GhostBusters 2016 SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD

Nervous Wreck · 09-03-2015 11:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Russo Bros, Drew Pierce, Channing Tatum..... Or Paul Feig and Kristen Wiig... Ha!

Tony EH · 14-03-2015 4:26pm

Couldn't they just not have let 'Aliens', 'The Terminator' and 'Ghostbusters' die (semi) dignified deaths?

Tony EH · 14-03-2015 4:40pm

Dair76 wrote: »

The internet's hatred for Melissa McCarthy is a little bewildering to me; she has genuine comedic talent.

That lump of blubber is about a funny as Crocodile Dundee's bowie up the swiss.

S.M.B. · 15-03-2015 5:25pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Couldn't they just not have let 'Aliens', 'The Terminator' and 'Ghostbusters' die (semi) dignified deaths?

The first being a sequel already, the second having a great sequel and the third wasn't even left alone by it's original creators.

Tony EH · 15-03-2015 7:24pm

Yeh, the franchises are what I'm talking about.

Each of them having been churned until the inevitably bad entry turned up.

syklops · 15-03-2015 8:42pm

senordingdong wrote: »

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

I dont entirely disagree. Harold Raimis has passed on(RIP). The scenario I think works best is Venkman cashing in on the Ghostbusters name and recruiting three or four hot proteges in the hope of bagging one or more of them. Joey from Friends room mate want ad springs to mind:

Newspaper Classifieds Jobs Offered
Wanted: Apprentice Ghostbuster, no experience needed. For operational reasons candidates must be size 6 or below(sorry guys). An interest in the paranormal an advantage. Don't apply if you're afraid of the dark or are ugly.

Venkman recruiting young hot girls to ghostbust could work IMO. Its completely within his character. Its what we first saw him doing in Ghostbusters 1. As it happens he manages to hire 3 or 4 total babes who actually are interested in Paranormal defence and see completely through his motivations. A cameo with Dan Akroyd where at least one of the proteges make a pass at him would maybe add a comedic element to it.

Thats the only scenario I see working.

JP Liz V1 · 11-06-2015 9:59pm

Chris Hemsworth joins Source

senordingdong · 11-06-2015 10:10pm

So the male ghost busters are replaced with females, and the female receptionist is replaced with a male...

I was what they did there.

Chip Whitley · 22-06-2015 2:34pm

First photos from set have been revealed:

McCarthy has what seems to be a trap under her arm!

19-ghostbusters-mccarthy-mckinnon.nocrop.w529.h682.2x.jpg

http://www.vulture.com/2015/06/ghostbusters-photos-kristen-wiig-melissa-mccarthy.html

and a reported storyline:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/female-ghostbusters-plot

I'm the only person I know looking forward to this. I ❤ Kate McKinnon.

Edit: Apologies if pic is massive.

KungPao · 22-06-2015 2:48pm

No Rick Moranis? This movie is dead to me!

syklops · 24-06-2015 11:38am

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 · 24-06-2015 1:49pm

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 · 24-06-2015 2:54pm

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 · 24-06-2015 3:06pm

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 · 24-06-2015 4:49pm

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 · 24-06-2015 6:59pm

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 · 24-06-2015 11:43pm

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. · 25-06-2015 12:40am

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 · 25-06-2015 2:49am

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 · 25-06-2015 8:26am

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 · 25-06-2015 9:26am

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

Tony EH · 25-06-2015 10:34am

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. · 25-06-2015 7:28pm

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 · 25-06-2015 7:32pm

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 · 25-06-2015 9:15pm

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. · 25-06-2015 11:47pm

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 · 26-06-2015 11:40am

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 · 30-06-2015 12:21pm

First look at the new suits:

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

pixelburp · 30-06-2015 6:24pm

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 · 07-07-2015 9:05pm

SNL writer Neil Casey will play the villain
Source

Chip Whitley · 08-07-2015 10:54am

Here's the new car:
ecto-1-20151.jpg?w=630&h=420

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 · 08-07-2015 2:14pm

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 · 08-07-2015 2:57pm

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 · 08-07-2015 3:05pm

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 · 08-07-2015 5:00pm

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 · 08-07-2015 5:01pm

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

syklops · 08-07-2015 6:45pm

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.

10-07-2015 12:08pm

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 · 10-07-2015 3:34pm

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 · 10-07-2015 9:18pm

11402985_10154118375511164_8751404545076473234_n.jpg?oh=200278ab3b531aee24f510a9fddf569f&oe=56223652

Count me out on this one.

Oafley Jones · 10-07-2015 10:12pm

Bacchus wrote: »

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.

Just a nod to the animated series I'd guess, nothing more. The pics so far make me appreciate the production design of the original all the more. There's an ugliness to this that I dislike. I wish they went their own way on this.

Tony EH · 10-07-2015 10:53pm

Gintonious wrote: »

Count me out on this one.

Just looks like a box ticking exercise doesn't it.

JP Liz V1 · 10-07-2015 11:59pm

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

Looks like a SNL skit

Frank Bullitt · 11-07-2015 12:10am

"Who ya gonna call?"

None of this shower!

pixelburp · 11-07-2015 5:53pm

I dunno, they look ok to me, I really can't get too steamed about this until I see something resembling footage proving / disproving this was all a terrible idea.

What can we possibly tell other than the production design has done a good job so far nodding towards the original designs? I can't help but suspect though that the stream of social media coming from Feig n' co is an attempt to get the hordes onboard after the ludicrous overreaction about not only new Ghostbusters, but (gasp) female ones!

Mickeroo · 11-07-2015 7:12pm

I've really not seen anything from this that has given me any reason to write it off yet, looks very much like it's in the same spirit as the original and it has a director that's made a few decent comedy movies over the last few years.

expectationlost · 11-07-2015 9:53pm

not liking the orange striping

Oafley Jones · 11-07-2015 10:10pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, they look ok to me, I really can't get too steamed about this until I see something resembling footage proving / disproving this was all a terrible idea.

What can we possibly tell other than the production design has done a good job so far nodding towards the original designs? I can't help but suspect though that the stream of social media coming from Feig n' co is an attempt to get the hordes onboard after the ludicrous overreaction about not only new Ghostbusters, but (gasp) female ones!

Era, **** em.

The original is one of my favourite movies and what I'd regard as a near perfect film, but am I going to get upset of this? Not a chance. It's just the nature of Hollywood; recycle anything that's been successful. It's so much easier than originality. At least it's been 30 years here.

There's a chance it might even be good. Sure, Feig is a journeyman film maker, but it does have Wiig. Who has received my nod for the coveted award of "Female Paul Rudd". But I do hate this pandering.... "Look how much reverence we're showing to the original with these designs".

Someone else, on some other site, said they were a bit "try hard" and I'd agree. Take the car, it's a 1984 model don't 'cha know. There's that ugliness to the aesthetic that I think just misses the mark. The original Ecto was a wreck that was made to look cool, here they've a wreck that's made to look retro. That big orange light on top. Hate it. It's 2015, where did they even find that. Dare I say there's a hipster aesthetic at play here.

Mickeroo · 12-07-2015 12:04am

Just in the door from Spy and it was actually much better than I expected, if this ends up being half as clever and enjoyable I'll be delighted.

JP Liz V1 · 09-08-2015 9:48pm

Bill Murray In

GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Comments

GhostBusters 2016 SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD