Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed

[mothman]

Time moves at 88mph so you have to overtake it to go faster than it.

This is why things that go at more than 88mph (eg fast trains etc) are able to arrive at places more quickly than eg walking.

I'd laugh, but I've a horrible feeling that you're exactly right...

[Avril Lavigne]

But we see all the events that transpire between going to 2015 and Marty resolving his character flaw.  Within a day or two it's sorted out so what more would Doc need to do, and when would Marty have experienced it?

We only see the events that transpire from the point when Marty goes to 2015 and that leads to Marty's story arc being resolved.  Before that, Doc has a whole offscreen adventure on his own, outside of the timeline presented in the movie, during which he could have tried a bunch of times to help fix Marty's future without having to actually go there and change things by direct interference.  All we know about Doc's offscreen adventure is that it was long enough for him to get the Delorean fitted with future-tech, learn how to pilot a hovercar, visit a 2015 rejuvenation clinic and buy future-appropriate outfits for himself and Marty.

God, the more you think about it... why does the car have to be going 88mph to time travel?

'Cause it's two infinity symbols.  I know that doesn't make sense on any level but it still feels like the right answer to me.

[Replies From View]

We only see the events that transpire from the point when Marty goes to 2015 and that leads to Marty's story arc being resolved.  Before that, Doc has a whole offscreen adventure on his own, outside of the timeline presented in the movie, during which he could have tried a bunch of times to help fix Marty's future without having to actually go there and change things by direct interference.

But you were saying he might have been trying to fix this character flaw of Marty's, and I wonder when, from Marty's point of view, these interventions from Doc might have happened?  It can't have been during the events of Parts 2 and 3, as we witnessed everything that transpired during that time, and obviously by the end of Part 3 it was no longer an issue.  So are you suggesting he went back and tried to help Marty be less hot-headed in interactions that preceded the first movie?

[chveik]

God, the more you think about it... why does the car have to be going 88mph to time travel?

they're nazis innit

[The Culture Bunker]

The talk of Marty McFly 'inventing' Chuck Berry reminded me that Star Trek IV (around the same time) pulled the same wheeze with Scotty and the guy who invents transparent aluminium.

[McChesney Duntz]

The talk of Marty McFly 'inventing' Chuck Berry reminded me that Star Trek IV (around the same time) pulled the same wheeze with Scotty and the guy who invents transparent aluminium.

Star Trek II, surely.

[Avril Lavigne]

It can't have been during the events of Parts 2 and 3, as we witnessed everything that transpired during that time, and obviously by the end of Part 3 it was no longer an issue.

The events I'm talking about are alternate timelines taking place instead of the events of 2 and 3, that only Doc experiences and then comes back to undo at the beginning of 2.  We only see what this one version of Marty in one single timeline sees, the same way we never see what happens to the alternate present-Marty in the dark 1985 where Biff rules Hill Valley.

[chveik]

Star Trek II, surely.

[Goldentony]

Star Trek II, surely.

famously filmed in San Francisco

[mothman]

famously filmed in San Francisco

San Luis Obispo, surely.

[McChesney Duntz]

Greggheads galore. That's why I love CaB.

[Chollis]

Case closed!

[samadriel]

Aye, that makes sense.

A sustained thirty years of abuse and bullying towards someone who bullied him for a handful of years whilst a kid in high school. Seems fair enough

IS GEORGE THE BADDIE ALL ALONG?

First a Peeping Tom, now a bully. He's scum. Would be cancelled these days

Hang on, is he really bullying Biff? Just because Biff has become pathetic and obsequious doesn't actually mean George is bullying him; it's been a very long time since I saw the BTTF movies, but I don't recall us seeing enough of the new George and Biff to confirm this either way.

[Shaky]

Slightly spoilerific new GB toys are out, although a couple of the cast hinted at certain things before.

[Custard]

Hang on, is he really bullying Biff? Just because Biff has become pathetic and obsequious doesn't actually mean George is bullying him; it's been a very long time since I saw the BTTF movies, but I don't recall us seeing enough of the new George and Biff to confirm this either way.

The beatings were held back for DVD bonus scenes. There's a point where he kicks Biff up the bum as he's bending over to water the flowers

In another scene, George gives Biff a paper cut on the left bumcheek

A lot of the abuse was bum related

[samadriel]

In another scene, George gives Biff a paper cut on the left bumcheek

Did he use the book he authored?

[thecuriousorange]

Slightly spoilerific new GB toys are out, although a couple of the cast hinted at certain things before.

Spoiler alert

The sight of the old guard back in their uniforms (as toys) really makes me wish they had used them like that in the 2016 one. I didn't hate that film like most (good cast), but it would have been nice to have Venkman, Stanz and Zedemore turn up for a scene to pass the torch. I mean, all the actors were happy to be involved. We'll get it now though, in what promises to be the one good bit in a different mediocre film.

[close]

[Replies From View]

I wish they would have that scene in every film, even ones that aren't anything to do with Ghostbusters.  Cover their bases and ensure that while most movies made will be erased from canon within three years, that scene will have purchase somewhere.

[Huxleys Babkins]

Spoiler alert

The sight of the old guard back in their uniforms (as toys) really makes me wish they had used them like that in the 2016 one. I didn't hate that film like most (good cast), but it would have been nice to have Venkman, Stanz and Zedemore turn up for a scene to pass the torch. I mean, all the actors were happy to be involved. We'll get it now though, in what promises to be the one good bit in a different mediocre film.

[close]

Yeah, but that would require Sony to not be mental greedy bastards who thought they could make a Ghostbusters equivalent of the Marvel cinematic universe.

Spoiler alert

Ghostbusters 2016 wasn't set on "our" Earth. The basic idea was that crossing the streams helped create parallel worlds where Gozer was hiding, and that we'd get multiple movies showing teams of Ghostbusters being set up, all getting closer to the truth about Gozer and leading toward some big "Ghostbusters Assemble" event where they find the original team and finish off Gozer once and for all and bring all the worlds together.

The cameos we got were a sign that the original team were trying to break through into the other worlds. You'd have gotten your torch passing in one of the sequels, but not necessarily to the team in GB2016.

I'm amazed anyone at Sony thought it would work. It would require people to want to see multiple "reboot" movies, and care enough about all of the characters in them and to care enough about the inevitable return of the original cast, all of whom were rapidly approaching 70 and might not have been there for the payoff for multiple reasons. Luckily they fucked up the first movie and canned the whole thing.

[close]

[Bad Ambassador]

I'll need to see some citations for that.

[Huxleys Babkins]

Confirmation of the second "reboot" movie produced by and starring Channing Tatum:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/sony-plans-ghostbusters-cinematic-universe-780179/

The basic plan was revealed in that Sony hack, but I can't find anything on it now. There was a reddit thread that's either been deleted or I just can't find it. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that so many initial reports about Afterlife contain the words "reboot" and "cinematic universe" and they've just so happened to push pretty much every story revolving around the 2016 movie and the hack into the Google abyss.

[Shaky]

I think I only read the leaked emails once, and I remember the mooted Tatum film, but I don't recall anything about a grand plan for the films to link up like that or the original team to finally appear. Sounds a) utterly stupid even by Hollywood standards and b) needlessly elaborate and overwrought, especially when they wouldn't have needed the old guard back had the 2016 film been a success. I think perhaps some heard "cinematic universe" and immediately applied the Marvel paradigm themselves.

Always seemed clear the touted GB universe was intended to be made up of new teams and new films, all ignoring the 1984 flick. Cartoons etc as well. Presumably themselves connected in some way. The Gozer connection was to come from the brief mention at the end of the 2016 film, not the 80's one. There was no suggestion a new, male Ghostbusters would've itself been another, separate reboot. In fact, there were almost no details about it at all.

[An tSaoi]

My assumption (based on no evidence whatsoever) was that the studio wanted to get the original lads back, to help sell the film to "legacy fans" (see also the reboot trailer which made it look like a sequel to the original), but the director wanted the film have its own continuity. After all the hassle of roping them into it, they then had to come up with a way of putting them in the film without bringing the characters back, hence Aykroyd as a random cabbie etc.

The other assumption is that the reboot had its own continuity because they wanted the new characters to invent the technology and establish the business themselves, and that letting the original ghostbusters simply hand the keys over to the new ones would diminish the women's achievements.

[St_Eddie]

Confirmation of the second "reboot" movie produced by and starring Channing Tatum:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/sony-plans-ghostbusters-cinematic-universe-780179/

The basic plan was revealed in that Sony hack, but I can't find anything on it now. There was a reddit thread that's either been deleted or I just can't find it. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that so many initial reports about Afterlife contain the words "reboot" and "cinematic universe" and they've just so happened to push pretty much every story revolving around the 2016 movie and the hack into the Google abyss.

Pretty sure that your outline wasn't a part of the Sony e-mail leaks and even it was, it was just spitballing.  Much like how Amy Pascal naively inquired as to the possibility of forcing Bill Murray to participate in a remake via legal action.  Suddenly all the trades and communicators online were saying that Bill Murray was literally forced into taking part in the remake because Sony Pictures threatened him with legal action.  They more than likely never did, because there's no legal basis in such a threat.  Amy Pascal is just an illiterate guber with no morals, who was asking whether it would be a possibility or not.  Those e-mails were nothing more than spitballing and general discussion.  In those very same leaked e-mails, Paul Feig said that the remake would revolve around alien ghosts, which obviously never came to pass either.

[thecuriousorange]

I had a dream about this film. I saw it in the cinema and an entire trailer for the original Ghostbusters film played in the middle of it, which massively highlighted how weak the new one was.

[Famous Mortimer]

I had a dream about this film. I saw it in the cinema and an entire trailer for the original Ghostbusters film played in the middle of it, which massively highlighted how weak the new one was.

Are sentence one and sentence two linked?

[Shaky]

This just had a surprise screening at CinemaCon and the spoiler-free reactions are largely positive, as is usual for such events. Pinch of salt and all that.

I had a quick shufty on reddit and half-way through a long post I began to think, "This seems very familiar...". St Eddie doing his pompous, overbearing, negative thing.

[Replies From View]

St Eddie doing his pompous, overbearing, negative thing.

Let's not do this kind of snidey commentary about people.  Everyone has their faults.

[Shaky]

Yeah, fair enough. I didn't really interact with the guy but his hijacking of decent, popular threads got tiresome and I wasn't expecting to encounter it elsewhere too. He's gone, no need to dredge it up again. Soz.

[popcorn]

Everyone has their faults.

name even a single fault I have.?