Being a Ghostbusters fan since childhood I don't expect this reboot to capture the magic that the first two films had in the 80's especially with the loss of Harold Ramis as leading director. I was already fine with Ghostbusters III being a video game exclusive instead of a film cause it actually continued from where the events of Ghostbusters II left off from. If this reboot does better than Michael Bay's Turtles then I might give it a chance but as of now I'm unsure at the moment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
America Bless Christ Jesus
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I think it sounds great. Bridesmaids was hilarious, and the Heat while not perfect was a pretty good action comedy.
So, let me start this out with I *love* ghostbusters. Literally, the best two movies ever made IMO. There's pretty much no way that this movie can live up to my hype, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
Sadly I'm headed in the opposite direction. Bridesmainds was fine for what it was, however I pretty much hate that entire genre (Yes, I hate male versions too). Raunch/crude humor is not my cup of tea. It's also something Ghostbusters *almost* managed to avoid (dream sequence in 1 where Ray dreams about getting a BJ from a ghost). If they keep the rating at pg-13 I'm in. If they boost it to R... I'm out, and will be very disappointed.
I'm willing to give it a shot, because Ghostbusters... but I approach it with trepidation.
I can't imagine them going for an R rating with a Ghostbusters movie. It would be a complete misreading of the franchise's appeal.
It's already a re-boot. Like I said, I'm onboard with it... for me its not a matter of winning me over, its a matter of not unwinning me It's probably more my disgust at Hollywoods recent trends in comdey showing through, not that ruanchy comdey is anything new... *thinking back to the obligatory strip club scene in every 80's comedy even if it made no sense*.
It makes me wonder how they are going to pull off a reboot that doesn't feel like a re-make knock off without tying it in *somehow* to the original.
Well, to be fair Ghostbusters 1 and 2 have fairly distinctive stories. I think it'd be pretty easy to tell and origin story of the Ghostbusters without retreading the plots of the first two filsm.
Well, to be fair Ghostbusters 1 and 2 have fairly distinctive stories. I think it'd be pretty easy to tell and origin story of the Ghostbusters without retreading the plots of the first two filsm.
I was more thinking along the lines of the whole what are the "ghostbusters" element. We'll see, they could pull it off. I don't know *how*, but then, there's a reason I'm a patent attorney not a script writer/director...
Well, to be fair Ghostbusters 1 and 2 have fairly distinctive stories. I think it'd be pretty easy to tell and origin story of the Ghostbusters without retreading the plots of the first two filsm.
I was more thinking along the lines of the whole what are the "ghostbusters" element. We'll see, they could pull it off. I don't know *how*, but then, there's a reason I'm a patent attorney not a script writer/director...
As a huge Ghostbusters fan, I think that's going to be a problem. It's going to be very difficult to do a reboot without it feeling like a re-tread. Worse, an all female cast risks it feeling like a *gimmicky* re-tread.
I'm going to remain open minded to the new installment of the Ghostbusters. I do have similar questions and concerns that have been voiced here, but I believe seeing the movie will answer everything. No matter what, I am seeing this in the theaters.
As someone who grew up with Ghostbusters, I have to say that I'm timid about this reboot; I'm ok with it as long as they treat it with respect, but I'm sketchy about it being a Hollywood reboot in general. I'm fine with it being an all female cast, but I'm not.... 100% sure I wanted this reboot in the first place.
I honestly wouldn't mind a retread as long as (Again) they treat it with respect; if they have the socially awkward head scientist, absolute player, and overly enthusiastic person as their main three, I'm A-Ok with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
As someone who grew up with Ghostbusters, I have to say that I'm timid about this reboot; I'm ok with it as long as they treat it with respect, but I'm sketchy about it being a Hollywood reboot in general. I'm fine with it being an all female cast, but I'm not.... 100% sure I wanted this reboot in the first place.
I honestly wouldn't mind a retread as long as (Again) they treat it with respect; if they have the socially awkward head scientist, absolute player, and overly enthusiastic person as their main three, I'm A-Ok with it.
I don't even know if I'm ok with that, for me in order to jsutify a reboot there needs to be something that was wrong with the first ones that needs fixing... In star trek, they needed a reboot in order to get rid of all the mountains of other cannon that was restricting their ability to tell stories (and then they squandered the reboot by retelling the same story in start trek II).
In ghostbusters... a film franchise with all of two movies? A sequel would be 100% functional. Hell, have them go bankrupt (again) and have this new group stumble on their reserach/equipment/something that makes it a continuation of the universe and not a resetting of the universe. The universe doesn't need to be reset, so why do it?
As someone who grew up with Ghostbusters, I have to say that I'm timid about this reboot; I'm ok with it as long as they treat it with respect, but I'm sketchy about it being a Hollywood reboot in general. I'm fine with it being an all female cast, but I'm not.... 100% sure I wanted this reboot in the first place.
I honestly wouldn't mind a retread as long as (Again) they treat it with respect; if they have the socially awkward head scientist, absolute player, and overly enthusiastic person as their main three, I'm A-Ok with it.
I don't even know if I'm ok with that, for me in order to jsutify a reboot there needs to be something that was wrong with the first ones that needs fixing... In star trek, they needed a reboot in order to get rid of all the mountains of other cannon that was restricting their ability to tell stories (and then they squandered the reboot by retelling the same story in start trek II).
In ghostbusters... a film franchise with all of two movies? A sequel would be 100% functional. Hell, have them go bankrupt (again) and have this new group stumble on their reserach/equipment/something that makes it a continuation of the universe and not a resetting of the universe. The universe doesn't need to be reset, so why do it?
The death of one of the main characters seems like a good reason to not make a sequel and go with a reboot.
As someone who grew up with Ghostbusters, I have to say that I'm timid about this reboot; I'm ok with it as long as they treat it with respect, but I'm sketchy about it being a Hollywood reboot in general. I'm fine with it being an all female cast, but I'm not.... 100% sure I wanted this reboot in the first place.
I honestly wouldn't mind a retread as long as (Again) they treat it with respect; if they have the socially awkward head scientist, absolute player, and overly enthusiastic person as their main three, I'm A-Ok with it.
I don't even know if I'm ok with that, for me in order to jsutify a reboot there needs to be something that was wrong with the first ones that needs fixing... In star trek, they needed a reboot in order to get rid of all the mountains of other cannon that was restricting their ability to tell stories (and then they squandered the reboot by retelling the same story in start trek II).
In ghostbusters... a film franchise with all of two movies? A sequel would be 100% functional. Hell, have them go bankrupt (again) and have this new group stumble on their reserach/equipment/something that makes it a continuation of the universe and not a resetting of the universe. The universe doesn't need to be reset, so why do it?
The death of one of the main characters seems like a good reason to not make a sequel and go with a reboot.
You could do a sequel with all new characters, or with minimal crossover. The project was always planned without Bill Murray's participation... To keep the star trek Analogy going, I don't see why it couldn't function similar to next gen - DS9.
I guess I jsut don't see the need to reset the whole universe. The building blocks are there, and there's nothing wrong with using htem.
May be they want to play this series as something different than the previous, may be less comical and more serious. It is probably to avoid tainting the original stories if it does not work out.
Ghostbusters 3 with a new group of youths with the veterans in the background could have been good. This will just be one of those flicks where Sandra Bullock stands around being hot and clueless and a fat actress waddles around, acting like a slob and generally insulting the audience and her own credibility. Women really must hate women. Then they fumble around for 95 minutes. Just cancel anything new that's Ghostbusters related; this'll be a joke. Rarely, so rarely, do race or sex swaps work.
That really only applies when Hollywood decides to be all "Hey, look at us we are being inclusive!" instead of writing believable parts. Remember, Murray, Ramis, and Akyroyd weren't exactly actors you could see in Ghostbusters' parts due to how serious the movie was compared to most of their other works.
If they have the women, as characters it will be pretty blah. If they have the characters, as women I don't see it going poorly at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
May be they want to play this series as something different than the previous, may be less comical and more serious. It is probably to avoid tainting the original stories if it does not work out.
If you want to avoid the tainting of the original series, you really need to pull the title, and jsut call it a spiritual successor to the ghostbusters.
The name being branded across it makes it indelibly linked to Ghostbusters.
Xena (to Hercules), Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, Joan Watson, the Magnificent Seven, the Man With No Name, Agent J, Morgan Freeman and Alanis Morissette as God, the Equalizer now... I could go on. And that's without getting into superhero comics where race and sex swaps have been as normal as breathing since the 1950s.
The real trick seems to be just to play it straight and not make a Big Deal out of it.
Xena (to Hercules), Kara "Starbuck" Thrace, Joan Watson, the Magnificent Seven, the Man With No Name, Agent J, Morgan Freeman and Alanis Morissette as God, the Equalizer now... I could go on. And that's without getting into superhero comics where race and sex swaps have been as normal as breathing since the 1950s.
The real trick seems to be just to play it straight and not make a Big Deal out of it.
To be certain, I could give a rats ass whether its women, men, or a combination of both (although I think a combination could present an intersting dynamic). For me it's the question of why are we rebooting a franchise that has only two films, with minimal (if any) continuity problems that would be presented by just making it a sequel.
What parts of 1 and 2 are bad, and need to be thrown away? If the answer is "none" then the question is why are we rebooting them?
Personally, I couldn't care if they used men or women for the primary roles.
My issues lie with the fact that it is a reboot. I find that fact absolutely deplorable, and just a continuation of the abject laziness and greed that permeates Hollywood. If they wanted to do something with the same premise, they could come up with a different story line and slap a different title on it. That is not too exceedingly difficult, but might not do so well in the box office, which is the only reason they are slapping on the Ghostbusters name.
That being said, I am also of the opinion that we do not have the same quality of comedic acting as a whole that existed when the original was made, so I do not even expect this to be very good when juxtapose to the original.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Being a Ghostbusters fan since childhood I don't expect this reboot to capture the magic that the first two films had in the 80's especially with the loss of Harold Ramis as leading director. I was already fine with Ghostbusters III being a video game exclusive instead of a film cause it actually continued from where the events of Ghostbusters II left off from. If this reboot does better than Michael Bay's Turtles then I might give it a chance but as of now I'm unsure at the moment.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
So, let me start this out with I *love* ghostbusters. Literally, the best two movies ever made IMO. There's pretty much no way that this movie can live up to my hype, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
Sadly I'm headed in the opposite direction. Bridesmainds was fine for what it was, however I pretty much hate that entire genre (Yes, I hate male versions too). Raunch/crude humor is not my cup of tea. It's also something Ghostbusters *almost* managed to avoid (dream sequence in 1 where Ray dreams about getting a BJ from a ghost). If they keep the rating at pg-13 I'm in. If they boost it to R... I'm out, and will be very disappointed.
I'm willing to give it a shot, because Ghostbusters... but I approach it with trepidation.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Agreed. It'll definitely be PG-13, and it's as good as the Heat it'll be a worth successor.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It's already a re-boot. Like I said, I'm onboard with it... for me its not a matter of winning me over, its a matter of not unwinning me It's probably more my disgust at Hollywoods recent trends in comdey showing through, not that ruanchy comdey is anything new... *thinking back to the obligatory strip club scene in every 80's comedy even if it made no sense*.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
For a few years that was the plan, at least back when Dan Aykroyd thought he had any say in it, but the director gave an interview yesterday where he said it's a complete reboot: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/10/08/paul-feig-ghostbusters-female/
It makes me wonder how they are going to pull off a reboot that doesn't feel like a re-make knock off without tying it in *somehow* to the original.
Well, to be fair Ghostbusters 1 and 2 have fairly distinctive stories. I think it'd be pretty easy to tell and origin story of the Ghostbusters without retreading the plots of the first two filsm.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I was more thinking along the lines of the whole what are the "ghostbusters" element. We'll see, they could pull it off. I don't know *how*, but then, there's a reason I'm a patent attorney not a script writer/director...
As a huge Ghostbusters fan, I think that's going to be a problem. It's going to be very difficult to do a reboot without it feeling like a re-tread. Worse, an all female cast risks it feeling like a *gimmicky* re-tread.
I honestly wouldn't mind a retread as long as (Again) they treat it with respect; if they have the socially awkward head scientist, absolute player, and overly enthusiastic person as their main three, I'm A-Ok with it.
I don't even know if I'm ok with that, for me in order to jsutify a reboot there needs to be something that was wrong with the first ones that needs fixing... In star trek, they needed a reboot in order to get rid of all the mountains of other cannon that was restricting their ability to tell stories (and then they squandered the reboot by retelling the same story in start trek II).
In ghostbusters... a film franchise with all of two movies? A sequel would be 100% functional. Hell, have them go bankrupt (again) and have this new group stumble on their reserach/equipment/something that makes it a continuation of the universe and not a resetting of the universe. The universe doesn't need to be reset, so why do it?
The death of one of the main characters seems like a good reason to not make a sequel and go with a reboot.
You could do a sequel with all new characters, or with minimal crossover. The project was always planned without Bill Murray's participation... To keep the star trek Analogy going, I don't see why it couldn't function similar to next gen - DS9.
I guess I jsut don't see the need to reset the whole universe. The building blocks are there, and there's nothing wrong with using htem.
That really only applies when Hollywood decides to be all "Hey, look at us we are being inclusive!" instead of writing believable parts. Remember, Murray, Ramis, and Akyroyd weren't exactly actors you could see in Ghostbusters' parts due to how serious the movie was compared to most of their other works.
If they have the women, as characters it will be pretty blah. If they have the characters, as women I don't see it going poorly at all.
If you want to avoid the tainting of the original series, you really need to pull the title, and jsut call it a spiritual successor to the ghostbusters.
The name being branded across it makes it indelibly linked to Ghostbusters.
The real trick seems to be just to play it straight and not make a Big Deal out of it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To be certain, I could give a rats ass whether its women, men, or a combination of both (although I think a combination could present an intersting dynamic). For me it's the question of why are we rebooting a franchise that has only two films, with minimal (if any) continuity problems that would be presented by just making it a sequel.
What parts of 1 and 2 are bad, and need to be thrown away? If the answer is "none" then the question is why are we rebooting them?
It's been over 6 months, this film is starting principal photography apparently and its scheduled for 2016.
Reading the excerpt makes me sigh with sadness... I'm feeling that they are missing the point here.
Personally, I couldn't care if they used men or women for the primary roles.
My issues lie with the fact that it is a reboot. I find that fact absolutely deplorable, and just a continuation of the abject laziness and greed that permeates Hollywood. If they wanted to do something with the same premise, they could come up with a different story line and slap a different title on it. That is not too exceedingly difficult, but might not do so well in the box office, which is the only reason they are slapping on the Ghostbusters name.
That being said, I am also of the opinion that we do not have the same quality of comedic acting as a whole that existed when the original was made, so I do not even expect this to be very good when juxtapose to the original.