GhostBusters 2016 SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD

faceman · 28-01-2015 7:35am

Ooh hot off the press!

Bill Murray may play the movie's equivalent of Walter Peck!

Release date July 22nd 2016.

Tom.D.BJJ · 28-01-2015 8:53am

Is it April 1st? This complete and utter **** lineup can't be real.

Bacchus · 28-01-2015 9:45am

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.

She does do a good fart/poop joke alright. Oh, she's also great at fat jokes and using the fact that she is fat to make fart and inappropriate sex jokes. Bill Murray has nothing on her. Nothing!

doubledown · 28-01-2015 9:55am

"Are you, Alice, menstruating right now? Because I am!"

Tipsy McSwagger · 28-01-2015 10:02am

I just don't want to see another Ghostbusters film to be honest.

CPSW · 28-01-2015 11:23am

Sounds just awful. Had always hoped I'd see another Ghostbusters movie on the big screen with modern day special effects, even if the original lads were getting on in years. Suppose that came to an end when Ramis passed, but was still hopefully the other three would make it and pass the torch to a younger team.

But this re-boot sounds like absolute rubbish!! Legacy ruined!

Liam O · 28-01-2015 1:09pm

A lot of the humour in Ghostbusters was understated and sarcastic. I can't wait to hear every joke have some descripter from McCarthy, who I think has only been rubbish due to terrible film choice more than a lack of talent but I can't see her being written any different here.

CPSW · 28-01-2015 1:11pm

Liam O wrote: »

A lot of the humour in Ghostbusters was understated and sarcastic. I can't wait to hear every joke have some descripter from McCarthy, who I think has only been rubbish due to terrible film choice more than a lack of talent but I can't see her being written any different here.

True, basically its going to be a load of poop/fart and fat jokes

28-01-2015 1:13pm

Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy,Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon

Can we lock this thread out of the sheer disrespect for the original Movie.

Adamantium · 28-01-2015 1:34pm

If you want to see a Ghostbusters 3, you can play the surprisingly excellent game for the PS3/360. It should be about 5 euro these days

Chip Whitley · 28-01-2015 2:54pm

I'm going to hold fire until I see at least a trailer. As a fan and regular viewer of SNL I am delighted Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are getting a shot. Took me a while to warm to Jones, but Kate McKinnon is bloody hilarious in everything she does. She'll be a breakout star after this in the way McCarthy was after Bridesmaids. Would love to have seen Amy Poehler involved somewhere but what harm.

Ghostbusters was a comedy/sci-fi starring two SNL alum, a comedy writer and a virtual nobody but it carved out a legacy. This reboot has to be judged by a different standard. It might not be as clever or original, but hopefully it'll be different enough to stand on its own. I say that as a massive fan of the original and someone who never thought another needed to be made.

Mickeroo · 28-01-2015 3:16pm

I don't see the big deal, making them female is a good way to put a different spin on it.

Bacchus · 28-01-2015 3:26pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't see the big deal, making them female is a good way to put a different spin on it.

It's also an incredibly lazy attempt at making it look "original". Add to that the leaked ideas of having Peter Dinklage raise an army of ghosts comprised of famous people throughout history and the whole thing looks like a watered down, lazy attempt at cashing in on a movie title.

DoYouEvenLift · 28-01-2015 4:27pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't see the big deal, making them female is a good way to put a different spin on it.

I don't think anyone ITT has cared about it being made a female cast, it's the casting choices that are sh!t and the big deal, there are plenty of better comedic actresses to choose from

ricero · 28-01-2015 5:45pm

The fact its an all woman line up has me out already. Hard enough to find one funny woman but four is asking to much.

Jesus its that bad i would even rather James Franco, Seth rogan , danny McBride and craig robinson.

DoYouEvenLift · 28-01-2015 6:00pm

ricero wrote: »

The fact its an all woman line up has me out already. Hard enough to find one funny woman but four is asking to much.

Jesus its that bad i would even rather James Franco, Seth rogan , danny McBride and craig robinson.

Hey man! Don't hate on Kenny fukin' Powers!

senordingdong · 28-01-2015 6:07pm

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.

Are you female by any chance?

ricero · 28-01-2015 6:17pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Hey man! Don't hate on Kenny fukin' Powers!

I love Kenny powers and Craig Robinson just thought I throw their names in there as they usually are seen with rogan and Franco

DoYouEvenLift · 28-01-2015 6:32pm

ricero wrote: »

I love Kenny powers and Craig Robinson just thought I throw their names in there as they usually are seen with rogan and Franco

Haha yeah, seems so. I think they'd both be better off trying to stick closer to Will Ferrell, if you haven't already you should watch the outtakes from eastbound with the three of them

Ridley · 28-01-2015 7:02pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I don't think anyone ITT has cared about it being made a female cast, it's the casting choices that are sh!t and the big deal, there are plenty of better comedic actresses to choose from

Shame your post is sandwiched between two that do care about the movie having all female leads.

faceman · 28-01-2015 7:59pm

ricero wrote: »

The fact its an all woman line up has me out already. Hard enough to find one funny woman but four is asking to much.

Jesus its that bad i would even rather James Franco, Seth rogan , danny McBride and craig robinson.

Please do share with us why the lack of a penis means you're not funny?

youreadthat · 28-01-2015 8:01pm

I don't know about the other two but Wiig and McCarthy are bleak.

Bacchus · 28-01-2015 9:08pm

Ridley wrote: »

Shame your post is sandwiched between two that do care about the movie having all female leads.

Well I agree with DoYouEvenLift. The point I made in my post before him was that switching the gender of the Ghostbusters was one of a few things about the production that has it reeking of going for the laziest way possible to be "original". I wouldn't care much if it was 4 women if the casting choices were better and if there was something to be said about the movie that didn't look like it was a decision made by a marketing/PR guy.

It's really early days yet on this so a lot can change but the early signs have this looking like it's a lowest common denominator comedy featuring ghosts.

EDIT: Regarding the casting, I do admit I know nothing of Jones or McKinnon other than that they are on SNL - which when put alongside Wiig and McCarty biases my expectation of what they will be like. Where's the Egon or Winston of the group. Jones does not equal Winston just cause she's black.

Frank O. Pinion · 28-01-2015 11:09pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't see the big deal, making them female is a good way to put a different spin on it.

So would animated talking dogs. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

faceman wrote:

Please do share with us why the lack of a penis means you're not funny?

Obviously, the funny bone is located in the penis. Also, decades of comedy history proving the ratio of funny men to funny women being unmeasurable?

faceman · 28-01-2015 11:31pm

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Obviously, the funny bone is located in the penis. Also, decades of comedy history proving the ratio of funny men to funny women being unmeasurable?

Lets hear your ratios and stats on it so. Otherwise its just a sexist comment.

Bacchus wrote: »

Well I agree with DoYouEvenLift. The point I made in my post before him was that switching the gender of the Ghostbusters was one of a few things about the production that has it reeking of going for the laziest way possible to be "original". I wouldn't care much if it was 4 women if the casting choices were better and if there was something to be said about the movie that didn't look like it was a decision made by a marketing/PR guy.

Not as lazy as rebooting a coveting classic. Lazy would be bringing the original cast back to play it safe.

Remember our beloved Bill Murray became more keen on the movie when he heard it was being rebooted with an all female cast.

Bacchus wrote:

EDIT: Regarding the casting, I do admit I know nothing of Jones or McKinnon other than that they are on SNL - which when put alongside Wiig and McCarty biases my expectation of what they will be like. Where's the Egon or Winston of the group. Jones does not equal Winston just cause she's black.

This is my frustration with all discussion on the casting. Most people dont know anything about Jones or McKinnon yet are writing off the movie because of its all female cast.

I still fail to see why gender has anything to do with this. Comedians can be unfunny, scripts can be poor and directors can be uninspiring. Gender has no influence on any of that though.

DoYouEvenLift · 28-01-2015 11:54pm

Just to clarify, I'm not one of the seemingly many ("most people") you're saying are making it about the gender. I am, though, one of the people whose negativity is purely towards McCarthy and her not being funny.

Dair76 · 29-01-2015 12:21am

senordingdong wrote: »

Are you female by any chance?

No, I'm not.

JP Liz V1 · 29-01-2015 12:34am

I don't mind an all female cast it is just the actresses cast so far I have issue with and I like McCarthy have done since Gilmore Girls but now she plays the same role in every film

Feig could have thinked outside the box (or outside SNL) and gone for a better variety of actresses, if wanted some from Bridesmaids, Rose Byrne or Ellie Kemper would have been better, I would have liked to see someone like Lizzy Caplan, Emma Stone, Mindy Kaling, Aubrey Plaza, Allison Tolman or Anna Faris cast

Liam O · 29-01-2015 4:07am

The ratio of funny men to funny women is probably similar, there are a whole lot more men in comedy, like literally 20-30 times probably so an unfunny woman will seem like a lot more of a representation than the multitude of unfunny men.

I liked McCarthy before the Bridesmaid thing. She was funny in an understated way and I guess I can't blame her for cashing in. Wiig is ok as a side character I think. I presume the 2 SNL women are ok but I'm not a fan of many SNL people these days and think it's only a few of even the men who have been any use in the last few years, pretty low quality once you lose your Haders, Meyers and Sambergs.

Anyway I'm getting off topic. If handled right it could be ok, the problem is there's no way that they are going to handle it right. People will hate it no matter how good it is because it's all women and that's just a fact but that said I'm yet to see a similar project that's gotten a laugh from me so why would I have any different hopes for this? McCarthy has been written horribly for years now and Wiig hasn't carried a project of this magnitude ever. No matter how good the other 2 are the film will hinge on these 2 and I don't think they're up to it.

I see even in a group of women they keep the token black character too. :rolleyes: I doubt that will be referenced at all though. Are they going to make their receptionist be a man now in a typically new Hollywood role reversal and instead of having a strong female character like Weaver the main character's love interest will be an idiot. I wonder which of them will be the token lesbian too.

Adamantium · 29-01-2015 5:15am

I wanted Bill Burr teaming up with Bill Murray. Just the thought of the easily frustrated and sardonic Bill Burr cursing and cussing trying to figure out how to work a Proton pack is making me smile. What about Jim Gaffigan? He'd be great too.

Well the dream is over anyway!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8DG01q73Nw

Pierce_1991 · 29-01-2015 6:00am

Delighted to see Kate McKinnon getting a chance to star in a big movie like this. She is absolutely hilarious and I'm sure she'll be great, I fear though she may be the only positive. I like Kristen Wiig but she pretty much plays the same role every time. Don't know Jones too well so can't say anything. McCarthy will do her usually thing that some people seem to find funny. I actually enjoyed her in Bridesmaids but she does my head in now. It's basically 'I'm fat, you laugh now!'

crybaby · 29-01-2015 9:31am

This looks cringeworthy especially now that McCarthy is involved, apparently fat + obnoxious character = comedy gold

Bacchus · 29-01-2015 9:40am

faceman wrote: »

Not as lazy as rebooting a coveting classic. Lazy would be bringing the original cast back to play it safe.

Having the original cast would have lended a bit of credibility but then you just have to point to the Terminator sequels to sh*t on that theory.

Switching the gender seems to the focal point of everything about this production so far. It just comes off as a really lazy way of making this reboot fresh and original by saying "hey! It's Ghostbusters but this time they're women". It's not a major issue by itself but then the leaked idea for the story came out and it was clear the direction they were taking this. The casting of McCarty and Wiig further hammered that nail in.

faceman wrote: »

Remember our beloved Bill Murray became more keen on the movie when he heard it was being rebooted with an all female cast.

Is "keen" the right word? I thought there are only rumours now that he might be playing a minor role, no comment from the man himself.

faceman wrote: »

This is my frustration with all discussion on the casting. Most people dont know anything about Jones or McKinnon yet are writing off the movie because of its all female cast.

Again, just to reiterate, it's a combo of the selection of McCarthy, Wiig and the leaked emails about the plot that have me turned right off this. Jones and McKinnon are merely "guilty" by association.

faceman wrote: »

I still fail to see why gender has anything to do with this. Comedians can be unfunny, scripts can be poor and directors can be uninspiring. Gender has no influence on any of that though.

It's not just gender though, as I hope I've made clear by now. Gender may not be a huge indicator of the direction they are taking this movie in but McCarthy and Wiig are (and the leaked emails).

Frank O. Pinion · 29-01-2015 9:58am

faceman wrote: »

Lets hear your ratios and stats on it so. Otherwise its just a sexist comment.

I said the ratios were unmeasurable! And I never even mentioned stats! I didn't make the comment you find sexist, but for example:

"All women are unfunny", is a sexist comment.

"I find most women unfunny, and find men to be much more funny, in my opinion", is not a sexist comment.

Comedy is very subjective. My stance is, I believe women can be funny, but most aren't. The "funniest" women are nowhere near as funny as the "funniest" men. That's not a sexist comment, that's a subjective opinion on comedic taste. If Melissa McCarthy tickles your funny bone, cool, I'm more a Louis C.K. guy.

pixelburp · 29-01-2015 10:33am

The gender of the cast is pretty immaterial to me, and like a lot of others I have never even heard of McKinnon and Jones: it's hard to get too steamed over people I'd never heard of until this announcement. Female comedians you say? Fair enough, they might be the funniest thing since sliced bread with a clown nose, but their gender means diddly-squat: 90% of 'funny' men are just annoying to me, particularly the more popular ones, and some my favourite comedians growing up were women (Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, Sandy Toksvig, Victoria Wood. Heck I maintain a soft spot for Miranda Harte).

I think SNL is utter garbage and can never understand how it continues to dominate the comedy landscape in American TV, but that's for another thread. It still produces graduates who go on to do better things, but equally the output can be fairly embarrassing (take a bow McGruber) Melissa McCarthy is comedic low-hanging fruit and it's difficult to imagine her character will stray too far from her previous characters - to me she's the modern-day / female Adam Sandler. But Sandler has shown himself capable of better things, so perhaps the same can be said of McCarthy.

The choice of director / writer is what bothers me: Paul Feig is a talentless hack who has almost zero creativity or brio in his bones. His scripts are bland and his direction equally so: in that respect I fear Ghostbusters 3 will be nothing more than a sequence of his tropes, punctuated by some overzealous CGI set-pieces to compensate for a flat script. We shall see.

Chip Whitley · 29-01-2015 11:04am

Liam O wrote: »

I see even in a group of women they keep the token black character too. :rolleyes: I doubt that will be referenced at all though. Are they going to make their receptionist be a man now in a typically new Hollywood role reversal and instead of having a strong female character like Weaver the main character's love interest will be an idiot. I wonder which of them will be the token lesbian too.

Kate McKinnon is a lesbian irl. Would be surprised if they made her character a lesbian just for the sake of it though.

Mickeroo · 29-01-2015 11:11am

pixelburp wrote: »

The gender of the cast is pretty immaterial to me, and like a lot of others I have never even heard of McKinnon and Jones: it's hard to get too steamed over people I'd never heard of until this announcement. Female comedians you say? Fair enough, they might be the funniest thing since sliced bread with a clown nose, but their gender means diddly-squat: 90% of 'funny' men are just annoying to me, particularly the more popular ones, and some my favourite comedians growing up were women (Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, Sandy Toksvig, Victoria Wood. Heck I maintain a soft spot for Miranda Harte).

I think SNL is utter garbage and can never understand how it continues to dominate the comedy landscape in American TV, but that's for another thread. It still produces graduates who go on to do better things, but equally the output can be fairly embarrassing (take a bow McGruber) Melissa McCarthy is comedic low-hanging fruit and it's difficult to imagine her character will stray too far from her previous characters - to me she's the modern-day / female Adam Sandler. But Sandler has shown himself capable of better things, so perhaps the same can be said of McCarthy.

The choice of director / writer is what bothers me: Paul Feig is a talentless hack who has almost zero creativity or brio in his bones. His scripts are bland and his direction equally so: in that respect I fear Ghostbusters 3 will be nothing more than a sequence of his tropes, punctuated by some overzealous CGI set-pieces to compensate for a flat script. We shall see.

I was with you until you dissed McGruber

faceman · 29-01-2015 6:53pm

Bacchus wrote: »

Again, just to reiterate, it's a combo of the selection of McCarthy, Wiig and the leaked emails about the plot that have me turned right off this. Jones and McKinnon are merely "guilty" by association.

What do you mean by guilty of association? Lets say the original cast came back and Paul Feig is directing. He has an awful track record as a writer/director. Would Bill Murray be guilty by association?

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I said the ratios were unmeasurable! And I never even mentioned stats! I didn't make the comment you find sexist, but for example:

"All women are unfunny", is a sexist comment.

"I find most women unfunny, and find men to be much more funny, in my opinion", is not a sexist comment.

Comedy is very subjective. My stance is, I believe women can be funny, but most aren't. The "funniest" women are nowhere near as funny as the "funniest" men. That's not a sexist comment, that's a subjective opinion on comedic taste. If Melissa McCarthy tickles your funny bone, cool, I'm more a Louis C.K. guy.

Its sexist. You're segregating quality in comedy based on gender!

Bacchus · 29-01-2015 7:49pm

faceman wrote: »

What do you mean by guilty of association? Lets say the original cast came back and Paul Feig is directing. He has an awful track record as a writer/director. Would Bill Murray be guilty by association?

I only mean that in the absence of first hand knowledge of the two, they are a blank slate to me. Given the things I do know about the production though the blanks are filled in a bit by association. They may well be fine actors but everything else has the movie aiming for a certain tone and they are part of that.

Bill Murray does not fit that though, he's a known quantity. He would bring real quality to the production and is a staple of the Ghostbuster franchise. It's a pretty big hypothetical question though... the original cast didn't come back. Would Feig have gotten the directors chair if they had? It's quite possible that the reason the original cast turned down the opportunity of a sequel is due to not being behind what was being proposed for it.

candy-gal1 · 29-01-2015 10:31pm

Ah FFS, was looking forward to this so much when I heard thered be a 3rd, I mean Ill still go see it now and probably enjoy it Id say cos its Ghostbusters

but why couldnt they just have the original cast in it?! Itd be sooo much better imho, even if it turned out a flop, itd still be pretty decently watchable!

Obv not all the Ghostbusters could be in it ,

, but 3 out of 4 would not be bad at all, as well as Sig Weaver, and the other small yet unforgetable characters

Frank O. Pinion · 29-01-2015 11:04pm

faceman wrote: »

Its sexist. You're segregating quality in comedy based on gender!

No. No it is not sexist, and I'm "segregating quality in comedy based on gender", because the discussion is talking about funny or unfunny males and females in comedy! I don't do that when I watch a new comedy film/TV show/comedian or comedienne, I just judge it based on if I find it funny or not, as a whole.

Please, please, PLEASE explain to me, how not finding most women funny is sexist? I said, "I believe women can be funny", but the ones I've seen in my lifetime, going by MY subjective comedic taste, have not made ME laugh much. How, exactly, is that sexist?

It's like not being attracted to black people, does that make one a racist?

Anyways, to further comment on this film, I was thinking about it, why does this have to be "Ghostbusters 3"? How will it really be a sequel, besides trying to make money off the Ghostbusters name? If you want to make a female ghosthunter comedy, fine, but call it "GhostGals" or "Paranormal Pussy Power" or whatever, not Ghostbusters.

30-01-2015 12:07am

This movie has already flopped in my opinion and anyone that is interested in seeing this new one is not a true Ghostbusters fan. The Ghostbusters are and will always be Venkman, Stantz, Spengler and Zeddemore.

Director Feig is just using the Ghostbusters name to create another version of Bridemaids (with proton packs).
They should simply leave this franchise be rather than trying to cash in on the success of the old movies.

I can say for certain that they will not be getting my cash upon release.

faceman · 30-01-2015 3:02am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This movie has already flopped in my opinion and anyone that is interested in seeing this new one is not a true Ghostbusters fan. The Ghostbusters are and will always be Venkman, Stantz, Spengler and Zeddemore.

Director Feig is just using the Ghostbusters name to create another version of Bridemaids (with proton packs).
They should simply leave this franchise be rather than trying to cash in on the success of the old movies.

I can say for certain that they will not be getting my cash upon release.

*cough cough* Ghostbusters 2 was manure... *cough*

AngryHippie · 30-01-2015 3:36am

Deleted User wrote: »

is not a true Ghostbusters fan.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen.

so going to see a funny movie makes you a pretend "Ghosbusters fan"
or some kind of phony ?

Get a grip

#ghostbustersfanboy

senordingdong · 30-01-2015 9:26am

They could have atleast tried to soften the blow by including the original cast and have them pass the torch.

johnny_ultimate · 30-01-2015 10:25am

No True Scotsman Ghostbusters Fan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I

AnonoBoy · 30-01-2015 5:18pm

senordingdong wrote: »

They could have atleast tried to soften the blow by including the original cast and have them pass the torch.

That sounds like a cringey idea to me.

pixelburp wrote: »

Melissa McCarthy is comedic low-hanging fruit and it's difficult to imagine her character will stray too far from her previous characters - to me she's the modern-day / female Adam Sandler. But Sandler has shown himself capable of better things, so perhaps the same can be said of McCarthy.

She showed in St. Vincent that she has more range than her Bridesmaid type character.

Personally I never thought Ghostbusters 3 was a good idea no matter who's in it but I look forward to the internet losing its sh*t again when this comes out.

This tweet on it is hilarious though:
https://twitter.com/joeycomeau/status/560658851213901824

31-01-2015 12:11am

AngryHippie wrote: »

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen.

so going to see a funny movie makes you a pretend "Ghosbusters fan"
or some kind of phony ?

Get a grip

#ghostbustersfanboy

You are either a fan of Ghostbusters or you're not; how exactly does one be a "pretend fan"??

I am sorry to disappoint you but If you think this movie is gonna be good or in anyway funny you are only fooling yourself but whatever.

31-01-2015 12:42am

faceman wrote: »

*cough cough* Ghostbusters 2 was manure... *cough*

Agree, Ghostbusters 2 was not as good but I think this new movie is gonna be a hell of lot worse.

09-03-2015 11:33pm

Deadline are reporting that Sony are planning a male version of Ghostbutes with the Russo brothers possibly directing and with a script from Drew Pearce. Channing Tatum is down as a producer and I imagine that he will play a role onscreen too.

GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Comments

GhostBusters 2016 SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD