GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

syklops

I still think my idea is better where Peter Venkman is, well, an older Peter Venkman and he is "training" 3 hot college students in the ways of the Ghostbusters, while simultaneously hitting on them every chance he gets. Thats the Peter we all know and love right?

Tony EH

I have absolutely no doubt that that would a million times better than what this will turn out to be.

I'm confident enough to say it'll make 'Ghostbusters II' look like a "must watch" masterpiece.

senordingdong

syklops wrote: »

I still think my idea is better where Peter Venkman is, well, an older Peter Venkman and he is "training" 3 hot college students in the ways of the Ghostbusters, while simultaneously hitting on them every chance he gets. Thats the Peter we all know and love right?

I think anything would be better than what we're getting.

It is a sad reflection that lads on a forum can think up better ways to reignite the franchise, than the Hollywood cronies.

pixelburp

senordingdong wrote: »

I think anything would be better than what we're getting.

It is a sad reflection that lads on a forum can think up better ways to reignite the franchise, than the Hollywood cronies.

Re-ignite the franchise by wheeling out one of the original crew, the actor being now a very old-looking 64?

We know nothing of this new film bar its cast and director; I don't have any great optimism myself but I'd sooner wait 'til a trailer comes out before completely giving up

Bacchus

pixelburp wrote: »

Re-ignite the franchise by wheeling out one of the original crew, the actor being now a very old-looking 64?

.... and have him hit on college girls. That's not at all creepy or sad.

I've no expectations for this either btw (as I've posted here already). It's a gender swap gimmick and given the cast that I'm familiar with, it will have none of what made the original so scary and funny.

briany

senordingdong wrote: »

I think anything would be better than what we're getting.

It is a sad reflection that lads on a forum can think up better ways to reignite the franchise, than the Hollywood cronies.

That's more a product of commercialism, bubble/committee thinking that Hollywood are apparently being out-paced by randomers on an internet board for ideas.

Tony EH

It sounds like a 'Family Guy' cutscene.

"You think that's bad? Remember the time I pitched the Ghostbusters sequel with an all female cast?"

S.M.B.

Tony EH wrote: »

I have absolutely no doubt that that would a million times better than what this will turn out to be.

I'm confident enough to say it'll make 'Ghostbusters II' look like a "must watch" masterpiece.

I'm confident enough to say that the next instalment will end up with higher Rotten Tomatoes fresh/average ratings than the last one. In fact, I'll quit this board if it doesn't manage to do so.

Thread still stinks of unremembered nostalgia and downright sexism.

syklops

Bacchus wrote: »

.... and have him hit on college girls. That's not at all creepy or sad.

Venkman hit on Sigourney Weavers character at every opportunity in the first move, and the opening scene was him engineering a situation where a hot, blonde college student was thinking she might have psychic powers and he made a date with her. "Thats not creepy or sad" - thats his character. I think 64 year old Bill Murray still hitting on college girls is plausible and could be funny - particularly if he is knocked back by smart sassy ladies.

Im not a misogynist, I actually think women are great, but this is Ghostbusters. It was and is a part of many peoples childhood and it has strong nostalgic bonds. Its a brand, not dissimilar to James Bond. It has a long established history and culture.

Bacchus

syklops wrote: »

Venkman hit on Sigourney Weavers character at every opportunity in the first move, and the opening scene was him engineering a situation where a hot, blonde college student was thinking she might have psychic powers and he made a date with her. "Thats not creepy or sad" - thats his character. I think 64 year old Bill Murray still hitting on college girls is plausible and could be funny - particularly if he is knocked back by smart sassy ladies.

Bill Murray was 30 in the first Ghostbusters movie. Weaver was 31. There is no weird age gap there. As for hitting on college girls... he was 30, not 64. It was a bit creepy then but Murray walked the line superbly and as you say, it's part of who Venkman is. I won't say it would never work cause it's impossible to know how they would play it out (and Murray is still a great actor) but a 64 year old Murray hitting on 3 hot college girls as the setup for Ghostbusters 3 would be veering into American Pie style generic college fare, but with ghosts.

Tipsy McSwagger

Thought this was a joke, can't believe it's going ahead.

Tony EH

S.M.B. wrote: »

I'm confident enough to say that the next instalment will end up with higher Rotten Tomatoes fresh/average ratings than the last one. In fact, I'll quit this board if it doesn't manage to do so.

Thread still stinks of unremembered nostalgia and downright sexism.

That's bollocks.

'Ghostbusters' didn't actually need a sequel. Any sequel. The second film was the usual, tired, Hollywood nonsense of making a fast buck off of a hit and this one is simply a cash in on a famous name with the lame gimmick of an all female cast.

It has bugger all to do with "sexism" and more to do with people's weariness with Hollywood's repetitious churning out of a sub-par product. People are sick of the endless low grade sequels, unnecessary reboots and pointless "reimaginings".

The original film (which is VASTLY overrated by some) was a happy accident and in many ways I wish it had stayed a modest sleeper hit, rather than a blockbuster, because Hollywood execs have been trying to bleed a ridiculous amount of money out of its carcass for decades, with none of them understanding what made the original a good film.

S.M.B.

Fair enough. The fact that people are resistant to sequels, re-imaginings and reboots is a valid point albeit a point of view I do not share myself.

But the sequel is going ahead whether you or others like it or not.

I struggle to grasp how skylops proposed version would turn out to be a million times better than the one that we are going to get. Or that the first sequel will look like a masterpiece in comparison to next years version.

All sequels are bad? But they get exponentially worse the longer the duration between instalments? Or based on having fewer of the original cast members involved? Or Hollywoods standards have dropped by 1,000,000% over the years?

FunLover18

S.M.B. wrote: »

All sequels are bad? But they get exponentially worse the longer the duration between instalments? Or based on having fewer of the original cast members involved? Or Hollywoods standards have dropped by 1,000,000% over the years?

Now you're just being facetious … 500,000% max

Tony EH

S.M.B. wrote: »

But the sequel is going ahead whether you or others like it or not.

It doesn't matter really to me, other than the fact that it's indicative of tired Hollywood thinking, which nothing newsworthy to me at this stage.

S.M.B. wrote: »

I struggle to grasp how skylops proposed version would turn out to be a million times better than the one that we are going to get. Or that the first sequel will look like a masterpiece in comparison to next years version.

People are exaggerating to make the point.

But as Egon said in 'Ghostbusters', "Print is dead".

S.M.B. wrote: »

All sequels are bad? But they get exponentially worse the longer the duration between instalments? Or based on having fewer of the original cast members involved? Or Hollywoods standards have dropped by 1,000,000% over the years?

I never said that "all sequels are bad". But the sequels that are as good or better than the original films are very few and far between. The problem is Hollywood's adherence to the sequel formula. Before the late 70's, a sequel was an odd occurrence. Now, it's formula. It's written into most actors contracts when they sign on for a part.

Fewer original cast members is also not an issue. A sequel can have an entirely different cast and still be a decent film.

As for Hollywood standards, well then yes. The standard has most definitely dropped since the 70's, as far as I'm concerned. Does that mean all of the product is awful. No. Of course not. But, a huge percentage absolutely is.

S.M.B.

I'm not sure if Hollywood is 100% responsible for the increase in sequels, reboots and re-imaginings. The cinema going public have to take some of the responsibility. The major studios are risk adverse and the figures are telling them that name recognition can be enough to ensure a decent return at the box office.

I'd love to see how well Jurassic World would have done if it was called Dinosaur Theme Park and it was a standalone movie.

But in an era of sequels and reboots I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I fundamentally see no issue with them and the idea of known entities being used to tell interesting new stories appeals to me more than an original property that sticks to a tried and tested formula.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Feig does with the property given his recent track record and there's something to be said about bringing this concept to a new generation of cinema-goers

Tony EH

Hollywood make the films, so yes they are entirely responsible for the output and the choice of output at the end of the day.

The public simply go and see the product and most of the product makes enough money back, even if it's relative dross.

And while there are some films that do have audiences calling for sequels, or remakes etc, the vast majority of them are not sanctioned by the cinema going public in any way, in fact the vast majority of the cinema going public are only aware of a film when they're told it's in production.

A Hollywood film, these days, just has to be a modest success or even just make its money back to warrant a sequel. However, nobody was petitioning Hollywood for a remake of 'Halloween', or for its sequel. Nobody wanted a "reimagining" of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' either. I can't recall anyone asking for a new Spiderman series, barely 5 years after Sam Raimi's had ended.

Unlike you, many people are no longer willing to give the "benefit of doubt" to an industry that has, time and time again, produced absolute drivel. So much so, that the default position of the needle on the Good and Bad scale generally resides toward the bad end and in a era where Dwayne Johnson can sleepwalk through roles, Michael Bay is a multimillionaire, 'Fast and Furious' is a 6 film series and 'The Hangover' can produce two sequels, it's not hard to wee why that is.

Chip Whitley

First look at the new suits:

https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/615654923246682112/photo/1

pixelburp

If nothing else I'm liking the production design so far; seems like the technology will keep the homemade aesthetic of the original films

https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/615866469830758400/photo/1

JP Liz V1

SNL writer Neil Casey will play the villain
Source

Chip Whitley

Here's the new car:


The proton packs, traps and car all have a retro feel. I have a feeling that for a lot of the movie they might have all this old homemade looking equipment and then they'll reveal gear that may look like it was designed by Apple for the third act. Paul Feig said that he was excited about exploring what all the old Ghostbuster technology would look like in the modern day, but so far everything bears big similarities to the 80's stuff.

Bacchus

The cynic in me is thinking all these photos released are just nostalgia hooks to reel in fans of the originals and (as you say) will be replaced at some point in the movie with the 21st century "everything is black and shiny with clean lines", car, packs & suits. Most likely what we're seeing is the equipment used near the start of the movie when the gang first get together and then <insert plot device> brings out the new equipment sponsored by Dyson or something for the final act so the Ghostbusters can save the day.

CPSW

Bacchus wrote: »

The cynic in me is thinking all these photos released are just nostalgia hooks to reel in fans of the originals and (as you say) will be replaced at some point in the movie with the 21st century "everything is black and shiny with clean lines", car, packs & suits. Most likely what we're seeing is the equipment used near the start of the movie when the gang first get together and then <insert plot device> brings out the new equipment sponsored by Dyson or something for the final act so the Ghostbusters can save the day.

My thoughts exactly!

BrookieD

Bacchus wrote: »

The cynic in me is thinking all these photos released are just nostalgia hooks to reel in fans of the originals and (as you say) will be replaced at some point in the movie with the 21st century "everything is black and shiny with clean lines", car, packs & suits. Most likely what we're seeing is the equipment used near the start of the movie when the gang first get together and then <insert plot device> brings out the new equipment sponsored by Dyson or something for the final act so the Ghostbusters can save the day.

to be honest if that's the case i can live with that. caters for the old and new fans alike. that is unless the film is set in the 80's which i do not think it is?

FunLover18

Bacchus wrote:

The cynic in me is thinking all these photos released are just nostalgia hooks to reel in fans of the originals and (as you say) will be replaced at some point in the movie with the 21st century "everything is black and shiny with clean lines", car, packs & suits. Most likely what we're seeing is the equipment used near the start of the movie when the gang first get together and then brings out the new equipment sponsored by Dyson or something for the final act so the Ghostbusters can save the day.

Sounds like a lose lose situation. They use the old equipment they're luring in fans of the original, New equipment they're selling out for product placement.

Mickeroo

That's a different type of car to the original Ecto 1 anyway...

syklops

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's a different type of car to the original Ecto 1 anyway...

The original was a Cadillac ambulance.

According to this article its either a Cadillac Superior or a Cadillac Fleetwood.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=44830

First pic of the cast in costume, I'm really not liking the look of anything we've seen so far. Hopefully the first trailer/teaser is good

Bacchus

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=44830

First pic of the cast in costume, I'm really not liking the look of anything we've seen so far. Hopefully the first trailer/teaser is good

So is this from a scene setting up how they all met while doing community service picking up litter on the highway?

I've liked the pics so far (even if they are shameless nostalgia hooks) but that cast picture is a bit of a lame duck. I'm guessing the girl on the right is going to be a relative of Egon? She's sporting a similar haircut and specs. Wigg looks miserable as usual.

Frank Bullitt

Count me out on this one.