GhostBusters 2016 SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD

Bacchus · 10-10-2014 11:57pm

Brendão wrote: »

Didn't know it was being called a reboot, that's not a good idea. The same universe where Ghostbusters are needed again would make far more sense and allows for cameos from the old crew.

None of it makes sense. It's a cash-in with a gender switch gimmick.

senordingdong · 13-10-2014 4:00pm

Bacchus wrote: »

None of it makes sense. It's a cash-in with a gender switch gimmick.

When you say it like that, it makes perfect sense.

humanji · 14-10-2014 9:13am

Apparently Gillian Anderson did a Reddit AMA and when someone asked her if she'd have any interest in the Ghostbuster reboot she said "OH MY GOD, I just looked it up online. Paul Feig, cast me now! Start a Twitter petition! I'm free!!!!! I'm free I'm free and I'm funny, goddamnit!", which actually got me thinking that if they did go for a good cast for each role instead of shoehorning Melissa McCarthy into any role and having her play the same character she always plays, then it does stand a chance of becoming a good film.

I quite like the idea of Anderson in this. She can play Scully after she was fired from the FBI and needed work.

FunLover18 · 15-10-2014 12:49am

humanji wrote: »

Apparently Gillian Anderson did a Reddit AMA and when someone asked her if she'd have any interest in the Ghostbuster reboot she said "OH MY GOD, I just looked it up online. Paul Feig, cast me now! Start a Twitter petition! I'm free!!!!! I'm free I'm free and I'm funny, goddamnit!", which actually got me thinking that if they did go for a good cast for each role instead of shoehorning Melissa McCarthy into any role and having her play the same character she always plays, then it does stand a chance of becoming a good film.

I quite like the idea of Anderson in this. She can play Scully after she was fired from the FBI and needed work.

I think this is definitely a problem, that everyone expects this to be some sort of combination of McCarthy, Wiig, Poehler, Fey as they as perceived as the "funny women" however if they were to do a male cast there is a perceived wider variety of talent, Rudd, Hader, Hill, Rogen, Segal, Franco, McBride, Stiller, Vaughan, Ferrel, Carrel, and that's just the usual suspects. If they were really serious about proving that women can carry a Ghostbusters film then they really should open it up beyond the usuals such as the list that JP Liz V1 posted earlier. Gillian Anderson is a very talented actress who can do comedy and she's not the only one.

Bacchus · 15-10-2014 9:39am

Thing about it too is, if you're trying to follow the original Ghostbusters formula, not all the characters were zanny & funny. Only Bankman was a 'funny' character. The rest were straight up characters with nerdy attributes. Mild mannered nerds, Egon and Ray becoming the heroes fighting ghosts was what gave them their oddball comedy. Winston wasn't even that, he was just a regular guy looking for a job, not a typical comedy character. If anything Ghostbusters is a subtle dark comedy, not slapstick. The likes of McCarthy making fart/fat jokes or Poehler/Wiig/Fey doing their awkward, clumsy, everyday girl impression, just doesn't fit in Ghostbusters unless you're going for "Ghostbusters: Bridesmaids"

CPSW · 17-12-2014 10:19am

News from the Sony leak that Channing Tatum suggesting to execs that he wants to star in the new movie, along with Chris Pratt?

As much as I think the franchise should be left alone, would rather watch this than the whole all female cast idea!

Bacchus · 17-12-2014 11:27am

Was reading the leaks about the Ghostbuster movie too. Sounds like a disaster from the off. It's a reboot but execs trading emails emphasising that they want to tie it to the original so they can use its "assets"... WTF is an "asset" and why is it in a discussion about bringing a movie to life! Seeing the leaks, the whole thing has even more of a soulless cash-in reboot.

And then there is this little nugget...

I've spoilered it but to summarize.... "Night at the Museum" with ghosts and 4 funny women!

In the email, Feig explains the film is a reboot, not a sequel — humans aren't afraid of no ghosts, he says, because they haven't met them yet. He says his film will be "scarier and more hi-tech" than the original Ghostbusters: The villain will be a convicted murderer, ideally played by Peter Dinklage, who turns into a ghost after his execution is hit by "a supercharged electrical storm." This gives him the power to raise an army of other ghosts, which could be made up of famous villains throughout history. It's like Night at the Museum! These ghosts will in turn have to be busted by "four very different women" who have to "figure out in funny, scary and action-packed ways how to save New York City and the world."

Sounds horrendous.

pixelburp · 17-12-2014 11:54am

tbh I've found the Sony leaks nearly too vast in scope to keep track of, so this is the first I've read about any relating to Ghostbusters. That plot sounds horrendous. Pretty abominable really and as mentioned channeling a 'Night at the Museum' vibe. Equally depressing that a unique concept such as Ghostbusters, whose success was as much for the quieter character moments as it was the big FX shots, is reduced to a formulaic, 'big' movie. Gotta have the set-pieces of course, gotta have the big showdown. Remember when third acts didn't automatically require a climatic CGI battle? Well get out of the line grandad, those 18-25s can't get enough of those unconvincing, needless CGI battles.

JohnFalstaff · 17-12-2014 12:04pm

Bacchus wrote: »

Was reading the leaks about the Ghostbuster movie too. Sounds like a disaster from the off. It's a reboot but execs trading emails emphasising that they want to tie it to the original so they can use its "assets"... WTF is an "asset" and why is it in a discussion about bringing a movie to life! Seeing the leaks, the whole thing has even more of a soulless cash-in reboot.

And then there is this little nugget...

I've spoilered it but to summarize.... "Night at the Museum" with ghosts and 4 funny women!
In the email, Feig explains the film is a reboot, not a sequel — humans aren't afraid of no ghosts, he says, because they haven't met them yet. He says his film will be "scarier and more hi-tech" than the original Ghostbusters: The villain will be a convicted murderer, ideally played by Peter Dinklage, who turns into a ghost after his execution is hit by "a supercharged electrical storm." This gives him the power to raise an army of other ghosts, which could be made up of famous villains throughout history. It's like Night at the Museum! These ghosts will in turn have to be busted by "four very different women" who have to "figure out in funny, scary and action-packed ways how to save New York City and the world."

Sounds horrendous.

I like the Peter Dinklage casting! (the rest not so much)

nyarlothothep · 17-12-2014 2:48pm

Bacchus wrote: »

Was reading the leaks about the Ghostbuster movie too. Sounds like a disaster from the off. It's a reboot but execs trading emails emphasising that they want to tie it to the original so they can use its "assets"... WTF is an "asset" and why is it in a discussion about bringing a movie to life! Seeing the leaks, the whole thing has even more of a soulless cash-in reboot.

And then there is this little nugget...

I've spoilered it but to summarize.... "Night at the Museum" with ghosts and 4 funny women!
In the email, Feig explains the film is a reboot, not a sequel — humans aren't afraid of no ghosts, he says, because they haven't met them yet. He says his film will be "scarier and more hi-tech" than the original Ghostbusters: The villain will be a convicted murderer, ideally played by Peter Dinklage, who turns into a ghost after his execution is hit by "a supercharged electrical storm." This gives him the power to raise an army of other ghosts, which could be made up of famous villains throughout history. It's like Night at the Museum! These ghosts will in turn have to be busted by "four very different women" who have to "figure out in funny, scary and action-packed ways how to save New York City and the world."

Sounds horrendous.

Everything awesome about the first film is being thrown out the window. The genius of the first film was in part it's Lovecraftian influence, it was very grand, esoteric, epic and most importantly, imaginative. This is just...a reflection of how far things have fallen.

Loughc · 17-12-2014 3:01pm

After reading that leaked e-mail all that is left to say is.....

Ow... my childhood....

syklops · 18-12-2014 5:19pm

Loughc wrote: »

After reading that leaked e-mail all that is left to say is.....

Ow... my childhood....

It wont affect my childhood one bit. But I won't be going to see this if thats the way the are going. With a sequel, I have a vested interest in it. As a reboot, my loyalty goes out the window. Same way the various recent incarnations of the turtles havn't affected me, though I did fall asleep during the latest one.

In someways I would prefer a reboot. It means the original pair of movies are left untouched.

Bipolar Joe · 18-12-2014 11:24pm

To be honest, I can't think of who I would like to be cast in GBIII. The four women being mentioned I really don't think are funny (Fey and McCarthy in particular). Most comic actors that are bankable now I generally can't stand. If I had my way, I guess I'd put Roddy Piper, Steve Buscemi and Sam Rockwell in everything. Maybe Lawrence Gilliard Jr.? I dunno. The whole thing stinks, either way.

Birneybau · 27-01-2015 10:20pm

Official cast announced, big pile of meh.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/27/new-ghostbusters-stars-revealed-kristin-wiig-melissa-mccarthy-among-all-female-cast/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/new-all-female-ghostbusters-cast-767610

Melissa McCarthy, who was already in talks for one of the leads, has signed on for the Paul Feig-directed reboot, and the studio is now negotiating with Kristen Wiig, as well as Saturday Night Live players Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon, The Hollywood Reporter has learned. Negotiations are ongoing but the quartet are expected to sign on as the specter-seeking, poltergeist-punishing and phantom-phollowing foursome in the reboot, which is eyeing a summer shoot in New York.

brianregan09 · 27-01-2015 10:25pm

And im out

pixelburp · 27-01-2015 10:54pm

Paul Feig. Errrgh. Feck it, I'll keep an open mind with the project - you never know - but I find the choice of director depressing; when it comes to Hollywood comedies, it feels like there are few out there with any real talent or invention; everything seems so ... point and shoot now, like the one genre where cinematography is simply an afterthought, rather than another tool to tell gags. And going by his previous work, there are few directors less visually interesting than Paul Feig.

brevity · 27-01-2015 10:56pm

That sounds awful. Absolutely awful.

saintsaltynuts · 27-01-2015 11:01pm

No.. just fookin no.

Zardoz · 27-01-2015 11:56pm

brevity wrote: »

That sounds awful. Absolutely awful.

Its like a nightmare.

If you came up with the idea of a female ghostbusters team 10 years ago you'd be locked up in a strait jacket and the key thrown away.

What next ,a remake of the 3 Musketeers with dogs in the lead roles

Birneybau · 28-01-2015 12:27am

Zardoz wrote: »

Its like a nightmare.

If you came up with the idea of a female ghostbusters team 10 years ago you'd be locked up in a strait jacket and the key thrown away.

What next ,a remake of the 3 Musketeers with dogs in the lead roles

Why dogs?

Zardoz · 28-01-2015 12:35am

Birneybau wrote: »

Why dogs?

Its the next logical step surely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR9J2ITspyU

Adamantium · 28-01-2015 12:52am

Sandra Bullock, Emma Stone, Linda Cardellini, Lizzy Caplan. You like them, don't you? Sounds good doesn't it?

Well here's Mellissa McCarthy!!!

Duggy747 · 28-01-2015 12:52am

That's all I've got to say about this whole project.

Dair76 · 28-01-2015 4:20am

The internet's hatred for Melissa McCarthy is a little bewildering to me; she has genuine comedic talent. And Wiig is peerless. Anyway, I'll give this a chance on what we know so far.

DoYouEvenLift · 28-01-2015 4:35am

Dair76 wrote: »

The internet's hatred for Melissa McCarthy is a little bewildering to me; she has genuine comedic talent. And Wiig is peerless. Anyway, I'll give this a chance on what we know so far.

No, she doesn't.

Dair76 · 28-01-2015 4:40am

Yes, she does... etc etc.

Corholio · 28-01-2015 4:43am

Dair76 wrote: »

The internet's hatred for Melissa McCarthy is a little bewildering to me; she has genuine comedic talent. And Wiig is peerless. Anyway, I'll give this a chance on what we know so far.

Big girl with attitude who gets into 'scrapes' and is overly sexual. Rinse and repeat.

DoYouEvenLift · 28-01-2015 4:50am

People with genuine comedic talent don't overact and force their lines in movies that are meant to be funny. Somehow, even if I think she's right in the middle of saying something I think definitely has potential to be funny, she manages to make the joke go on too long and ending up ruining the delivery which just ruins the whole thing.

Julia Louis‑Dreyfus - genuine comedic talent
Sandra Bullock - genuine, completely natural comedic talent
Anna Farris - genuine comedic talent
Melissa McCar- don't even finish her name, I already want to kill myself

Dair76 · 28-01-2015 5:02am

I disagree, but meh, whatever. No biggie.

faceman · 28-01-2015 7:28am

Well from the comedy perspective, it's has the same level of SNL influence that the original had, and this cast is generational. It's too early to write it off.

GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Comments

GhostBusters 2016 SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD