Yet another Ghostbusters movie

[billd91]

Saying fans are sexist for not liking a terrible trailer, is one of the most sexist things I've heard for a long while. That trailer was absolute garbage, and the gender of the actors has nothing to do with that. It even got basic facts about the series wrong... how do you mess that up? Sony was in a terrible hurry to quickly put together a different trailer, after they removed most of the negative comments on the trailer (specifically those with polite and solid arguments against it).

Hey, feel free to try to gaslight us all you want, the record is pretty clear that there was a backlash of men offended that the franchise was going to be represented by a “gimmic” of women instead of men. We’re just not going to fall for it.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, we're not going to get into any gaslighting nonsense which tries to hide that toxic backlash. There's no place for that here.

Keep the topic on the upcoming movie, please, folks. I'm not allowing another flamewar about this topic here.

 

[billd91]

What I wonder amid all this - what finally induced Bill Murray to sign on (assuming he has actually done so and the hype isn't just optimism on Aykroyd and Reitman's parts). He's been the main holdout on a sequel starring the originals. Could it be he still isn't confirmed or is minor enough that he's willing to basically do something like a cameo+ to do it?

 

[Deset Gled]

A bad director? Wasn't Juno a good movie?

I don't know if he'd be my first pick to direct a comedy though, but he's no Paul Feig.

IMNSHO, one of the reasons the 2016 Ghostbusters failed was that it completely sucked as a horror movie.

One of the things the original Ghostbusters had that made it awesome was that it succeeded as both a comedy and a horror. On the horror side it had legitimate suspense and a real plot with multiple layers of conflict, coupled with great special effects and surprisingly good cinematography. The comedy works with this to give depth to the characters, create relationships, and provide mood. The 1984 film is one of the best examples of blending genres, so you don't have to love every aspect of it to find something you like.

The 2016 film, on the other hand, was pretty much just a comedy. The horror element was there by requirement, but it had no teeth. The jokes over ran all elements of the movie, including the side conflicts, the cameos, and the major climax as a dance scene. The special effects were cartoony. The bad guy was laughable. There was nothing really approaching scary or suspenseful at any point. So if the comedy doesn't connect with you, it's just an unfunny comedy and nothing else.

To that point, Ivan Reitman had a number of horror movies under his belt before he did Ghostbusters (Cannibal Girls, Shivers, Rabid) and even sci-fi (Heavy Metal, Spacehunters) in addition to his comedy work. He had range. Paul Fieg didn't, and still doesn't; he's just a comedian.

Jason Reitman, regardless of your opinion of Juno and others, is really a drama/comedy kind of guy. His only experience with horror is being a producer on Jennifers's Body, which was a pretty forgetful by-the-numbers movie. So, while I'll admit he gives me a lot more hope than Feig, my expectations aren't that high. Maybe he'll take some of his dad's experience into the movie.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[billd91]

It had a great theme song (that just happened to be stolen from Huey Lewis).

Other than that? It was a decent movie, with the charming and acerbic Bill Murray.* It was a decent movie for 1984, bringing in less money than Beverly Hills Cop and more money than Temple of Doom, Gremlins, and the Karate Kid.

This wasn't some classic of cinema. This was a fine movie, with some great concepts (the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, ghostbusting) and some unforgettable lines that continue to be quoted to this day (Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria .... Yes, it's true, that man has no ...).

But while I wouldn't mind another movie with the concept, and hope this does well, I continuously fail to comprehend why some people view it as some sort of sacred scroll or ur-text. It was an 80s movie. Not high art. Barely low art.

Oh, I wouldn't sell it short. Hardly anyone realizes they're making or watching a movie that will stand as a testament to cinema long after it's done with its theatrical run. Ghostbusters has fared well over 30 years after it was made. It's certainly more memorable and funnier than many of its contemporaries. Just because it's an 80s comedy doesn't mean it isn't worth being considered a classic movie. I'd put it up there with movies like Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, the Producers, Tootsie, Annie Hall...

If you hold something too tight, it tends to asphyxiate.

A good observation on so many issues.

 

[ccs]

Saying fans are sexist for not liking a terrible trailer, is one of the most sexist things I've heard for a long while. That trailer was absolute garbage, and the gender of the actors has nothing to do with that.

It wasn't the gender of the cast that I decided to pass on, it was the cast themselves.
Since I knew I wouldn't be entertained by them, there was no point in seeing it.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

If I had to pick the perfect horror-comedy film, I’d be torn between Ghostbusters and Beetlejuice.

Though, going on a tangent, I'd say Blazing Saddles remains in a league of its own. The comedy and social commentary in that movie is still sharp enough to cut diamonds.

Just because it's an 80s comedy doesn't mean it isn't worth being considered a classic movie. I'd put it up there with movies like Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, the Producers, Tootsie, Annie Hall...

 

[Shasarak]

Oh, no, the filmmakers didn't turn the fans toxic. The fans did it to themselves, over the years when there were no films, by buying in to a level of entitlement unsupported by reason, evidence, good taste, or anything more structurally sound than a wet noodle.

Well the good news is even a bad Ghostbusters movie can still earn over 200 million and green light another movie.

Maybe they will get it right this time?

 

[Imaculata]

If I had to pick the perfect horror-comedy film, I’d be torn between Ghostbusters and Beetlejuice.

Which is why I'm also very excited about a possible Beetlejuice sequel, though perhaps that is also a bit naive of me. Tim Burton's movies have been on a steep decline in quality, so I'm not sure if I'd even like the final product if I finally got to see it. But I do want to see more Beetlejuice. It is a movie that would benefit well from today's improved visual effects... but then again, Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory shows that this isn't always a plus.

Well the good news is even a bad Ghostbusters movie can still earn over 200 million and green light another movie.

Maybe they will get it right this time?

It's still a highly valuable franchise and Sony knows it. But I think fans have plenty of reasons to be skeptical of any future movies now. The first trailer had better be really good, or a lot of fans may choose to stay at home.

It had a great theme song (that just happened to be stolen from Huey Lewis).

Other than that? It was a decent movie, with the charming and acerbic Bill Murray.* It was a decent movie for 1984, bringing in less money than Beverly Hills Cop and more money than Temple of Doom, Gremlins, and the Karate Kid.

This wasn't some classic of cinema. This was a fine movie, with some great concepts (the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, ghostbusting) and some unforgettable lines that continue to be quoted to this day (Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria .... Yes, it's true, that man has no ...).

I also feel this is selling the movie a bit short. It is one of the best known classics from the 80s, and still has lasting appeal and dedicated fans. You can walk up to a lot of people and ask them "Who are you going to call?", and they can finish the sentence. Plus, the Ghostbusters game from a few years ago was a big success too.

Besides, how is a movie that is so instantly quotable, not a classic?