Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 11:12:32 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed

Started by SteveDave, January 16, 2019, 10:25:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

St_Eddie

Quote from: Dex Sawash on January 17, 2019, 02:01:27 PM
I don't watch movies with spooks and that in them.

That's fucking racist, man!

If the original Ghostbusters had played the original Ghostbusters in the 2016 one, that would have worked really well. The baton-passing stuff is standard for franchise revivals now, surely. I didn't dislike the female one as much as some, but it wasn't that good and this would have given it a welcome boost.

It was such a waste of the originals (including Sigourney Weaver and Janine) and I bet only Dan Ackroyd and Ernie Hudson will be up for another go, especially after it did poorly.

St_Eddie

Quote from: thecuriousorange on January 17, 2019, 02:38:38 PM
If the original Ghostbusters had played the original Ghostbusters in the 2016 one, that would have worked really well.

Eehh.  If the jokes were as bad as they were in the final movie, then having the original cast reprising their roles wouldn't have improved things any.  Ray harping on about wonton soup would still be shit. 

If anything, a movie with jokes as shit as those in the remake, with the original cast, would be even worse because it would be taking an even greater piss on the legacy of the original.  For as terrible as the remake was, at least it can be ignored and isn't a part of the 'canon'.

The last thing I would have wanted was another Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull type of situation, which is probably exactly what we're gonna get with this third instalment.

Goldentony

this is going to be a fucking total load of bollocks and i'll be dipped in dogshit if it isn't

Icehaven

I thought the 2016 one was bearable (although it doesn't touch the originals of course. (I actually like 2.) but it did kind of feel like the whole point was that they were women, because otherwise there really wasn't one. I'm sure all this was discussed in the thread at the time anyway.

Shaky

There's talk that this new one will be set in a small town and feature 4 young teenagers, which at least gets things out of New York and mixes up the landscape for the first time. But then... it's also clearly aiming for the Stranger Things market with that.

Mister Six

Quote from: madhair60 on January 17, 2019, 01:34:01 PM
Yes. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.

Sony's only good films are ones involving either Phil Lord or Christopher Miller or both.

Custard

It'll probably be a team of lads and lassies, which, mentioning the comics yet again, is the direction they went in. With the original, older ones hovering about in the background, and doing a bit of the ol busting of ghosts themselves if they can be arsed. So yeah, Stranger Things, but with Bill Murray occasionally saying something dry or sarcastic. Which tbf, sounds alright

greenman

The obvious plot does seem to be youngsters experience supernatural events and track down now retired ghostbusters.

phantom_power

How about the Ghostbusters die and then come back to warn the new lot about some terrible thing brewing in the astral plane. That way you can CGI in Ramis and the rest as well if they can't be arsed to do it

biggytitbo

Quote from: phantom_power on January 18, 2019, 09:12:51 AM
How about the Ghostbusters die and then come back to warn the new lot about some terrible thing brewing in the astral plane. That way you can CGI in Ramis and the rest as well if they can't be arsed to do it


Does that mean we'll see a ghostly Dan Aykroyd getting sucked off into a small box?

Obel

Was the mass market ever crying out for a new Ghostbusters anyway? It never struck me as a property that would make massive numbers based on brand alone. The first film is brilliant isn't it, but it hardly needs to be a big franchise. It's all so cynical.

Avril Lavigne

Quote from: Obel on January 18, 2019, 12:31:30 PM
Was the mass market ever crying out for a new Ghostbusters anyway? It never struck me as a property that would make massive numbers based on brand alone. The first film is brilliant isn't it, but it hardly needs to be a big franchise. It's all so cynical.

That's Sony Pictures for you. When the big Sony hack data-leak happened in 2014 we saw how desperate they were to put a huge ongoing franchise together to rival the success of Marvel. Of course most studios want that but it was apparent that Sony were ready to try any sad gimmicks to achieve it with properties they owned; for example, the now-aborted 21 Jump Street / Men In Black crossover sequel, or the Spider-Man movie that was almost a 2 hour long promotion for Snapchat.

The original Ghostbusters movies were huge in their time, did amazingly well at the box office, appealed to kids and adults alike, led to tie-in hit singles, videogames, a well-received & fairly long-running spin-off cartoon series and a pretty all-encompassing merchandise empire that's currently as strong as ever.

The problem is that Sony are just a garbage studio always focused on the merch & product placement side of things and they'll rush any old ill-conceived, shoddily-handled movie out of the door to get to the Profit stage of the equation ASAP.


(Leaked image from internal Sony presentation on After Earth - Rotten Tomatoes Score 11%)

The only thing keeping them from making all manner of terrible Ghostbusters sequels or reboots over the years has been the fact that Aykroyd, Murray, Ramis & (I think) Hudson all had final say over whether or not a GB-related project could go ahead, regardless of whether or not they were directly involved with it.

Tellingly, the reboot only entered production after Ramis died in 2014, and some of the leaked Sony emails contain conversations about putting legal pressure on Murray to comply with the project based on what his contract demanded of him (apparently he would never even bother reading new GB movie scripts sent to him).

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: Avril Lavigne on January 18, 2019, 03:54:19 PM
Sony were ready to try any sad gimmicks to achieve it with properties they owned; for example, the now-aborted 21 Jump Street / Men In Black crossover sequel
I was actually a little disappointed that one didn't come to pass.

Bad Ambassador

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on January 18, 2019, 04:07:13 PM
I was actually a little disappointed that one didn't come to pass.

So was I. It would have been a damn sight better than the one we're getting, by the looks of the trailer.

phantom_power

A Lord/Miller MiB/Jump Street crossover film could have been great

SteveDave

Count me in for another person disappointed that the 21 Jump Street/MiB crossover isn't happening.

St_Eddie

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 18, 2019, 11:32:47 AM

Does that mean we'll see a ghostly Dan Aykroyd getting sucked off into a small box?

Yes.  Whilst holding a bottle of his crystal skull vodka.  He never misses an opportunity to promote his crystal skull vodka.

biggytitbo

Apparently Dan Aykroyd was in possession of definitive proof that extraterrestrials have visited the planet earth.


Only went and lost it on the bus didn't he.

dr beat

The same bus that Willie Thorne was on?

Replies From View

Quote from: dr beat on January 18, 2019, 06:22:08 PM
The same bus that Willie Thorne was on?

He wasn't allowed on buses because he stank and when they were too full he punctured people.

"A rose by any other name would still have thorns and smell like cock."

Rev+

Quote from: St_Eddie on January 17, 2019, 12:25:27 PM
I do think that it was stunt casting and a gimmick; one used to deflect criticism of a bad script.  However, the gender of the leads would not have been an issue, gimmick or not, had the movie been worth a damn.

It was an issue from the moment the casting was announced, and reached such a peak that the film itself referenced it.  How did these critics know whether the film was any good or not in the year or so before any of them saw it?

E: I thought the reboot was about as good as such a thing could be in 2016, and certainly a better-constructed film than Ghostbusters 2, which feels like someone's fast-forwarding through scenes when you blink.  Its main problem was that it builds towards an interminable extended fighty bullshit ending, like all these bollocks superhero films clogging up the cinemas.  Whatever happens with this one, it'll be exactly the same on that front.

St_Eddie

#112
Quote from: Rev+ on January 18, 2019, 11:03:53 PM
How did these critics know whether the film was any good or not in the year or so before any of them saw it?

Uh, how about because it was a remake of a movie which didn't justify being remade in the first place?  How often do those work out?  I think that you'll find that every remake of a beloved classic is received with similar vitriol and an ingrained level of distrust towards the studio's motivation for redoing a classic, which just so happens to hold a high potentiality for profit to be reaped from brand recognition.

"Oh, but it's starring four women and therefore it automatically deserves, nay, demands our optimism and support!"  No, that's not how it works.  It's supposed to be a movie; a piece of entertainment about busting ghosts, not a social and political cause.  I'm entitled to be pessimistic, especially when said pessimism stems from prior knowledge of how remakes have a tendency to be egregiously unnecessary and awful.

At the time, when the remake was first announced, I expressed my severe reservations in regards to the concept of remaking Ghostbusters (and yes, as an aside, I did feel that the marketing push of 'ALL WOMEN!' felt a little bit gimmicky and suspiciously cynical, almost as though the marketing team were pushing that angle because they knew that the movie wouldn't be able to stand on its own two feet) but ultimately, I didn't write it off wholesale.

Then the trailer dropped and at that point, I knew that this was, in all likelihood, gonna be a dumpster fire.  Still, I held off making a final judgment call.

Then I saw the movie and it was fucking atrocious.

The End.

Quote from: Rev+ on January 18, 2019, 11:03:53 PM
Whatever happens with this one, it'll be exactly the same on that front.

I have no doubt that this new movie will, very likely be, every bit as bad as the remake.  What with it being a Sony Pictures movie, I'd almost be willing to bet on it.  Having the original actors onboard isn't going to automatically make it great.

popcorn

Inevitably I am now rewatching bits of the original Ghostbusters, and the 2016 version.

This is such a vague, crummy observation, but what strikes me is how... cinematic the original is. The whole opening sequence in the library feels really, I dunno, authentic, tactile, classy, classic. Just the way it moves and looks, the mood it evokes. Whereas everything in the 2016 film looks like oversaturated Nickelodeon puke.

Quote from: Rev+ on January 18, 2019, 11:03:53 PM
Its main problem was that it builds towards an interminable extended fighty bullshit ending, like all these bollocks superhero films clogging up the cinemas.

Yes, that final showdown was weak as fuck. But I also think the climax of Ghostbusters is its weakest part. At least it's still brief and character-driven.

St_Eddie

Quote from: popcorn on January 19, 2019, 12:17:27 AM
Inevitably I am now rewatching bits of the original Ghostbusters, and the 2016 version.

This is such a vague, crummy observation, but what strikes me is how... cinematic the original is. The whole opening sequence in the library feels really, I dunno, authentic, tactile, classy, classic. Just the way it moves and looks, the mood it evokes. Whereas everything in the 2016 film looks like oversaturated Nickelodeon puke.

Spot on.  The remake looks like what it is; a bunch of actors, who are out of their depth, with no script to work from, having a camera pointed at them and being told to "do whatever.  Do something funny.  Say something funny.  Whatever.  Funny.  Go!", with little thought given to script, direction, cinematography and all around basic cinematic craft.

Avril Lavigne

It's worth noting that Ghostbusters was in the small group of adult-aimed '80s movies that still landed well with younger viewers and went on to court that audience. Terminator, Robocop and Aliens all had action figures for kids and Aliens had a cartoon series pilot that never made it to air but still spawned a well-remembered line of toys.

This is really the crux of the problem for any studio seeking to cash in on that situation - the original Ghostbusters wasn't a success by way of being marketable to kids. It was a success because some talented people with comedy/writing/acting backgrounds at SNL and Second City gelled well together & convinced other talented people in the film industry to take a huge risk and turn a version of Dan Aykroyd's bonkers script into a film once it had been edited down from its original 3-hour-fever-dream state.

It was only after kids unexpectedly loved the movie that the franchise aggressively targeted that audience, to the degree that the 2nd movie entirely revolved around the kid-friendly concept of SLIME and Janine resembled her focus-group-altered later-season counterpart from the cartoon as if she wasn't even the same character from the first film.

Avril Lavigne

Quote from: St_Eddie on January 19, 2019, 12:09:45 AM
At the time, when the remake was first announced, I expressed my severe reservations in regards to the concept of remaking Ghostbusters (and yes, as an aside, I did feel that the marketing push of 'ALL WOMEN!' felt a little bit gimmicky and suspiciously cynical, almost as though the marketing team were pushing that angle because they knew that the movie wouldn't be able to stand on its own two feet) but ultimately, I didn't write it off wholesale.

Then the trailer dropped and at that point, I knew that this was, in all likelihood, gonna be a dumpster fire.  Still, I held off making a final judgment call.

Then I saw the movie and it was fucking atrocious.

The End.

The all-male reboot of my reaction.

St_Eddie

#117
Quote from: Avril Lavigne on January 19, 2019, 01:17:41 AM
...This is really the crux of the problem for any studio seeking to cash in on that situation - the original Ghostbusters wasn't a success by way of being marketable to kids. It was a success because some talented people with comedy/writing/acting backgrounds at SNL and Second City gelled well together & convinced other talented people in the film industry to take a huge risk and turn a version of Dan Aykroyd's bonkers script into a film once it had been edited down from its original 3-hour-fever-dream state.

It was only after kids unexpectedly loved the movie that the franchise aggressively targeted that audience, to the degree that the 2nd movie entirely revolved around the kid-friendly concept of SLIME and Janine resembled her focus-group-altered later-season counterpart from the cartoon as if she wasn't even the same character from the first film.



"You know, for kids!"

Quote from: Avril Lavigne on January 19, 2019, 01:25:59 AM
The all-male reboot of my reaction.

But if it's a reboot of your reaction, then that means that I've taken your valid thoughts, run them through the mincer and reconstituted the resulting mulch into a bastardised form of your original reaction, beyond the point of all recognition.

I know!  I'll pretend my maligned reboot of your reaction never happened.  I'll then take some of the most valued words from your original reaction and have them headline a true successor to your original and beloved reaction.  That'll get everyone onboard.  Phew!  Crisis averted.

I wonder if Sony Pictures are hiring?

Mister Six

Quote from: Avril Lavigne on January 18, 2019, 03:54:19 PM
The Spider-Man movie that was almost a 2 hour long promotion for Snapchat.

Christ, I somehow missed that at the time. It's painfully cringey (although it sounds like the Snapchat thing was for promo materials rather than the film itself).

But yeah, Sony are atrocious outside of their animation wing.

Mister Six

Quote from: St_Eddie on January 19, 2019, 12:40:46 AM
Spot on.  The remake looks like what it is; a bunch of actors, who are out of their depth, with no script to work from, having a camera pointed at them and being told to "do whatever.  Do something funny.  Say something funny.  Whatever.  Funny.  Go!", with little thought given to script, direction, cinematography and all around basic cinematic craft.

This and the way that the one character arc (the relationship between Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig) gets wrapped up within the first hour have me baffled at the claim that it's a better-constructed movie that Ghostbusters 2. If you write, score, choreograph, shoot and edit a climactic dance sequence then cut it and stick it in the credits, you've been given too much of a free hand.