Necronom 4RespectedMember1566 XPJun-26-2016 4:21 AM
I very rarely comment on a thread that is not related to the ALIEN universe, but I feel that I have something to say on this particular topic.
The original Ghostbusters is a fantastic film therefor it really didn't need to be re-booted.
I agree with your comment - "One would have thought after Godzilla (1998), Total Recall (2012), RoboCop (2014 - pictured) and the two Amazing Spider-Man movies that Sony would have learned to avoid remaking movies,"
Yep! You would think that would learn a lesson from this.
That old saying comes to mind here, "IF ITS NOT BROKEN THEN NO NEED TO FIX IT!"
The fact that the main cast are female isn't a bad thing at all. It actually makes a refreshing change. But, Why couldn't they just make a sequel? Why do they feel the need to re-boot everything?
I for one will not be booking my seat at the pictures to see this purely due to my loathing of re-boots.
EDIT: Btw, absolutely love The Big Bang Theory! One of my fave shows!
I Meme Everything2KMember4115 XPJun-26-2016 4:54 AM
This is getting interesting *kicks back and grabs a bowl of popcorn*
ChrisMartianAdmin19658 XPJun-26-2016 5:54 AM
I will say it's unfair to judge a film before it comes out. And to everyone saying "the movie is terrible", you really can't pass judgement like that yet.
What we can say however is that the concept, the chosen casting, the trailers and the current press do not look good and makes the film "look like" it's going to be terrible. It's all about first impressions and when you fail time and time again to gain the hearts of your core audience... well, it just doesn't look good from here on out.
So, I won't say the movie is horrible, but I I'll say that from everything I've seen and read, my expectations for it being a success are extremely low.
BoilerbuzzNoobMember4 XPJun-26-2016 11:54 AM
I agree. I don't pass final judgement on ANYTHING until I see for myself. I will say that the absolute disrespect to the original, and the blatant feminist pandering helped to COMPLETELY turn me off to this movie. I have zero intention of seeing it. That's not even to mention the stereotyping and God-awful special effects I've seen in the trailer. We can excuse the original for it's bad effects. We're in 2016 and this movie has a LOT of financial backing. There is no excuse for the lack of quality in the effects. If THAT is your only homage to the original, then you just are not a fan of it even if you acknowledge bad CG was accepted as part of charms. The movie is more than 2 weeks away though and I'm a fan of McCarthy. But I will wait for true reviews before I decide to even see it on HBO or Starz. :)
S.MConversationalistMember1234 XPJun-26-2016 1:47 PM
"let's reiterate - Ghostbusters 3 was already written"
Obviously not a version they wanted to make. This happens constantly in Hollywood, and will continue to happen.
"And the final reason of why you have been criticized is because from what audiences have seen thus far Sony Pictures Entertainment has once again needlessly rebooted a treasured property that fails on virtually every level."
Trailers aren't very good therefore movie will suck therefore writer is a complete hack.
Sony must be loving all the column inches devoted to dumping on a film no one's seen yet. Particularly click baity 'writer slams critics!' headlines when she was just expressing disappointment in criticism, nay outright hatred, of something that's yet to be seen. Which continues to be perpetuated right here.
One thing that stuck out from Dippold, is the desire for a female buddy movie (ie. something that perhaps reflects her own personal experience up on screen). I've heard the same from Simon Pegg when they were writing Spaced and Kevin Smith when he was doing Clerks.
GavinLegendAdmin9516 XPJun-26-2016 2:28 PM
The script for Ghostbusters 3 had been developed by the franchise co-creators Dan Aykroyd and the late Harold Ramis, as well as being touched up by Etan Cohen, Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg. After Ramis died and Reitman stood down to Exec. Producer all that was needed was a director, with production planned to begin in early 2015 - if the script wasn't good enough why were all these pieces in place.
Amy Pascal screwed over the cast and crew of the sequel and greenlit Feig's gimmicky proposal on the basis of nothing more than 1 erratic email - not a decision that makes sense for a chairperson of a major studio, even you'll agree with that.
S.MConversationalistMember1234 XPJun-26-2016 2:41 PM
I didn't say it wasn't good enough; just that they didn't want to make it.
It's a little presumptuous to assume we know exactly what goes on in studio boardrooms. Personalities and egos obviously play a big part.
GavinLegendAdmin9516 XPJun-26-2016 2:55 PM
Take into account this occurred 4-6 months before Pascal was sacked for mismanagement (plus racism and sexism). She knew the fans, cast and crew were behind the sequel, the idea of a reboot, female or otherwise had not been considered until Feig mentioned it. When the news hit fans and most news outlets were against the idea - kinda like when Shane Black slipped up and said the new Predator was a reboot, before backtracking and changing it to a sequel - yet here we are.
Also, check the known details of the ghostbusters 3 script and compare them to Feig's email to Pascal, which can be found on wikileaks. There is no presumption, Pascal knew what she was doing because she probably knew her time as chairperson was short lived and why.
Imagine Alien Covenant had been dropped six months before it was set to shoot for a reboot of the entire franchise and without Ridley at the helm, but based on the ideas from 1 email from the last director suitable for the franchise.
@S.M. I refer you to the article I wrote March 2014, with quotes from Reitman and Pascal themselves... Ghostbusters 3 to film early 2015, Ivan Reitman to produce
Then read Feig's email to Pascal on wikileaks, this was done to screw Sony and the Ghostbusters fans over.
Also, check here and most detractors on Youtube, we don't have a problem with the cast, it's the premise of a reboot, and the quality of said reboot over the sequel. Yet all the headlines Feig and McCarthy make are claiming the negativity towards their movie is all misogynistic. They are needlessly stirring up a hornets nest to drum up the publicity that their trailers are failing to do.
MizikameInitiateMember120 XPJun-26-2016 3:55 PM
This has been an ongoing engagement on all sides that has always had me interested in why it is happening this way to such a beloved franchise.
It's crazy to see someone not competent for the job keeps BS-ing about the Justifications of why they went a Negative Path with whatever they're at the Helm of.
S.MConversationalistMember1234 XPJun-26-2016 7:40 PM
I don't actually care about the background woulda coulda shoulda studio politics. All that matters is if the final product is entertaining or not, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and over the top thread titles with exclamation marks is redundant until we reach that point.
GavinLegendAdmin9516 XPJun-27-2016 4:08 AM
This is not a thread it is a news article, granted it is an opinionated news article and here is why - as a niche platform with a small news team (Chris, Gelmini, Gman and myself) when we post any news, chances are it has already circulated among at least a dozen or more sites, thus most members have already read it elsewhere, as such posting just the news would be pointless. Yet we have noticed that if those of us that closely follow certain news (Chris - Alien, Gman - MMPR) include our opinion together with said news it generates discussion, debate, and feedback - the lifeblood of any forum based website. My opinions on the Ghostbusters are negative I grant you that, but that is because I have watched and reported on this news unfolding since Harold Ramis' death and have seen mistake after mistake from Sony Pictures with what should have been and what we have ended up with (more on that below). I have never "hated" on this movie because of its cast's sex nor race, contrary to Feig and McCarthy's repeated cries.
Also, being a news article it has a headline, not a thread title. The headlines we use are descriptive of the news content, in this the co-writer of the Ghostbusters reboot airs her opinions, calling out those that criticized the movie before it was even written. Headlines are short, punchy and keyword heavy hence "Ghostbusters writer Katie Dippold slams reboot critics!" As for the exclamation mark, it is used to differentiate between a statement (!) or a question (?), the latter being used for speculative articles. And none of our articles are clickbait - a clickbait article is when the article bears little to no relation to the headline used to promote it and is usually an article that is spread over numerous pages that have to navigated by clicking "next", increasing said sites CTR and thus their income from advertisers - a practice we do not condone nor partake in.
Back to this reboot - I agree, the final product is what counts. And while the trailers and clips thus far have done the reboot no favors, let's look back to Pascal's decision - how does one do their best to ensure the final product is good enough. Let's compare the writing teams (with any directors credits), shall we...
Katie Dippold has written The Heat, she was also part of the writing team for TV shows MadTV and Parks and Recreation.
Paul Feig has directed I am David, Unaccompanied Minors, Bridesmaids, The Heat and Spy. He also wrote I am David and Spy. For TV Feig directed and wrote for Freaks and Geeks, while also directing The Office (US), Arrested Development, Mad Men, Weeds, 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, Bored to Death and Nurse Jackie.
Together Dippold and Feig look like a good team for TV comedy, but for a movie comedy franchise they lack the necessary experience and have no links or ties to the franchise in question.
Harold Ramis wrote movies such as NL's (national Lampoon's) Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes, Ghostbusters, Back to Scool, Club Paradise, Armed and Dangerous, Caddyshack II, Ghostbusters II, Rover Dangerfield, Groundhog Day, Analyze This, Bedazzled, Analyze that and Year One. Ramis also directed Caddyshack, NL's Vacation, Club Paradise, Groundhog Day, Stuart saves his Family, Multiplicity, Analyze This, Bedazzled, Analyze that, Ice Harvest and Year One. For TV Ramis wrote for Second City Television, Delta House, and the Rodney Dangerfield Show, he also directed episodes of The Office (US).
Dan Aykroyd wrote movies such as The Blues Brothers, Ghostbusters, Spies Like Us, Dragnet, Ghostbusters II, Nothing but Trouble, Coneheads and Blues Brothers 2000, he also directed Nothing but Trouble. For TV Aykroyd wrote The Beach Boys: Its OK.
Etan Cohen has written movies such as Its Like You Know, Idiocracy, Tropic Thunder, Madagascar: Escape to Africa, Men in Black 3 and Get Hard, he also directed Get Hard. For TV Cohen has written for Beavis and Butthead, Recess, King of the Hill and American Dad.
Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg have written movies such as Year One and Bad Teacher, for TV the duo have written for The Office (US) and Hello Ladies.
Overall the Ghostbusters III team look like a team of established movie comedy writers, with many decades of experience between them including many classic comedies, plus Ramis and Aykroyd are credited with having created the comedy movie franchise in question.
I think it's obvious where most people's money would be. If not, add to this Ghostbuster III's cast was known to bring back all but three of the original cast - Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver, each a drawing point for the fans. When Feig proposed his reboot the only "virtually" guaranteed cast member was Melissa McCarthy.
Ghostbuster III wins on writing and cast, but what about the story. Well until the reboot is released we can't say for certain, but if the plot leak is to be believed - which has yet to be disproven BTW - this reboot is, unimaginative, filled with holes and completely ignores the lore established. Whereas the sequel would have extended the lore with a new generation of busters, which is all the fans wanted.
S.MConversationalistMember1234 XPJun-27-2016 4:00 PM
"And none of our articles are clickbait - a clickbait article is when the article bears little to no relation to the headline used to promote it "
But she didn't "slam" critics, so by your own definition - it's clickbait.
GavinLegendAdmin9516 XPJun-27-2016 4:07 PM
"There’s nothing for you to watch, nothing is written and you’re already saying it’s the worst movie in the world!” = slamming critics, coz she ain't agreeing with them is she?
S.MConversationalistMember1234 XPJun-27-2016 6:18 PM
Disagreeing - and simply stating facts, more to the point - somehow gets churched up to "slamming" in the world of excessive exclamation marks and those with their mind already made up, I guess...
GavinLegendAdmin9516 XPJun-28-2016 2:37 AM
While Katie Dippold was stating facts as she knew them, she was also incorrect - as I have repeatedly pointed out (including in the article above), critics like myself had a problem with the concept of a reboot being green lit before it was even written (by 2 newcomers) over a sequel that was already written (by 3 veterans and 2 newcomers). "...slams critics" might technically be the wrong wording but it is a snappier and shorty version of "...has a problem with critics judging her work before it is written".
And an exclamation mark at the end of a headline is not excessive, it is there to punctuates the headline, our founder and fellow Admin Chris Picard uses them, as do sites like Bloody Disgusting, Slashfilm and MTV.