Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Yeah. I was kinda reaching for something to sum up the non positive anticipation. I didn't think that quite summed it up either, but duty called and had to hit reply fast.
I just don't want it to be like...I dunno. Nemesis? A bum note ending to something I enjoyed. Even if it's awful I hope someone enjoys it. I am going to watch it regardless, and anyone who enjoys a franchise always wants it to go out on a high or continue on one. This doesn't look 'highlander: the source' awful, but then I went into that one with a 'how bad could it be?' attitude. And well.....
See what I mean? It's not I think that it shouldn't exist...but if it turns out to be awful, then I will be wishing that on some level. Especially knowing how close we got to seeing the originals again before we just simply can't any more.
I sincerely hope it will be good. But at the moment I am not getting that from the trailer.
A
Amaris
Guest
Dryland is a myth.There's a special place in Hell for you.
We weren't as close to seeing the originals as you might think. Murray had to be won over in order to give the OK to the project, and near the end he wasn't even reading the scripts being sent to him. He didn't want to do it, period. And even if he did come back for a third film, would you really want a Ghostbusters film where Murray is clearly phoning it in?
Exactly so. People getting invested in the fantasy world of the movie doesn't magically transform it from a comedy into an adventure or horror movie or anything else.
If it did, Galaxy Quest conventions might have become a real thing.
The thing is, a chunk of that fantasy world is basically 'real' in so far as parapsychology etc goes. And it's that level of detail that adds the realism that makes it what it is. It's there in the writing, right front and centre. It's a fantasy sure, but the story isn't there to hang the jokes on. Simple test really, would it still be a compelling film without the jokes? Not as successful maybe, but...Yes. It doesn't need the jokes to work. I like it with the jokes of course, but I am sure you get my meaning.
I would have preferred the go ahead without him frankly, while they still could. Or killed him in the first reel like he asked (I came up with a nice plot for that in a discussion ages ago.)
Now, immediately after the game, Murray was close according to interviews. But Murray almost didn't do the original...he has a habit of that apparently. It all ends sadly of course.
I should also say that given the nature of the film and it's advertising, it's exactly a film the studio thinks is for me to enjoy. I am a thirtysomething (today's new target audience given how much is being recycled rebooted and remade these days) with a kid (toy time) and a fan of the original (thirty years ago......)
Hopefully I will enjoy it. But dammit Sony, give me more hope.
Based on the script I read, it's probably better it was never made. They go to hell but nothing is different; its NYC with the people going on in their everyday lives but doesn't have a clue they're in Hell except for Ray. Ray goes on a crusade to prove what he sees is real, it wasn't interesting. Also the script had the reset button again, where every member are doing other professions.
I wanted the script to be like the cartoon; where the GB are established and its another adventure, but the twist that Signorney Weaver was Satan??? Urgh!!! It just felt like going through the motions and kinda making a remake of the first one in the worst way. I read it online. It's titled "Ghostbusters GO TO HELL"
So, how does the original trailer compare for you?
That one was clearly sold as a horror comedy, imo.
On a side note: Damb, that trailer spoiled the entire movie!
That one was clearly sold as a horror comedy, imo.
On a side note: Damb, that trailer spoiled the entire movie!
Every time I planned to track that down an read it I never did. Sounds like I didn't miss much. But there has to be other versions. The video game script is decent and probably needed just one or two polishes. (there's two versions of that too.)
I would open with Venkman having died getting people out in 9/11 woth Oscar working security on the new ground zero development. 9/11 is the elephant in the room where New York Apocalypse films are concerned, especially when you look at the end of the first film and how it's described in the second.(actually I would open on dana and Peter in the same room, only realising they aren't quite interacting because he's a ghost after a few minutes.) So put it front and centre in a positive way then move on, with Peter finally making contact from some heaven dimension to warn the guys and be happy to see his son follow in his footsteps (fulfilling Sigourney's stipulation for taking part)
Egon is researching at cern, makes an appearance as a disembodied voice (possibly as a commentary figure alongside Venkman) and it's basically down to Ray and Winston to build the new team (they aren't out of business, but after the 'psychic shockwave' of 9/11, there's either less ghosts or people aren't so pro imprisoning dead loved ones...I should iterate that at no point should the twin towers be used as a source for ghosts, cos while it's an elephant, it's git be done right so as not to be a joke.) with Oscar. Then you get your equal opportunities because I don't think ghostbusters have to be guys, (the egon janine stuff actually works better if you gender flip it in some ways)
People and ghosts come in good and bad, and the cast gets to do their thing, in what is basically a serious film that has funny people as characters (like The Martian. Or Constantine.)
There's some good and bad in that idea, but hey I haven't had years of writing in Hollywood, and I kid you not, I literally dreamt this idea.
Oh and yeah no one asked, but at least I have thought how I would do this story before I get disgruntled at how anyone else does it.
Hope someone found that concept entertaining, even if just to laugh at me for having it (or having weird dreams about movie sequels)
So, how does the original trailer compare for you?
That one was clearly sold as a horror comedy, imo.
On a side note: Damb, that trailer spoiled the entire movie!
To be fair, that appears to be the trailer for the re-release. Narration is awful. Flipped between the comedy aspects and the poltergeist style drama. But yeah...saw the whole film right there lol.
http://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-reboot-trailer-female-characters-response/
This pretty much sums up most of my thinking on it. Though I suspect I am more hopeful of the end product. I really dislike the design work on those suits and packs though. Y'know. Just to make it clear I am all about the big things in a film...
This pretty much sums up most of my thinking on it. Though I suspect I am more hopeful of the end product. I really dislike the design work on those suits and packs though. Y'know. Just to make it clear I am all about the big things in a film...
I would've worked on a sequel based on the conversation between Ray and Steadmore about the book of revelations. That's all I needed to get my brain going on a story. GB falls short like MIB; the elements for a sequel were all in the first movie, but decided to reset things. In MIIB, the roles were reversed between Tommy Lee and Will Smith, and then in 3 it was... uh boy.
Last edited:
I kind of liked 3. 2...the Mrs hated 2, I don't remember hating it as much, but the comic sequel did things better (neuralyzer, k forget that you forgot, bang on with new story. Not 2 hours of stuff to get his memory back.)
But yeah, Ghost Busters is far from impossible to keep doing well, and I think I would have sat through a just Ray and Winston Movie quite happily.
I think there are tons of stories could be told about GB, the problem came when the director and the producers felt they had to have everyone back. All I needed was the 4 guys, an evil threat and lets go with it; it doesn't have to top the first film just tell a story. That's Hollywood; they're never satisfied with a single or a double, they have to have a home run at every at bat. It's ridiculous. Now every studio is on the preposterous Cinematic Universe bug which will get old very fast if everyone around is doing it.
LOL!!! I think that trailer was a parody of horror films, but I'm too out of the box for that trailer. I wasn't born when the film premiered. I'm would love to know what were peoples thought on it back when? I don't think there was an avenue to see trailers except... in a movie theater or a spot on TV. Man, it must have sucked to live in the 80's.So, how does the original trailer compare for you?
That one was clearly sold as a horror comedy, imo.
On a side note: Damb, that trailer spoiled the entire movie!
Have just avoided reading the leaked plot for this one on the Internet, and it linked out to leaked emails on wikileaks from the Sony hack....and yes, if I didn't agree with you before reading the leaked emails, I sure as heck do now. On the plus side, the sane discussion pointed out Sigourney weaver in the trailer. (I was a very good fan and didn't read the synopsis. I promise to judge the film when I see it. The miasma around it doesn't look promising though. Murray nearly sued into appearing? Yeesh)
Have to love Murray when it comes to creative integrity for a project. He deeply regrets ever being involved with GB 2, and I agree with him; the movie was a total turd dump. There were no ideas coming from that movie, there were no jokes no organic conflicts, just a rehash from stuff done well from the first film. It was selling the brand to boost merchandising but the focus should have been about the picture.
I can't speak to the trailer, I was about 5 when it came out (I can speak more about 2 lol) but back then there were way way way more tie in promotions, I had a glowing sticker of the Terror Dog from my breakfast cereal I can remember, and eventually saw what was probably a pirate video of it at a friend of my father's house (Even piracy was harder back then, remember kids, always go legit.) I loved the film, loved playing the video games at friends houses and was all about the cartoon for the next 5 years of my life or so....and here's the thing....I would not have got about 90 percent of the jokes in that film (especially not the lines cut or redubbed for the television version I spent that half a decade watching) So it was all about that scifi fantasy drama for little me.
I definitely would not have known how to get a sailor in new York laid, especially not one a hundred feet high.
I've seen that recently with all the hoo-ha over the new trailer. A lot of those old trailers were pretty terrible such as the Star Wars trailers. It seemed like they more haphazardly selected and edited clips together back then without slick music overlays.
Similar threads
