GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Grayditch

nix wrote: »

And while i have no problem with them making movies like bridesmaid etc, but i dont see why they need to drag the Ghostbusters name through the mud to do so..

If they make a movie as good as Bridesmaids, they'll be dragging the Ghostbusters name through great reviews, box office success and good times for all, all over again.

Bill Murray is more and more becoming that crazy uncle you always see at weddings.

Theboinkmaster

Grayditch wrote: »

If they make a movie as good as Bridesmaids, they'll be dragging the Ghostbusters name through great reviews, box office success and good times for all, all over again.

There is zero chance that's going to happen :P

e_e

nix wrote: »

And while i have no problem with them making movies like bridesmaid etc, but i dont see why they need to drag the Ghostbusters name through the mud to do so..

Maybe they just like Ghostbusters and want to put their own spin on it? Saying that Ghostbusters is some sacred name that's being dragged through the mud is more than a little dramatic. I honestly can't think of a single film I love that I'd use such language about.

nix wrote: »

They could have easily done their own thing and probably been alot more successful than its looking to be and the majority of pissed off people wouldnt have been pissed off and actually contributed to the box office instead of focusing energy on trying to ensure it fails.

On the contrary, I think it's going to seriously work in the film's favor box office wise. No film this year has stirred the pot so much and many will see it, either out of seriously wanting it to be good, liking this new take on the material or just out of begrudging curiosity.

Plus look at Jurassic World last year, god awful film that made a billion off of a franchise name.

nix

e_e wrote: »

Maybe they just like Ghostbusters and want to put their own spin on it? Saying that Ghostbusters is some sacred name that's being dragged through the mud is more than a little dramatic. I honestly can't think of a single film I love that I'd use such language about.


On the contrary, I think it's going to seriously work in the film's favor box office wise. No film this year has stirred the pot so much and many will see it, either out of seriously wanting it to be good, liking this new take on the material or just out of begrudging curiosity.

Plus look at Jurassic World last year, god awful film that made a billion off of a franchise name.

Ok i've actually accepted remakes like this are going to happen and have just accepted it a long time ago now, i used to be alot more salty than i am now. I'm not objective because i think the ghostbusters brand is sacred, more that id just prefer and think it would be better if they done their own thing, points for originality and all, y'know?

Some remakes i welcome and work and are kinda needed, the crazies, dawn of the dead etc. And then there is this, taking a famous well liked brand name, stuffing it full of dick and fart jokes and then in my opinion, just demeaning the franchise. When they likely could have just done their own thing, well know comedic actors (apparently) and a well known comedic director (apparently) not enough to rake in the millions?

Either way, meh to it all! :pac:

Keplar240B

Don't have time to read all this thread just came across this
thought i share don't know if it been posted already it form the sony leaks

Among the leaked drama that has been flooding the internet due to the recent Sony hacking scandal, one exchanged e-mail discussed a legal suit over the new Ghostbusters film and Bill Murray’s involvement. The e-mail hinted at taking serious action and potentially sueing Bill Murray for not participating in the new film.

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/Sony-Might-Sue-Bill-Murray-Playing-Ball-Ghostbusters-68651.html

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pMzvWF56io

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=simxjM1l4VE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOZTp-BAa7c

Tom.D.BJJ

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

This movie will....

I still don' get this. The movie will be a limp cactus?

Also how in the f*ck can they manage to make the Stay Puft look f*cking awful?

Grayditch

They could have had a giant aggressive Kool Aid guy if Family Guy hadn't got there first.

There seems to be an overreliance on CGI, pretty much ignoring practical effects. That's why Ghostbusters still looks good, 30 years later. They used so much of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_KuLEjkF1E

py2006

Is it just me or is Stay Puft looking really small?

Basq

py2006 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=simxjM1l4VE

Shooting a ghost in the penis?..

.. REALLY?!?!?!

Frank O. Pinion

Basq wrote: »

Shooting a ghost in the penis?..

.. REALLY?!?!?!

Girl power.

Tony EH

Also how in the f*ck can they manage to make the Stay Puft look f*cking awful?

They've pretty much managed to make everything look f*cking awful so far.

Grayditch

Getting shot, punched, headbutted, elbowed in the dick has always been a staple of comedies. It's funny as long as it's not happening to me.

Liam McPoyle

Grayditch wrote: »

Getting shot, punched, headbutted, elbowed in the dick has always been a staple of comedies. It's funny as long as it's not happening to me.

Stay Puft isn't even a ghost, right?

Grayditch

He's a physical manifestation of a fear created by another ghost, right so guess not?

BMMachine

f**k it hes a ghost now whatever.

The Presidents a duck?!!!


coming this fall starring Adam Sandler derp de derrrrrr

Grayditch

Grayditch wrote: »

He's a physical manifestation of a fear created by another ghost, right so guess not?

But she wasn't a ghost either.

He was the physical manifestation of a fear created by a God. Gozer was pretty much a God.

doubledown

A good friend of mine is seeing this today ahead of interviewing the cast at the London junket.

I'm DYING to hear what he has to say about it. After all the months of speculation, doubt and vitriol, the question remains - is the film any good or not. (I'm guessing NO)

AnonoBoy

doubledown wrote: »

A good friend of mine is seeing this today ahead of interviewing the cast at the London junket.

I'm DYING to hear what he has to say about it. After all the months of speculation, doubt and vitriol, the question remains - is the film any good or not. (I'm guessing NO)

Interviewing the cast would be fun though.

py2006

Let us know will ya?

Maybe via PM though...

doubledown

doubledown wrote: »

A good friend of mine is seeing this today ahead of interviewing the cast at the London junket.

I'm DYING to hear what he has to say about it. After all the months of speculation, doubt and vitriol, the question remains - is the film any good or not. (I'm guessing NO)

py2006 wrote: »

Let us know will ya?

Maybe via PM though...

Probably not a good idea. Chances are there'll be pretty heavy restrictions on discussion of it.

Anyway, I'd be curious to know how the Stay Puft is going to be there.

Tom.D.BJJ

Deleted User wrote: »

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

This movie will....

I still don' get this. The movie will be a limp cactus?

FLOP

AnonoBoy

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

FLOP

I thought it was the movie will need watering.

AnonoBoy

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I thought it was the movie will need watering.

I'm so happy I wasn't the only one that was confused by it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm so happy I wasn't the only one that was confused by it.

I was much lower tone, considering the post that came directly before it!!

Agent Coulson

:mad:

pixelburp

Ah sure 'Ghostbusters' was just a rip-off of Huey Lewis' 'I Want a New Drug' anyway

Negative intuitions about this film seem like low-hanging fruit at this stage, but yeeesh that cover's a stinker. Honestly though, it's about the standard for those typical Hollywood, credits-music pop tie-in.