Original Ghostbusters Star Ernie Hudson Says Sony Made a “Mistake” Rebooting the Franchise in 2016

[Kelthaz]

I don't think the movie needed a different city. It had been so long since Ghostbusters II that you could simply establish that the original Ghostbusters had retired and the world yet again stopped believing in ghosts. Have Abby and Erin inspired by and believing the events of the original film, throw in a cameo by Dan Ackroyd where he helps out in the final battle, and you're good to go. Nothing else need be changed. It wouldn't fix the other flaws in the movie, but paying respect to the original films instead of removing them from existence certainly wouldn't hurt.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Looking back, NYC added a lot of character to the first two movies, the setting itself seemed to seep right into it. Similarly, Chicago with The Blues Brothers. Is that something Aykroyd would have brought to the table?

 

[Owain Taggart]

I don't think the movie needed a different city. It had been so long since Ghostbusters II that you could simply establish that the original Ghostbusters had retired and the world yet again stopped believing in ghosts.

The thing is, the original Ghostbusters carved their own footprint in NYC, and setting the movie in the same city makes it kind of hard to ignore that it's little more than a retread and tends to invite comparisons. A new city would have at least help set them apart.

 

[Gaith]

The thing is, the original Ghostbusters carved their own footprint in NYC, and setting the movie in the same city makes it kind of hard to ignore that it's little more than a retread and tends to invite comparisons.

Especially when a large portion of GB16 was shot in Boston and other sites in Massachusetts. And it shows.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Especially when a large portion of GB16 was shot in Boston and other sites in Massachusetts. And it shows.

Interesting. Didn't know that, but in that case, they should have just set it in Boston. Kind of makes me wonder if they originally considered doing that, with suits overruling them. Would have been better to just be honest about it and just use Boston as a setting.

 

[wayoung]

The thing is, the original Ghostbusters carved their own footprint in NYC, and setting the movie in the same city makes it kind of hard to ignore that it's little more than a retread and tends to invite comparisons. A new city would have at least help set them apart.

Which Ackroyd/Reitman etc. were shocked about because the movie was almost entirely shot in LA and only spent like 2 weeks doing location shots/ecto 1 shots in NY and so never expected it to become a big NYC movie

 

[Owain Taggart]

Which Ackroyd/Reitman etc. were shocked about because the movie was almost entirely shot in LA and only spent like 2 weeks doing location shots/ecto 1 shots in NY and so never expected it to become a big NYC movie

I suppose they were trying to hide the fact that another city was playing NYC by having some iconic scenes in NYC that people would maybe recognize.

Then again, I suppose they could have filmed parts of it in Toronto and Vancouver and nobody likely would have noticed

 

[JD]

I'm honestly shocked to hear they filmed in LA, I had always assumed both of the original movies filmed entirely in NYC.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I'm honestly shocked to hear they filmed in LA, I had always assumed both of the original movies filmed entirely in NYC.

All the shots of the Echo-1 driving around were filmed there and maybe a few crowd scenes. But the actual firehouse is in LA. You can go the building they used as the exterior and they still have the Ghostbusters II sign, but the inside looks completely different.

 

[XCV330]

Everyone wondering about the reboots when the real ghost busters was a live action sitcom from 1975. Hell, there were two competing Ghostbusters cartoons in the 80's.. playing at the same time. There's no one Ghost busters "universe". I think people were worried that the 2016 film would try to ride the coattails of the 80s, and that wasn't the case. But it got a fair amount of hatred from people who didn't like the concept for fanbro reasons.

And yeah, I think there was and still is reboot fatigue by that time.



edit: besides, the best Ghost Busters is the Be Kind Rewind version

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[wayoung]

I don't want to start into that rabbit hole, and there was no doubt a lot of toxicity about the 2016 film, but a lot of people didn't like that movie for a lot of legit reasons not related to "fanbros" and it sure seemed like Sony went out of its way to try and paint everyone who legit didn't like it with that label.

I realize this post is a little "Not All Men"-y, but in this case I think it's warranted with how Sony reacted to legit criticism of the film

 

[Owain Taggart]

All the shots of the Echo-1 driving around were filmed there and maybe a few crowd scenes. But the actual firehouse is in LA. You can go the building they used as the exterior and they still have the Ghostbusters II sign, but the inside looks completely different.

Is that the one at the Universal Lot?

 

[Reverend]

Here's the thing about GB16. It didn't need to be in another city. It didn't need a different cast. It didn't need to be a continuation. It didn't need to be a reboot, remake, retelling, re-whatever. What it needed to have was a GOOD SCRIPT.

I've not looked too deeply into the development of this movie, but I get the sense this is one of those movies that the studio wanted to make, come hell or highwater and it got shoved through development with no real creative guiding hand, let alone any passion. The final project has "multiple rewrites" and "made by committee" scrawled all over it. I wouldn't be surprised it the entire premise changed during pre-production, that they didn't even know going in whether or not it was a continuation or a remake. It's a confused, jumbled mess of a script. Minimum effort, lowest hanging fruit, cynical hackneyed garbage that exists to prop up an overambitious studio's merchandising aspirations.

All the shots of the Echo-1 driving around were filmed there and maybe a few crowd scenes. But the actual firehouse is in LA. You can go the building they used as the exterior and they still have the Ghostbusters II sign, but the inside looks completely different.

Pretty much all of the exterior location work was shot in NY. The Library, Columbia, the central park stuff, most of the montage footage. The LA location work was mostly just the hotel, the library basement, firehouse, and some backlot stuff at the Columbia Ranch (now called the Warner Bros. Ranch.)

Is that the one at the Universal Lot?

If that's what this is, then yes. If not, then no...

 

[Owain Taggart]

If that's what this is, then yes. If not, then no...

Kind of looks like it, but not that I really know. I've never been there, heck I've only been to California once. But there's a video on Youtube with Spielberg driving someone around the lot and pointing things out, and I think it appears in that video.

Either way, there is a real firehouse like it in NYC, apparently, which I think that replica was supposed to represent.

 

[Mudd]

Hudson joins a distinguished line of actors who take the time to trash talk past projects in which they were involved once they realize that they won't be picking up another check from those folks, often in an apparent attempt to ingratiate themselves with other producers they believe they may have future prospects with.

Is that needlessly dismissive? C'est la guerre.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Hudson joins a distinguished line of actors who take the time to trash talk past projects in which they were involved once they realize that they won't be picking up another check from those folks, often in an apparent attempt to ingratiate themselves with other producers they believe they may have future prospects with.

Is that needlessly dismissive? C'est la guerre.

Did you read what he said? He didn't trash the movie at all. In fact, he said he liked it, the actors and the director. He said making it a reboot wasn't a good idea.

 

[Jayson1]

I just hope the new one is good but if it's not we will always have the great classic one and the not so bad sequel. Well that and 20 more attempts to try yet again to reboot it because brand names never die.


Jason

 

[dupersuper]

I just hope the new one is good but if it's not we will always have the great classic one and the not so bad sequel. Well that and 20 more attempts to try yet again to reboot it because brand names never die.


Jason

Plus cartoons, comics, video games...

 

[Captain_Nick]

He's quite correct. Look at the corrosive effect the 2016 movie has had on the fanbase. Friend turning on friend. This is shameful, and not the TrekBBS I remember.

 

[Reverend]

That had nothing to do with the movie and everything to do with the fans. Both the fans who were being misogynistic (blatantly or otherwise) because: fuck them up one side and down the other, and the fans that attacked ANYONE that criticised the movie for ANY reason on the theory that any and all criticisms levelled at a movie starring four women is by definition misogynistic. Also not helpful.

Also; this is exactly the TrekBBS I remember. There's always some bullshit excuse for divisive bullshit behaviour. I remember the endless 'Trek vs Wars' debates. The constant BSG/nuBSG bickering. The irrational tribalism between DS9 fans and B5 fans. It never ends.