Author Topic: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All  (Read 4952 times)

Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« on: February 08, 2010, 10:38:55 AM »
Seeing as sticking this in the 'New Movies 2010' thread would be hopelessly deluded, prepare for HILARIOUSLY STUPID SPOILERS on Ghostbusters 3 from Bill Murray...

[spoiler]http://uk.news.yahoo.com/35/20100208/ten-bill-murray-returns-as-ghost-764dee7.html[/spoiler]

It's been rumoured for long enough (and hey, it's a great idea anyway), but although I'd like to think it's certainly Murray's sense of humour to make a big announcement that turns out to be a red herring, it's also very like him to just give away all the movie's secrets before they even begin filming, because he quite merrily couldn't give a toss.

phes

  • Member
  • **
  • operating as a shape
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2010, 10:57:05 AM »
arrrrrrrrghhhhhhh!

you can see that spoiler through the link. i know i shouldn't have read it, but my eyes just seem to do that.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2010, 10:57:39 AM »
The Weaver spoiler in the link sets the film up quite nicely. Although [spoiler]Oscar[/spoiler] is most likely going to be played by some douche like Zach Efron or Shia Lebeuf.

Good news though, according to IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/ Eliza Dushku is in it.

Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2010, 11:05:16 AM »
Slightly worrying that Ramis seems to have had no input into the screenplay. For all that he'll burn in hell for all eternity for Bedazzled, he's still the joke guy, I always imagined his aiming for laughs was crucial to rein in Aykroyd's unhinged spiritualist excesses.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2010, 11:59:46 AM »
Wait [spoiler]Oscar is Peter's son[/spoiler]? Was that established in the second one, or is it a twist for this third one or is that just the journalist cocking up?

Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2010, 12:00:14 PM »
Nah, it's just lazy journalism.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2010, 12:20:47 PM »
I'm going to try my best not to 'get started' about this... Because as a fan, i'm excited but as a critic, i'm appalled.

I did a comedy show last June all about Ghostbusters and plan on taking it to Edinburgh next year (i have a co-writer and director now, so that's good), but in doing my research for the show, i realised that it really was a 'lightening in a bottle' situation. But EVERYTHING that made GB great was dumped in the sequel and looks to have been completely forgotten about for part 3.

Making Pete Venkman a ghost is a shit idea and seems like it was drummed up to keep Bill Murray happy to be a part of the film. I don't know if anyone is aware of his voice work in animated films (or the videogame), but it stinks. It's lazy, phoned in and lacks any involvement from an 'actors' point of view. If he's going to be in the movie for 15 mins, die and come back as a ghost, then already the CGI is filling in for skill. Ghostbusters works because of the interaction of the 3 main characters and by removing the most IMPORTANT character from the group reeks of MISTAKE! You instantly lose the charm of the original film.

New recruits... This is something i can understand, certainly now that the original team are getting old... but its going to work ONLY if those characters are well written and well performed. If we just get Will Ferrell and Jack Black (as an example) to goof about for the run of the film, its hardly an ideal replacement for the dynamic of the original group (although they have to cast Tina Fey as a female Ghostbusters and i will see it with bells on).

3D - every fucking movie seems to be 3D these days, its Hollywood saying - we have no ideas and dont know how to keep the public coming back! So although it may be fun dodging particle streams in the audience, its hardly making the script better, is it?

As for the script, which is being written by 2 The Office scribes, i dread to think how its interpretated. Ramis and Ackroyd get a pass at it and will approve it, but i doubt the tone will be right. Again, GB was a film that was 70% character comedy and 30% special effects. I'm guessing that balance is going to shift even more to the money shots

Reboot - once again the film will begin with (allegedly) with the group once again out of business... So that means another 30 mins of exposition and set up... JUST START THE FUCKING MOVIE WITH THE FRANCHISE SET UP.... its that easy... Have the original crew getting slow and have to draft in new recruits to take over the workload... SIMPLE! Why do we need to see the company set up for a 3rd time....People KNOW the brand, they get it, we don't have to have it explained again - its the 3rd fucking sequel!

The more i hear about this film, the less i think the idea to do it makes sense - or was certainly made for the right reasons other than - MILK THIS CASH COW...

I've been talking to a guy who is making the documentary 'Cleaning up the town' and we've had smilar grievences, but from him talking to the cast (for this doc) he at least knows everyone is keen and wants to give it their best shot.... but i remember people talking like that on the set of Indy 4 (judging by the EPKs).

Finally, Ivan Reitman did a great job on GB, but he isnt the most visual of directors, and add to that the demands of 3D and it begs the question - who is directing it? The special effects teams?

So yes... im not sold on this.

Vitalstatistix

  • Photocopies are not admissable as memories
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2010, 12:43:01 PM »
I think most of those criticisms are based on pessimistic assumptions and conjecture, TotalNightmare.

You can say there'll be less characterisation, more FX etc (and you may well be right) but as far as I'm aware those are just guesses right?

I'm very happy that they've brought on two The Office writers, as I have a lot of faith in most people involved in that excellent show.

mrfridge

  • Pissing excellence for over 3 decades
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2010, 01:04:46 PM »
I think most of those criticisms are based on pessimistic assumptions and conjecture, TotalNightmare.

You can say there'll be less characterisation, more FX etc (and you may well be right) but as far as I'm aware those are just guesses right?

I'm very happy that they've brought on two The Office writers, as I have a lot of faith in most people involved in that excellent show.

Agreed, Christ man, give em a chance! The Office is great, the writers certainly aren't hacks and I'm inclined to think they would have a certain respect for and understanding of the original's brilliance.

I agree with your point about Murray's voice overs being generally shit though, but finger crossed his pals will nudge him in the right direction with that side of things. I have high hopes for this and don't see the point in pissing on it before a single frame has been shot. Oh, and isn't this going to be the second sequel or are you counting the computer game as the second?

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2010, 01:15:31 PM »
While i am more than happy to say that ANY of the above could be assumptions, ive got enough contacts in Sony Pictures and from the guys making the Documentary that some of those comments above hold water. That's not to say that the film won't drop the 3D aspect and such, but it does mean that a lot of my concerns are well founded.

As i said, i'm caught between 2 stools. Loving seeing the GBs back, but dreading the finished article.

The major problem is a read the original GB3 script a fair few years ago and it stunk. It was high concept, would have cost a bomb to make, relied too much on the new crew and the comedy was missing. The writers of the office REALLY have to nail the character interaction, but if they are tied to an overfed plot demanded by Akroyd (as suggested) then it doesnt leave much room for the audience to know all these new recruits. Also, those writers wrote Year One - which really stunk and some (in my opinion) of the weakest Office episodes. I know the structure and format is different, but it was still an awful film. However, if they can capture what makes the Office US work so well, we could be in for a surprise, but hopefully without the 'cringe comedy' aspect.

GB 2 had double the effects work of GB1, it was something Murray himself said he hated most about the sequel, that the film was more effects driven than character driven. I very much doubt that will be fixed for GB3... So the idea that he will become a special effect himself doesnt bode well.

The facts are, at this point.. The film will be a reboot of sorts, will involve new recruits, have less of the old team and feature more effects. Again, I am gagging to be wrong about this, but right now, the more i hear, the less i like... and as a hardcore, passionate GB fan, its kinda sad that thats where i stand on it at the mo - i certainly dont want to fall into the Star Wars die style hard fan who demands Greebo always shoot first.

I think they should have stopped after the first one... Now, if i get cast in GB3, all the above will deleted and i will pimp the film like a good little idiot!

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2010, 01:23:58 PM »
New recruits..although they have to cast Tina Fey as a female Ghostbusters and i will see it with bells on.


For me it wouldn't be a Fey but Amanda Plummer type character that would hedge a decent castbase because such an actress would be an ideal adroit to Moranis' Louis Tully role.

Ignoring Sigourney Weaver's Avatardation, I'd see her back but recast as a cameo.

I'm hoping Slimer doesn't get any scenes. If he does I fear they will recast it in a Jarjar Binks/comic relief way so as to sell toys etc. That would be hugely ironic and would prove why remaking Indiana Jones was an act of vandalism on the original 2/3.

Quote
So yes... im not sold on this.

Red sky in the morning...

period warning

Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2010, 01:29:53 PM »
I'm hoping Slimer doesn't get any scenes.

What? Heresy! Besides, they already had him in the sequel, and that was back when he was a kid's favourite. All those kids have grown up now, so he's unlikely to be there just as toy fodder at this stage.

I'm not getting these Mr Blobby tags at all.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2010, 01:37:25 PM »

I'm not getting these Mr Blobby tags at all.

Well Blobby will get you if you don't.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2010, 01:48:23 PM »
If [Slimer is in it] I fear they will recast it in a Jarjar Binks/comic relief way so as to sell toys etc. That would be hugely ironic and would prove why remaking Indiana Jones was an act of vandalism on the original 2/3.

I don't understand. Why would it be ironic? Or say anything about Indy?

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2010, 01:55:46 PM »
I don't understand. Why would it be ironic? Or say anything about Indy?

Just saying that if indeed such cliches are to be drawn out (in such an extent) it would prove why the Indy film should never have been made in the first place, unnecessary aliens etc.

... as a hardcore, passionate GB fan, its kinda sad that thats where i stand on it at the mo - i certainly dont want to fall into the Star Wars die style hard fan who demands Greebo always shoot first.

I'm really not too sure why it has always merited such praise to be honest. Sure, it is arguably Ivan Reitman's best film to date but why do you say that you are a passionate Ghost Busters fan? I like it as much as ''Big'' but neither retain a passionate fandom for me.

Respectfully, and I hope this holds true for the majority on here who say they love this film, why do you consider the original film that good? Don't convince me, please just explain why it warrants such passion.

Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2010, 01:57:28 PM »
Firstly, because the idea of going around catching ghosts is the most entertaining idea ever created by man. There's no concept more engaging, exciting and fascinating than that, and never could be. No story, from the earliest myths to the latest movies, can be more entertaining than 'catching ghosts'. Shakespeare would have killed for that. Dickens was kicking himself in his grave when the first film came out. Mythology meets science, with visual spectacle galore.

Do you really need more? Great cast and great jokes. That'll do.

If you equate Ghostbusters with Big (although Big's quite a good film), what on earth do you consider Great with a capital G, blockbuster movie-wise? Fucking Star Wars?

Ginyard

  • DEAL WITH IT
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2010, 02:08:17 PM »
i certainly dont want to fall into the Star Wars die style hard fan who demands Greebo always shoot first.

Its 'GREEDO'!

* gasps then shakes in corner from fanboy disbelief *

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2010, 02:11:19 PM »
What on earth do you consider Great with a capital G, blockbuster movie-wise? Fucking Star Wars?

Sorry Jem. It was a Blockbuster and is now pretty much a genre based film. Your line of questioning needs a small ''g'' but with blockbuster emphasis.

Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2010, 02:14:28 PM »
You haven't answered the question though. The onus isn't on us to say what makes a pretty much universally celebrated movie great, but for you to say A) What makes everyone wrong about it for 25 years, and B) what movies you think are great.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2010, 02:35:19 PM »
You haven't answered the question though. The onus isn't on us to say what makes a pretty much universally celebrated movie great, but for you to say A) What makes everyone wrong about it for 25 years, and B) what movies you think are great.

Not at all.  GB1 is a great film and I commend it, but I would never be so defensive as to cream myself in the pants as you do. Why not question why a ''pretty much universally celebrated movie'' is great to start with? I never said everyone was wrong about it.

Movies that are are great is another discussion altogether. The last time i felt such passion with such a plot/writing thing was with The Sopranos.

Um, so there.

.............and stop editing your posts like me!




Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2010, 02:38:39 PM »
The last time i felt such passion with such a thing was with the Sopranos. .

I'm really not too sure why it has always merited such praise to be honest.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2010, 02:40:50 PM »
I'm really not too sure why it has always merited such praise to be honest.

The onus isn't on us to say what makes a pretty much universally celebrated TV series great.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2010, 03:01:53 PM »
The more I hear about this movie, the less and less faith I have in it being even as good as Ghostbusters 2.

I had an idea a few years back about a way you could have your new team cake and eat it with an old team spoon - kick off the movie in much the same way as they did with GB2, but not with New York having forgotten about the old team (after saving them from certain destruction twice in a row, that's just not plausible), just that they're in love with this new team of Ghostbusters, who put on elaborate displays in the city with captured and trained ghosts, spouting one-liners and generally being that santised, scrubbed down Ghostbusters "franchise" I think we're all scared of it becoming now. You could get your pick of annoying young actors in - at the time I was thinking Sean William Scott as a definite, although his time seems to have passed now. Then an actual event threatens the city, and the new team has to go running back to the old guys to save the day. Which means you'd get your great moment half way through the film where the 4 classic characters suit up one last time etc. You could even end it with the new guys redeeming themselves in some way so that they could return in another movie and not be instantly hated.

I have to say though, my feeling was that the best way of treating this "lets get a new young team in!" stuff was by dismissing it in the opening moments by casting them as total bell-ends, with the real heroes at the end the original 4 guys. Because really, Ghostbusters is not a franchise. It's just an unusual entry into the lexicon of 80s comedy movies. Sure, we had the inevitable sequel which didn't measure up (though wasn't really as bad as people make out) and they made a cartoon (several in fact - you could say the new young team already exists), but at the end of the day its Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, Dan Ackroyd & Ernie Hudson that people care about, not the proton packs, the history of Gozer, Ghostbusters go to Manhellton or whatever stupid fucking ideas they're throwing around, and unless Ackroyd or the studio remembers this, I really don't see this as being anything other than an even more disappointing end to the series than we already have.

Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2010, 03:05:47 PM »
Not a fan of the new comic books then? The Manga messes aside, I find them – if not uniformly awesome – certainly very entertaining. It could only take a world as perennially engrossing as Ghostbusters to make me even pick up a comic book.

But then it's just an inexhaustible set-up, as Real Ghostbusters proved – to continue the series, but not have to sanitise it for kids in the RGB way, is a definite winner. In fact, I'd almost prefer a new live action TV series to another film.

Phil_A

  • HE WAS AN ROBOT
    • Chasing The Bumblebee
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2010, 04:01:26 PM »
Its 'GREEDO'!

* gasps then shakes in corner from fanboy disbelief *

And that point is that originally, he didn't shoot first!

No, no. I can't get into this again. NOT AGAIN.

VegaLA

  • Spiritual Demon Warfare
    • The Big Dogz LIVE
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2010, 04:05:18 PM »
Ugghh. No 3D. Isn't it time that fad died out again? Seriously it only last about a year in the early 80s and it was last February when I saw 'My Bloody Valentine' and a year later we still have this shit on our screens with 'Avatar' which I watched from begining to end sans stupid glasses. I wear prescription glasses so I can't wear both. Fortunatly it was watchable but some seems went blurry in the background.
Enough of this shit.

Johnny Textface

  • Film grain is a choice.
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2010, 04:07:05 PM »
what, you can't wear 3d glasses over your prescription ones?

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2010, 06:09:02 PM »
And that point is that originally, he didn't shoot first!

No, no. I can't get into this again. NOT AGAIN.

I knew i was getting into trouble as soon as i wrote that sentence. I know almost NOTHING about Star Wars...

I'll try a new one... I don't want to sound like a die hard Star Trek fan who screams with anger when Scotty says 'I know this ship like the back of my hand' and then bangs his head into a metal beam.

(good enough?)

As far as the Gb debate goes, i treat the original as gospel and everything else as 'accessories'!

Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2010, 06:28:25 PM »
I must admit that the one thing I want most from this movie is CHARACTER. That was the main problem with GB2 for me – besides Peter, who the fuck are these guys? Do Ray, Winston and Egon have no life at all outside of catching ghosts? Such things didn't matter in the first film, they were young, they lived for their work etc. But their apparent lack of personal lives in the sequel just made them look tragic, and very flimsy as characters.

They can't get away with pulling that shit twice, so there'd better be plenty of human interest there for 'the other three' this time out.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2010, 06:37:02 PM »
Some truly shit tags from copylight here. Well done, sir!