Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[Greg Cox]

The original movie was over thirty years ago. It's not being made for the first generation of GHOSTBUSTERS fans any more than, say, the 1940 version of THE MARK OF ZORRO was intended for fans of the original 1920 silent version.

And note that those early ZORRO movies were only twenty years apart, whereas most of today's movie audience wasn't even born when original GHOSTBUSTERS came out. It's a new GHOSTBUSTERS for a new generation of moviegoers.

And, honestly, it doesn't matter whether us old-timers go to see it or not. A Melissa McCarthy movie from the director of BRIDESMAIDS is likely to do great at the box office regardless.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I wonder, what fraction of those who see the new film will have seen the original?

 

[Timby]

I have to say I did want a reunion of the originals but of course they waited too long and Harold Ramis died.

It's not that they "waited too long;" Sony had been trying to get a Ghostbusters III made as far back as 1992, but they could never get a script that everyone liked, which isn't surprising considering that comedy sequels are a tough nut to crack -- just look at Ghostbusters II for all the proof you need there -- and then Ramis lost the ability to fucking walk during the last five years of his life (which really makes all the statements that Reitman and Aykroyd were saying in 2010 and beyond, that the next movie was just around the corner, feel particularly ghoulish; Ramis literally could not walk, and here they were saying that everyone was going to be back).

Still it would have been nice to get a continuation in the original Ghostbusters world

What world? Four nuclear-powered con men accidentally trip into saving the world. That's it. Finito. Done. There's no "universe." People who talk about that seem to be the type who forget that they grew up with the cartoons and merchandising juggernaut, so it wasn't that they really loved Ghostbusters the movie, but rather the giant marketing machine that kept them company on Saturday mornings and put green Slimer-branded juice in their lunchbox.

 

[Greg Cox]

Rule of thumb regarding pretty much all remakes: If you fondly remember seeing the previous version on its original release, you are not the target demographic for the latest version.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

What world? Four nuclear-powered con men accidentally trip into saving the world. That's it. Finito. Done. There's no "universe." People who talk about that seem to be the type who forget that they grew up with the cartoons and merchandising juggernaut, so it wasn't that they really loved Ghostbusters the movie, but rather the giant marketing machine that kept them company on Saturday mornings and put green Slimer-branded juice in their lunchbox.

You make many assumptions. I was there to see the original Ghostbusters back in '84, , and much of the audience (and those seen in lines covered by the media) were not of the demographic who watched the cartoons, or played with GB toys. You seem to forget--or underestimate that the drawing power of the films was a combination of a part of the Baby Boomer & Generation X audience's familiarity / fondness for Ackroyd and Murray, who--by that time--were famous for being past cast members from Saturday Night Live, starring in hit movies, and Ivan Reitman, who was already well knows for two popular Murray-headlined comedies. To those audiences, a "world" existed all in that one movie, just as a "world" was established just from the one, original Star Wars in 1977, long before sequels.

There's a sizable cultural attachment to GB, and the generation who made that film a hit still live, still see movies. So, as we see in so many reboots / reimagining, the films end up having to acknowledge the original to some degree (even if just to "get it out of the way"), or as a matter of nature, deal with comparisons to the source--what worked, what did not, what was classic in the original, etc. Those behind this new version pretty much asked for all of the attention (particularly negative) that its received. How could it be avoided? Mind wipe moviegoers?

 

[JD]

Yeah, the original is more than recent enough for there be tons of people who saw the original when it came out and who are still young enough to be very active movie movie goers, who could still be within the target audience. The movie is barely 30 years old.

 

[Corran Horn]

Ghostbusters 2 seems to have taught the OG guys (at least some of them) that recapturing the magic and making sequels wasn't as simple as it seems.

People who resent the new one and act as if they should have continued the originals seem to have forgotten 2.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I have no particular emotional connection to the originals, I was born just a little too late. So I have no emotional reaction to seeing the series rebooted, and I think it's a good thing they cast women.

However from what I hear the trailers are really generic and unfunny, and it does annoy me in general that funding went to an uninspired cash grab instead of an original concept. So I will vote with my dollars and watch an original movie instead.

 

[Timby]

Ghostbusters 2 seems to have taught the OG guys (at least some of them) that recapturing the magic and making sequels wasn't as simple as it seems.

People who resent the new one and act as if they should have continued the originals seem to have forgotten 2.

Seriously, comedy sequels are hard. For every unexpected pleasure like 22 Jump Street, there's Caddyshack 2 and the Police Academy sequels and Blues Brothers 2000 and Ghostbusters II and so on and so on.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

^I rather liked Ghostbusters II.

 

[kirk55555]

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

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

I remember seeing GB 2 like eight times in the theater. Mind you I was 9, and I thought it was awesome. As I grew older I became more aware of the flaws of the movie, and while it's no where near as good as its predecessor, it's also no where near as bad as its reputation.

 

[Greg Cox]

I will go to my grave insisting that ADDAMS FAMILY VALUES is better than the first ADDAMS FAMILY movie, even though, sadly, it didn't do as well at the box office. And you can probably make a case for GREMLINS 2. And going back a few decades, Peter Sellers' first PINK PANTHER movie is by no means the best one.

As for holding out for something more "original" . . .um, isn't this the same board where we're waiting eagerly for a seventh STAR TREK series? Why is a revamped GHOSTBUSTERS a "cash grab" but yet another STAR TREK series is not?

(Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of a new TREK show. There just seems to be an inconsistency here.)

 

[Timby]

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

It's a soulless beat-for-beat remake of the original, made for no reason other than Columbia wanting to cash in on the popularity of the cartoon, which was making fucking bank from its merchandise. No one outside of Aykroyd even wanted to do it, which is why the cast and Reitman had it written into their deals that another sequel couldn't happen unless they all signed off on it. And it shows in the performances: Murray looks embarrassed to be there, Ramis is coasting through, and Hudson just shows up for his paycheck. Reitman, in interviews, has basically stopped just short of saying that he wishes they never made the movie in the first place.

Both films begin with the guys down and out (getting fired by the university / being out of business). Then they start investigating something while everyone around them is skeptical, then they have their first big "bust," Venkman makes a triumphant pronouncement, ~MONTAGE~, more investigation goes on while Venkman romances Dana, they ultimately get arrested after shit gets wild (and there's another ~MONTAGE~, this time of ghosts wrecking shit), they get to see the mayor who is initially

but then eventually comes over to their side, there's a giant thing that stomps around the city, they save the world, theme song.

Edit: Shit, even Ghostbusters II is one minute longer than the original, at 108 minutes to the original's 107.

 

[Corran Horn]

I like GB 2 well enough - but as I see people attack some of the stuff in the new trailer I personally believe it's no worse than some of the stuff in 2.

 

[STEPhon IT]

It's a soulless beat-for-beat remake of the original, made for no reason other than Columbia wanting to cash in on the popularity of the cartoon, which was making fucking bank from its merchandise. No one outside of Aykroyd even wanted to do it, which is why the cast and Reitman had it written into their deals that another sequel couldn't happen unless they all signed off on it. And it shows in the performances: Murray looks embarrassed to be there, Ramis is coasting through, and Hudson just shows up for his paycheck. Reitman, in interviews, has basically stopped just short of saying that he wishes they never made the movie in the first place.

Both films begin with the guys down and out (getting fired by the university / being out of business). Then they start investigating something while everyone around them is skeptical, then they have their first big "bust," Venkman makes a triumphant pronouncement, ~MONTAGE~, more investigation goes on while Venkman romances Dana, they ultimately get arrested after shit gets wild (and there's another ~MONTAGE~, this time of ghosts wrecking shit), they get to see the mayor who is initially

but then eventually comes over to their side, there's a giant thing that stomps around the city, they save the world, theme song.

Edit: Shit, even Ghostbusters II is one minute longer than the original, at 108 minutes to the original's 107.

And can't understand why so many GBII lovers can't see the obvious comparisons and it's quite insulting to every progressive character development done from the 1st movie.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

As for holding out for something more "original" . . .um, isn't this the same board where we're waiting eagerly for a seventh STAR TREK series? Why is a revamped GHOSTBUSTERS a "cash grab" but yet another STAR TREK series is not?

(Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of a new TREK show. There just seems to be an inconsistency here.)

Greg, some ST fans are not looking forward to yet another ST series, and do long for original ideas on TV and on the big screen. instead of reboots, reimagining, or whatever is recycled from old hits.

 

[Timby]

I like GB 2 well enough - but as I see people attack some of the stuff in the new trailer I personally believe it's no worse than some of the stuff in 2.

Don't get me wrong, Ghostbusters II isn't an active insult to humanity like, say, Teen Wolf Too or Dumb and Dumberer, and there are some decent funny bits here and there (mostly coming from Peter MacNicol, but for every halfway-funny moment there are five pieces of shit (like Stantz screaming "GET HIIIIIM!" and everyone dogpiling Venkman onto the couch after the "man-eating toaster" gag, as though they're all in fifth grade or whatever).

 

[JD]

I can't remember this has been posted here yet, but apprenly the new Ghostbusters trailer is the most disliked movie trailer in Youtube history. Earlier I saw a clip from IGN's Up At Noon show, and they showed that the Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 trailer and a video of one of Hitler's speeches both had thounsands less dislikes that the GB trailer.
I really don't think the trailer deserves anywhere near that kind of hate. It wasn't great, but it definitely wasn't that bad.

 

[Amaris]

I can't remember this has been posted here yet, but apprenly the new Ghostbusters trailer is the most disliked movie trailer in Youtube history. Earlier I saw a clip from IGN's Up At Noon show, and they showed that the Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 trailer and a video of one of Hitler's speeches both had thounsands less dislikes that the GB trailer.
I really don't think the trailer deserves anywhere near that kind of hate. It wasn't great, but it definitely wasn't that bad.

It's easy to be an asshole. I've said it before, but you could show kids with cancer being given ice cream and having fun in a sunny park, smiles on their faces, and there would be dislikes for the video. Some people just love to hate, and when it comes to something "controversial," that hate likes to double down.