Ghostbusters

[DANA-kin Skywalker]

I cannot believe the amount of mass hysteria (sorry, couldn't resist) this movie is causing,

 

This movie was dead on arrival long before the first crappy trailer came out. They've been trying to make a third ghostbusters movie for a very, very long time and it always got shot down because the script sucked every time. This led to acceptance to the fact that a third ghostbusters movie is probably never going to be made, and if it was made, it was never going to be nearly as good as the first, so it's probably for the best.

 

Low and behold, a new ghostbusters movie got the green light. When the trailer hit, many people thought "okay, how much is this trailer going to suck" as they saw basically an unfunny remake/reboot of the original without any of the original stars. The fact the four leads are all women is really the only original idea it seems to have, which is definitely drawing it's own brand of hate. I've never seen a movie trailer with such an abysmal like-to-dislike ratio, even among crappy movies. C'mon people, it's a bad trailer, not the damn apocalypse.

 

I personally didn't like much in either trailer, but seeing slimer makes me smile. Kate McKinnon's character seems pretty interesting, but I have a funny feeling she's going to be underutilized, McCarthy is hit-or-miss with me, but Kristen Wiig always strikes a cord with me. Leslie Jones was obnoxious. That exorcism scene in the trailer was absolutely cringeworthy. It was the last scene in the trailer too, so it ends on the lowest of lows.

 

The second trailer was better than the first, but if was basically just more of the same.

[Jacen123]

I personally didn't like much in either trailer, but seeing slimed makes me smile. Kate McKinnon's character seems pretty interesting, but I have a funny feeling she's going to be underutilized, McCarthy is hit-or-miss with me, but Kristen Wiig always strikes a cord with me. Leslie Jones was obnoxious. That exorcism scene in the trailer was absolutely cringeworthy. It was the last scene in the trailer too, so it ends on the lowest of lows.

 

The second trailer was better than the first, but if was basically just more of the same.

McKinnon has been the highlight of both trailers for me. She seems to be a bit of a mix of Ray and Egon and at least seems to be hitting the marks of being the quirky, weird character. I feel pretty much the same as you regarding Wiig and McCarthy, though wiig is also a bit hit or miss with me, too. She is just usually on the hit side, especially when she keeps her zaniness under control. Her panicing in the restaurant made me worry some. I like McCarthy when she is given good material to work with. I'm not nearly familiar enough with Jones and the exorcism scene caused the same reaction for me, too.

[Poe Dameron]

C'mon people, it's a bad trailer, not the damn apocalypse.

 

Hey, if people going crazy causes the studio to lose money and for other studios to balk at greenlighting all these pointless remakes of beloved franchises, then by all means people, board the hate train.

[Darth Ender]

I think the trailer is getting some severe misplaced hatred. I loved the Ghostbusters as a kid, even going as one for Halloween for a year or two. I was excited for both the new GB and the casting choices. With that said, I couldn't stand the trailer. It finally dawned on me why... I like smoothies. I like pzza. However, I don't like pizza put into a blender and made into a smoothie.

 

Ghostbusters is definitely a comedy, but it is more of a dry, subtle comedy. McCarthy-type humor just doesn't seem to fit this mold. I was hoping to see McCarthy take on a more dry, subtle humor. However, it isn't targeting nerdy 30-somethings that hold the original Ghostbusters near and dear to their hearts.

 

I will check it out. Because until I try it, I may actually love pizza smoothies.

[The Kurgan]

Hey, if people going crazy causes the studio to lose money and for other studios to balk at greenlighting all these pointless remakes of beloved franchises, then by all means people, board the hate train.

This. A thousand times this. While I'm all for creativity and thought when it comes to how differing demographics are represented in film (provided it's not done in a finger wavy, preachy manner), replacing male with female leads is not enough to freshen up that which is otherwise very, very stale. Enough s**ty franchise reboots already!

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

 

I'll write my own, then.

What a novel idea? Creating something original rather that reboot and rehash something from the 1980s? That's crazy talk!

 

 

.....and something that really should happen a lot more, actually. I'm tired of reboots. Sequels are fine. Continuing franchises are fine. Even new stories inspired by earlier works or the idea of spiritual successors are fine. But do we have to have a remake of every film with a cult following?

[Mara Jade Skywalker]

I don't see

 

 

I'll write my own, then.

What a novel idea? Creating something original rather that reboot and rehash something from the 1980s? That's crazy talk!

 

 

.....and something that really should happen a lot more, actually. I'm tired of reboots. Sequels are fine. Continuing franchises are fine. Even new stories inspired by earlier works or the idea of spiritual successors are fine. But do we have to have a remake of every film with a cult following?

I mean, the last book I wrote was a mash-up of Lion King, Hamlet, and Macbeth, so I'm a bad person to talk to about how awful reboots and remakes are. I don't think there's anything wrong with them.

[Driver]

As somebody who's written a Hollywood prequel and tries to sell original work constantly, here is the problem:

 

Hollywood is a business. The big money is in franchises. Big studios only want franchises, smaller studios want to find new franchises to build. Stand alone movies happen, but no one wants to spend more than $2m on them.

 

Most studies dream of pulling off a Paranormal Activity, Fast and Furious, or Conjuring type franchise-- a small, cheap first entry that is a hug hit they can parlay into bigger money.

 

That's not to say Hollywood is full of creatively bankrupt people--it is not. But everyone is beholden to financiers or corporate overlords that want datametrics and projects of MONEY. With an original property you can try and sell it on similarity to something, but that's a crap shoot. The best way to convince the money people to do something is to show them pre-existing IP that has some sort of positive track record. Even if it is a low-selling comic book, or a random board game-- if on paper you can show people were into it enough that it made a profit, that is considered something of worth and value.

 

That's why most movies are based on something be it a book, comic, old TV show, toy,, or pre-existing movie.

[Darth Ender]

 

I'll write my own, then.

What a novel idea? Creating something original rather that reboot and rehash something from the 1980s? That's crazy talk!

 

 

.....and something that really should happen a lot more, actually. I'm tired of reboots. Sequels are fine. Continuing franchises are fine. Even new stories inspired by earlier works or the idea of spiritual successors are fine. But do we have to have a remake of every film with a cult following?

Sometimes the reboots are better. Just off the tiop of my head...

 

Battlestar Gallatica remake is one of my favorite series of all time.

Batman has been rebooted multiple times and all of them have their merits

Mad Max, Star Trek, True Grit, and Ocean's 11 are all remakes of classics that are made relevant to today's audiences

 

Nobody is making you see these movies. There are plenty of original works out. One could make the argument that the quality and quantity of entertainment is up because these remakes can be counted on to turn a heavy profit at the box office and the studio will be more likely to take a risk and finance an Ex Machina or whatever.

[Poe Dameron]

Hollywood is a business. The big money is in franchises.

 

Totally get that. Which is why I'm just as happy when bad ideas and trends lose money. Think of it the way that studios were pumping out movies based on old television shows in the 90s after The Adams Family was a hit. Sometimes it worked. Harrison Ford hasn't made a movie as good as The Fugitive since and Tom Cruise has made Mission: Impossible his personal money franchise to this day.

 

However, there were a LOT of bad movies in the 90s and early-2000s based on old television shows. A lot of movies quickly forgotten at best and reviled universally at worst. The Avengers, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Wild, Wild West, I could name dozens more. Now you don't see as many movies based on these old shows. Not even the success of 21 Jump Street is causing a noticeable increase.

 

It took a decade, but Hollywood got the message that these films weren't profitable and they stopped making quite so many of them.

 

 

 

Mad Max, Star Trek, True Grit, and Ocean's 11 are all remakes of classics that are made relevant to today's audiences

 

Mad Max isn't really a remake. Same director. Technically the same continuity (though the continuity of that franchise is pretty tenuous to begin with). They just re-cast Max. Though a large part of me wishes Mel Gibson were in there.

 

And True Grit and Ocean's 11 are remakes done right. Ocean's 11 being an only moderately good movie best known for its stars. It was something that could be messed with. They took the shell of it and did their own thing. True Grit was made because the Coen Bros. had their own vision for it. It wasn't made because a studio was looking to mix and match a property.

[Darth Ender]

 

Hollywood is a business. The big money is in franchises.

 

Totally get that. Which is why I'm just as happy when bad ideas and trends lose money. Think of it the way that studios were pumping out movies based on old television shows in the 90s after The Adams Family was a hit. Sometimes it worked. Harrison Ford hasn't made a movie as good as The Fugitive since and Tom Cruise has made Mission: Impossible his personal money franchise to this day.

 

However, there were a LOT of bad movies in the 90s and early-2000s based on old television shows. A lot of movies quickly forgotten at best and reviled universally at worst. The Avengers, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Wild, Wild West, I could name dozens more. Now you don't see as many movies based on these old shows. Not even the success of 21 Jump Street is causing a noticeable increase.

 

It took a decade, but Hollywood got the message that these films weren't profitable and they stopped making quite so many of them.

 

 

 

Mad Max, Star Trek, True Grit, and Ocean's 11 are all remakes of classics that are made relevant to today's audiences

 

Mad Max isn't really a remake. Same director. Technically the same continuity (though the continuity of that franchise is pretty tenuous to begin with). They just re-cast Max. Though a large part of me wishes Mel Gibson were in there.

 

And True Grit and Ocean's 11 or more remakes done right. Ocean's 11 being an only moderately good movie best known for its stars. It was something that could be messed with. They took the shell of it and did their own thing. True Grit was made because the Cohen Bros. had their own vision for it. It wasn't made because a studio was looking to mix and match a property.

 

 

Please explain why you are so against remakes.

[Poe Dameron]

Please explain why you are so against remakes.

 

I'm not reflexively opposed to remakes. As discussed earlier, I think The Last Starfighter is a ripe franchise for updating. A lot of people see that idea, remember how fun, yet oh-so-dated the 80s movie was, and can see where that can be turned into something new. Really, any good idea that is either dated or wasn't executed well in the first place, or where a real artist picks up the old toy and sells it to the studio like the Coen Bros. did with True Grit or even Spielberg did with War of the Worlds, I'm okay with (even if the latter didn't work out all that well).

 

But some remakes are just clearly cash grabs of classic films. They obviously fail to understand what made the original great in the first place and hire someone to put out the product based on a simplistic idea like "all-girl Ghostbusters" or whatever. These I find rather offensive and not just a bad movie, but in bad taste.

 

Some stuff you just don't mess with. The studios are certainly a business, but they're also a legacy. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive either. See Disney.

[Pong Messiah]

Agreed.

 

Now: True Grit

 

Love it, and I did not even like the original. But did people who liked the original dislike the remake?

[Driver]

if every remake was approached the way Marvel movies essentially remake their comics, by respecting the source material, keeping what works, simplifying, and updating only where things need to be updated, they'd be far more successful. But that's not how many studios approach it. They just want the name to attract audience A, AND SOMETHING NEW AND FLASHY FOR AUDIENCE B, and GO!

[DANA-kin Skywalker]

"I love the original ghostbusters so much there's a possibility I'll see this one anyways, even though it's probably not going to be very good."

 

^ this all the marketing strategy that Sony figures it needs. It's predatory on fan loyalty, and from what I've seem it's totally disrespectful to the source material. Apparently, Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, And Annie Potts are in this movie, probably all as cheap cameo appearances, to make you go: "OOH look! The cab driver is actually...BILL MURRAY! Look he's in the movie!!" The ectopic-1 is a Hearst again, and the exact same firehouse is there, as well. Just to make you like the new movie by association. terrible.

[Iceheart]

It's sitting at 75% on Rotten Tomatoes currently.

[ShadowDog]

Wow. Maybe it's not as horrid as the trailers imply.

[Iceheart]

I read one review (io9's, maybe?) that said that the trailers don't even begin to try to represent the movie they're selling.

[ShadowDog]

Interesting. But still those painfully unfunny jokes exist in the movie though for them to be in the trailer. But maybe that's the lot of them.

[Driver]

I hope it's better than it looks so fandom can suck it.

[ShadowDog]

I hope the same so bigots can suck it.

 

But the trailers have been abysmal so a lot of the non misogynistic backlash has been warranted

[Iceheart]

Interesting. But still those painfully unfunny jokes exist in the movie though for them to be in the trailer. But maybe that's the lot of them.

It's also entirely possible that they're half of a joke made funnier in context.

[Metropolis]

Maybe it's a movie where none of the jokes are in the trailer. Seriously though I didn't think the trailers were that bad.

[Stevil]

The second trailer actually got me a little interested.

 

I'd like to see this but I doubt I would pay to go to the cinema to watch it.

[D-Ray Kenobi]

Last week I was on the fence about heading out to the theater to see this, but after seeing many positive reviews from people I respect, I'm all in.

I have no expectation whatsoever that it will come anywhere close to the original, but I think that's part of the point.