stantz/Aykroyd is loopy and too nostalgic for his own good (which we *just* discussed in this thread), Venkman/Murray would like nothing to do with it (though the cameo is pretty fitting), Zeddemore/Hudson is enjoying more fame and success now than he ever did in the 80s, and Peck/Atherton is redeemed for simply doing his job.
Like I said, this is self-indulgent at times, and it sometimes reads like a kid with no restraint, like the cartoons being canon (in a different way, of course). But perhaps the best part is the, "Avengers of comedy in 2016", which is really what any Ghostbuster movie should have anyway.
Anyway, for me it was a fun read and Landis is a good writer, but it's a bit too much, too nostalgic, and much too aware that lightning struck the first time around; despite being separate and realized characters with their own problems, the main cast are too busy revolving around what happened in the previous movies to really leap out on their own, and to me that would be a major hurdle for a story that's relegated the originals to supporting cast.
There are a couple things I like in it, a couple things that are just straight up self-indulgent, and a couple things that would probably be scaled back had it actually been picked up for a movie treatment.
Max, being the son of a legendary film director, knows the cast members on a different level than most of us; with that said, it's funny how the original cast became analogues for their characters: Stantz/Aykroyd is loopy and too nostalgic for his own good (which we *just* discussed in this thread), Venkman/Murray would like nothing to do with it (though the cameo is pretty fitting), Zeddemore/Hudson is enjoying more fame and success now than he ever did in the 80s, and Peck/Atherton is redeemed for simply doing his job.
Like I said, this is self-indulgent at times, and it sometimes reads like a kid with no restraint, like the cartoons being canon (in a different way, of course). But perhaps the best part is the, "Avengers of comedy in 2016", which is really what any Ghostbuster movie should have anyway.
Anyway, for me it was a fun read and Landis is a good writer, but it's a bit too much, too nostalgic, and much too aware that lightning struck the first time around; despite being separate and realized characters with their own problems, the main cast are too busy revolving around what happened in the previous movies to really leap out on their own, and to me that would be a major hurdle for a story that's relegated the originals to supporting cast.
It turns out it's not just the GBs themselves that Paul Feig is "gender-bending" for the reboot.
Chris Hemsworth has been cast as the Ghostbusters' receptionist.
I guess if you're going to cast a guy in the role, Hemsworth is a good choice.
https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/608780626595037184
Chris Hemsworth has been cast as the Ghostbusters' receptionist.
I guess if you're going to cast a guy in the role, Hemsworth is a good choice.
https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/608780626595037184
Will certainly appeal to the ladies.
I hope this film has more up its sleeves than gender bending. Has anyone seen that Spy movie from McCarthy and Feig? Does that show promise that this could be decent?
Spy is genuinely excellent.
Honestly, between Freaks and Geeks, Bridesmaids, Spy and the work Feig did on Arrested Development, that should be more than enough for anyone to understand that the dude is legit when it comes to comedy and characters.
Sorry, I just can't shake the feeling that this thing is a one-trick pony. Coincidentally, I was inspired to watch a couple of episodes of Other Space from the recently resurrected thread and saw Feig's name attached which is cool.
Today is the first day of filming, and we now have pics of Mckinnon, Wiig, and McCarthy on the set. No busting gear, though.
20 pics here
3 more here
Kate McKinnon's character definitely looks... eccentric.
20 pics here
3 more here
Kate McKinnon's character definitely looks... eccentric.
Similar threads
