Ghostbusters 3

[Magenta Panther]

So...did anybody else catch this?



I.AM.SO.HYPED.

I never got to experience the Ghostbusters attraction/show at Universal. If this new flick is a hit, maybe we'll get a dark ride?

PLEASE?

 

[TwilightZone]

So...did anybody else catch this?



I.AM.SO.HYPED.

I never got to experience the Ghostbusters attraction/show at Universal. If this new flick is a hit, maybe we'll get a dark ride?

PLEASE?

I want to be excited, but can't because of ghostbusters 2017.
Plus, there's already a ghostbusters 3, that one video game!

 

[TwilightZone]

The 2017 one wasn't bad the real problem is they recast it as women when the original film is well known. Don't know why they had to do that? The story was a rehash for a younger crowd that had never seen the original but I bet even the small kids have seen the original. It was alright.

I don't know why Hollywood has to change genders all of a sudden with everything? It's like the remake of the Rock Horror Picture Show. I turned it on just to see what they did with it for TV and turned it right back off. Frank n Furter was a female? The orginal wasn't twisted enough, he seemed to have everything Disney enjoys in a character? I stopped watching, it basically changes the whole story. All I know is this guy is a hard act to follow and changing the gender is just stupid. View attachment 341522

Yeah, the 2017 version wasn't too bad, but I feel like it's too soon. I'm afraid any nostalgia for ghostbusters has died down since the release of that movie. As well as potential hype.

 

[Andrew C]

So is this a rehash of the original?

 

[Magenta Panther]

So is this a rehash of the original?

Nope:


“I’ve always thought of myself as the first Ghostbusters fan, when I was a 6-year-old visiting the set. I wanted to make a movie for all the other fans,” Reitman says. “This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ‘80s happened in the ‘80s, and this is set in the present day.”

https://ew.com/movies/2019/01/15/new-ghostbusters-movie-jason-reitman/

It's being directed by Ivan Reitman's son Jason. Whether or not any of the original surviving cast members will appear in it remains unknown. I hope that at least Dan Aykroyd is in it...which might very well be, because this:

News broke on Tuesday that a secret plan to make another Ghostbusters was in the works — but Dan Aykroyd actually let that cat out of the bag months ago and even shared some details.
While speaking on AXS TV's The Big Interview With Dan Rather in November, Aykroyd, who wrote and starred in the original Ghostbusters films of the 1980s, said the third film was in the works.
"I think we have a story that's going to work and it's being written right now by really good filmmakers. I can't say their names," Aykroyd told Rather at the time.

Well, it turns out that one of the writers, who will also direct the film, is Jason Reitman, the son of original Ghostbusters helmer Ivan Reitman. Gil Kenan, director of the animated movie Monster House, is also working on the script for the film, which is set to go into production this summer with an eye on a 2020 release.
"They're a good team and they are making an effort to bring back all the emotion and spirit of the first two movies and then take it into the 21st century with a vernacular that's needed today to get it across," Aykroyd told Rather.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/a...yd-spoiled-ghostbusters-3-news-months-1176645

Anyway, I thought the teaser trailer was awesome. I didn't see the all-female Ghostbusters movie because it didn't interest me. But if this new flick is really getting back to the franchise's roots, I'll definitely give it a look-see. I freaking loved Ghostbusters when I was a kid. I wanted to BE a Ghostbuster when I grew up!

 

[Andrew C]

Nope:


“I’ve always thought of myself as the first Ghostbusters fan, when I was a 6-year-old visiting the set. I wanted to make a movie for all the other fans,” Reitman says. “This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ‘80s happened in the ‘80s, and this is set in the present day.”

https://ew.com/movies/2019/01/15/new-ghostbusters-movie-jason-reitman/

It's being directed by Ivan Reitman's son Jason. Whether or not any of the original surviving cast members will appear in it remains unknown. I hope that at least Dan Aykroyd is in it...which might very well be, because this:

News broke on Tuesday that a secret plan to make another Ghostbusters was in the works — but Dan Aykroyd actually let that cat out of the bag months ago and even shared some details.
While speaking on AXS TV's The Big Interview With Dan Rather in November, Aykroyd, who wrote and starred in the original Ghostbusters films of the 1980s, said the third film was in the works.
"I think we have a story that's going to work and it's being written right now by really good filmmakers. I can't say their names," Aykroyd told Rather at the time.

Well, it turns out that one of the writers, who will also direct the film, is Jason Reitman, the son of original Ghostbusters helmer Ivan Reitman. Gil Kenan, director of the animated movie Monster House, is also working on the script for the film, which is set to go into production this summer with an eye on a 2020 release.
"They're a good team and they are making an effort to bring back all the emotion and spirit of the first two movies and then take it into the 21st century with a vernacular that's needed today to get it across," Aykroyd told Rather.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/a...yd-spoiled-ghostbusters-3-news-months-1176645

Anyway, I thought the teaser trailer was awesome. I didn't see the all-female Ghostbusters movie because it didn't interest me. But if this new flick is really getting back to the franchise's roots, I'll definitely give it a look-see. I freaking loved Ghostbusters when I was a kid. I wanted to BE a Ghostbuster when I grew up!

Ahh got it. This is good.

 

[lebeau]

Oh yeah. Let's drag the rotting corpse of Ghostbusters out for another nostalgia-based cash grab.

I would really rather they didn't. Do something new instead.

 

[Master Yoda]

The 2017 one wasn't bad the real problem is they recast it as women when the original film is well known. Don't know why they had to do that? The story was a rehash for a younger crowd that had never seen the original but I bet even the small kids have seen the original. It was alright.

I don't know why Hollywood has to change genders all of a sudden with everything? It's like the remake of the Rock Horror Picture Show. I turned it on just to see what they did with it for TV and turned it right back off. Frank n Furter was a female? The orginal wasn't twisted enough, he seemed to have everything Disney enjoys in a character? I stopped watching, it basically changes the whole story. All I know is this guy is a hard act to follow and changing the gender is just stupid. View attachment 341522

I wanted to like the 2017 remake so much, but I could not get farther than 30-45 minutes into the film.

I loved the cast, but everything was just plain bad in that film.

 

[trr1]

I would have liked the 2017 version to have been the originals kids taking over the business

 

[lebeau]

I wanted to like the 2017 remake so much, but I could not get farther than 30-45 minutes into the film.

I loved the cast, but everything was just plain bad in that film.

You must not have gotten to Chris Hemsworth because he almost single-handedly redeems the whole thing. Almost but not quite.

 

[Master Yoda]

You must not have gotten to Chris Hemsworth because he almost single-handedly redeems the whole thing. Almost but not quite.

His introduction is where I bowed out.

Much like in Fear the Walking Dead, I disliked literally every character in the film and just could not continue.

 

[lebeau]

His introduction is where I bowed out.

Much like in Fear the Walking Dead, I disliked literally every character in the film and just could not continue.

Did you see him clean his glasses? Cracks me up every time.

My wife and kids love the movie, so I have seen it a lot. I'm ambivalent on it. I'll just say it's not nearly so bad as its reputation would lead you to believe. Although if you didn't like the beginning, it sure didn't get better during the special effects-heavy third act!

Definitely not for everyone.

On, Fear killed off just about the entire cast and started over by the way...

 

[flynnibus]

the 2017 film is not bad... if you've never seen or had any ties to the original.

The reboot with no purpose except mandatory gender flips is why no one likes the film. If you step away from that, and the contrived Holtzmann (McKinnon) role.. it's not a horrible film.

It's just pointless if you know the prior films.

 

[Master Yoda]

Did you see him clean his glasses? Cracks me up every time.

My wife and kids love the movie, so I have seen it a lot. I'm ambivalent on it. I'll just say it's not nearly so bad as its reputation would lead you to believe. Although if you didn't like the beginning, it sure didn't get better during the special effects-heavy third act!

Definitely not for everyone.

I was pretty much done with the movie by the time he showed up. He got in maybe a couple of lines of dialogue before I bailed. I have not been back since.

On, Fear killed off just about the entire cast and started over by the way...

Regardless, I doubt I will go back to Fear. Just too much bad blood.

I am almost a season behind on Walking Dead and I am not sure if I will try to catch up. If I have a day or two working from home before next season, I might try to binge my way back to current.

I have however kept up with the comic. I think I might have only 6 issues in my backlog.

 

[Demarke]

the 2017 film is not bad... if you've never seen or had any ties to the original.

The reboot with no purpose except mandatory gender flips is why no one likes the film. If you step away from that, and the contrived Holtzmann (McKinnon) role.. it's not a horrible film.

It's just pointless if you know the prior films.

I’d agree, I think it could have worked if they had just made the girls daughters of the originals or perhaps a team that started a franchise in another city. Instead, they scrap the original classic with its more subtle humor and better plot, and replace it with more over the top style and cheap laughs. What turned me off early was all the director’s interviews dismissing any criticism as just sexism rather than the fact he tried to replace an all time classic with an at-best average movie. It seemed like he was more concerned with making a social statement than a good comedic chapter to a classic franchise.

 

[flynnibus]

It seemed like he was more concerned with making a social statement than a good comedic chapter to a classic franchise.

which is the common complaint with these 'gender flip' scripts. They aren't doing it for purpose except that it is explicitly flipping the gender... because woman.

 

[lebeau]

I was pretty much done with the movie by the time he showed up. He got in maybe a couple of lines of dialogue before I bailed. I have not been back since.

Regardless, I doubt I will go back to Fear. Just too much bad blood.

I am almost a season behind on Walking Dead and I am not sure if I will try to catch up. If I have a day or two working from home before next season, I might try to binge my way back to current.

I have however kept up with the comic. I think I might have only 6 issues in my backlog.

Can't really blame you. On GB, if you didn't like the first third of the movie it didn't really improve from there.

Fear the Walking Dead did improve. The last couple of seasons I would say were marginally better than The Walking Dead. But really, TWD hasn't been good since the first season so we're talking about degrees of mediocrity here. That first season of Fear was painfully bad.

I’d agree, I think it could have worked if they had just made the girls daughters of the originals or perhaps a team that started a franchise in another city. Instead, they scrap the original classic with its more subtle humor and better plot, and replace it with more over the top style and cheap laughs. What turned me off early was all the director’s interviews dismissing any criticism as just sexism rather than the fact he tried to replace an all time classic with an at-best average movie. It seemed like he was more concerned with making a social statement than a good comedic chapter to a classic franchise.

There was nothing remotely subtle about the original Ghostbusters. Dan Aykroyd was serviced by a ghost... If anything, the remake suffered in my opinion from jokes that were too subtle. The plot to both movies was more or less the same. This one just didn't have Bill Murray go to Sigourney Weaver's apartment with ruffies.

Making the new characters daughters of the original would have been a cheap way to connect the movies. I'm glad they weren't related. But the marketing for the movie didn't do it any favors muddying the waters as to whether or not the first movie was supposed to have happened. Fieg called back to the first movie waaay too much. It would have worked better if it had stood on its own more, but Feig keeps inviting comparisons to the original which was a heck of a lot funnier.

Hot Take: The original Ghostbusters is a very flawed movie with pacing issues and a few gutbusters. Bill Murray saved the movie from being just bad.

Hat Take #2: An awful lot of the criticism was in fact sexism.

 

[lebeau]

the 2017 film is not bad... if you've never seen or had any ties to the original.

The reboot with no purpose except mandatory gender flips is why no one likes the film. If you step away from that, and the contrived Holtzmann (McKinnon) role.. it's not a horrible film.

It's just pointless if you know the prior films.

I mostly agree with you except I thought McKinnon was a highlight. The remake was pointless. Everyone involved seemed to know that going in. It's the reason Sony couldn't find anyone to take on the project for years. There is no reason to remake Ghostbusters. You're just asking for failure by trying.

Like I said earlier, the movie works better on its own but Feig doesn't do himself any favors by constantly reminding people of the first movie.

which is the common complaint with these 'gender flip' scripts. They aren't doing it for purpose except that it is explicitly flipping the gender... because woman.

I am ambivalent on the trend of gender-flipped remakes. But I will say I am glad to have representation for girls when I can get it. I took my oldest daughter to see Ghostbusters and while the movie wasn't great I enjoyed seeing her have some role models who were funny and got to kick butt on screen. Growing up, I had no shortage of that sort of thing. Young girls historically have been underserved. That is only starting to be addressed.

I'd prefer Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel to a gender flipped Ghostbusters, but I don't find the concept inherently flawed either. The problem was execution.

 

[flynnibus]

I am ambivalent on the trend of gender-flipped remakes. But I will say I am glad to have representation for girls when I can get it. I took my oldest daughter to see Ghostbusters and while the movie wasn't great I enjoyed seeing her have some role models who were funny and got to kick butt on screen. Growing up, I had no shortage of that sort of thing. Young girls historically have been underserved. That is only starting to be addressed.

I'd prefer Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel to a gender flipped Ghostbusters, but I don't find the concept inherently flawed either. The problem was execution.

I don't mind what role females have, strong or weak... but it should make SENSE to the story. Simple flipping for the pure point of flipping.. is just pandering IMO. And that just becomes way harder when you flat out repeat the story lines that were already done.

What unique take did making them all female add? Nothing.. minus the support the one with insecurities story elements?

It's like the period movies and then people say "why shouldn't the black female play that role?" - uhh.. because black females didn't have that role in the period.

 

[lebeau]

I don't mind what role females have, strong or weak... but it should make SENSE to the story. Simple flipping for the pure point of flipping.. is just pandering IMO. And that just becomes way harder when you flat out repeat the story lines that were already done.

What unique take did making them all female add? Nothing.. minus the support the one with insecurities story elements?

It's like the period movies and then people say "why shouldn't the black female play that role?" - uhh.. because black females didn't have that role in the period.

Yeah, I will only defend the practice up to a point and not vigorously.

I'll just say that sitting in the theater with my daughter, she was digging it. That was good enough for me to give it a pass on the gender flip.

Like I said earlier, I would have preferred a movie with female heroes that wasn't a remake and Feig shouldn't have made his movie such a retread. But those are execution problems. It could have worked. It just fell short.

As to your last point, I really can't think of a movie where that was a problem for me. You have any examples?