Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
By NHawk
#4895047
Kingpin wrote:
NHawk wrote:they could've probably reduced some of the costly effects scenes where they were testing the gear.
That's one of my favourite parts, because you actually see them test, experience what goes wrong, and refine the gear. As someone else said on this forum, with the original team, they hit the bull's-eye first time out of the box... which while expedient to telling the story, is a little unrealistic (I know! I know! :P) Seeing the equipment being tested and refined is one of the things that makes the reboot stand out when compared to the original.
I'm not against the fact that they showed the testing just that they did it so many times, with so much wackiness. The subway I got, even the target to test that out. The grenades, chipper, etc. just felt out of place. Would've loved to see them explore more of the Ley Lines, and why the Vortex, or Rowan's motivation ala Tobin's spirit guide and Ivo Shandor.

Another great place to save money would've been the Fall Out Boy cover :D
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By deadderek
#4895049
Kingpin wrote: As someone else said on this forum, with the original team, they hit the bull's-eye first time out of the box....

Image
JurorNo.2, Alphagaia, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4895051
deadderek wrote:
Kingpin wrote: As someone else said on this forum, with the original team, they hit the bull's-eye first time out of the box....

Image
To be fair, they thought she was someone else.










But (to agree with Kingpin) I call that a successful test.
Kingpin, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895054
Dr.D wrote:I wouldn't say it's intellectual merit exactly, but I think there is a real lack of directors who want these comedy movies to look like movies. They film everything as plain and boring as possible so as not to distract in any way from the actors performances. Everything is so static in so many comedy movies as they are reliant on dialogue alone for things to be funny. While dialogue is important, filmmaking should encompass sound AND visuals. Look no further than Edgar Wright for a genius director who understands using framing, lighting, editing, to sell comedy.
I agree, perhaps that was the wrong term to use on my part. Even though I think ATC is leaps and bounds better than them, when I say stuff like that I'm usually lumping the reboot in with movies such as Neighbors, Sausage Party, Ridiculous Six, etc. etc. Films where the humor is so off putting (to say the least) that it would detract from even the best story line.

Honestly that is a very, very, very broad comparison to lump the reboot in with those films, as I really did enjoy its humor. For me ATC is on the higher end of the spectrum. So when I say stuff like it would be nice to have films with more intellectual merit, I just mean films with stronger story lines and more wit to them.

I'm sure that's easy to find with independent films, it would just be nice to see more studio movies like that.

I shouldn't of implied that about ATC not having intellectual merit, as it does.
Dr.D wrote:Scripts mean very little in the grand scheme of filmmaking, especially once active production begins. And this is coming from a guy who is a screenwriter and wants to write for a living. A script is like a polite suggestion, especially on bigger budget movies. So many things change for so many reasons its a miracle if a finished film even resembles what was written on the page. And this isn't just creative changes or things added during filming. Sometimes proper locations can't be found, sometimes directors decide on a whim to shoot the scene in a certain style that totally undercuts the original tonality of the scene.
Not to mention they re-shot most of GBII's last act, really improving the flow over the script in my opinion. I know that those are re-shots and initially they shot it like the script, but it's similar in that the end product was not shot at the same location as the script specified.
JurorNo.2 wrote:There are still movies today that successfully showcase NYC though. I like ATC, but I agree that I never feel like that's where the movie is taking place. Sometimes the look is a bit too cartoony, or else identifying buildings aren't dwelled on long enough to take them in. And then there are some buildings that don't look like they'd ever be in NYC.
I agree. They probably could've done a better job making it feel like New York, while still filming the same amount in Boston.
timeware wrote:
Another great place to save money would've been the Fall Out Boy cover
I don't think anyone here will dispute that.
Yeah, I certainly won't be disputing that... :)

I too like them testing the equipment out as it does help to separate it from the first two films.
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4895070
The mentality behind the equipment testing scene is a microcosm of the mentality of the whole movie. Feig is one who doesn't want to miss a joke if possible, so is screenwriter Katie Dippold. Much this film felt like scenes were written simply because they were funny, but overall did nothing for the story. This ideology bled into almost every aspect of the movie. Like Melissa McCarthy's whole running gag with the soup. Pointless to literally everything. It adds nothing to the character, nothing to the story, and isn't even funny since it has no bearing on the scenes that taking place. It literally was just "oh she like..wants soup but it's never right OH WELL THAT'S FUNNY".

See I have a feeling most of the people involved in the writing of this movie didn't really worry too much about the plot because they already knew it was going to essentially be the first movie. When doing a remake, the hard work of actually writing a coherent story with likable characters and an engaging plot has already been done. While watching the movie I found myself thinking about how it was clear they took the big plot points from Ghostbusters, erased everything in between and filled in the gaps with frog DNA. Uh, I mean filled it in with meaningless scenes and clumsy character subplots.

Again, most of my problems with ATC are larger overarching problems with remakes in general. It just happes to be a situation where ATC kinda checked every box on the list of "cynical cash grab using preestablished IP". As a writer, I dislike this movie because, despite what you may think given the casting choices, it was a movie that didn't take any risks. At least, not in terms of story. One of the reasons I think GB2 deserves more credit is that they went in a weird direction with the story. While some complain that GB2 was essentially the same as GB, at least in terms of plot strucutre, I have to give them credit for doing something kinda out there. And besides, GB2 isn't a total disaster because we still love the characters that we know. Could it be better? Of course, but at least it wasn't a carbon copy of the original.

ATC just added a type of humor that I feel didn't fit the tone or the spirit of what Ghostbusters is. At least to me anyway, which I know this movie wasn't made for me. But I do think that a vast number of fans would agree with me that Feig's brand of comedy was somewhat offputting. We didn't need to see Slime vomit slime all over Venkman to punctuate the joke. The joke came from the unexpectedness of what would happend, which highlights another problem I have with ATC and a problem with most remakes and sequels. This is also something Reitman said about GB2 and that is the fact that they couldn't really surprise the audience. See in the first movie, we as the audience had no idea what would happen to Venkman when Slimer charged him. We had no clue the librarian would transform into a horrifying monster. Hell we didn't know how the packs worked.

Sequel/remake comes around...we know all of that. We knew that at some point that ghost would turn super crazy and scary with Kristen Wiig. When we know everything about the rules of a movie's universe those jokes don't have the same kind of weight. So when you decied to reboot/remake/sequelize, you have to take some story risks. Good sequels throw our characters into situations and locations we've never seen them in. GB2 is guilty of keeping everything pretty much in the same wheelhouse as the first and I agree it didn't take enough risks. ATC showed a group of misfit scientists starting a buisness catching ghosts to eventually save New York from a supernatural menace.

Same move.

Which is another thing that bugged me. Feig tried to justify his jettisoning of the original movies by saying he wanted his movie to exist in a world where people didn't know ghosts existed. Yet I feel like that angle was barely touched on save for the subplot of the government constantly denying everything, which was thin at best. But I dunno I think they just didn't want the audience to think they had to see the original 2 before seeing this one because producers think audiences are stupid.

It goes beyond the story not taking risks too. Design wise the movie just took everything we'd seen before and changed it slightly. They still wear Proton packs that are structurally the same as what we've seen before. The still drive an old Cadillac hearse. They still live in a firehouse. It's like they were afriad if any of those things were changed people would be like "OH HOW CAN THEY BE GHOSTBUSTERS IF THEY DON'T DO EXACTLY WHAT THE OLD GHOSTBUSTERS DID?" Again, they think the audience is stupid.

And I'll even throw this out there...3 caucasians and one African American. That last one just weirds me out because I refuse to belive that was done accidentally...I don't really know what else to say other than it was a really weird choice...
Sav C, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895071
Well the testing of the equipment worked better story wise in the first movie. The flow of the reboot isn't as good as Ghostbusters I or II; the scenes are more isolated from one another. That's kind of what I was saying about GBII's ending the other day. They refilmed the last act, merging locations and scenes to make it feel less broken up.

I like the reboot's equipment testing scenes, however they do break up the movie a bit by existing outside of the main narrative. The same could probably be said for most of the Janine and Louis subplot in GBII.
Dr.D liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4895075
I have some more notes for that long, but very insightful look into why you the movie did not work for you, but I only have a few minutes and this stand out to me the most:
Which is another thing that bugged me. Feig tried to justify his jettisoning of the original movies by saying he wanted his movie to exist in a world where people didn't know ghosts existed. Yet I feel like that angle was barely touched on save for the subplot of the government constantly denying everything, which was thin at best.
I don't agree the government plot is all there is to it. Erin's touching ghost story and how even her parents think she is crazy is a huge motivator for her to make people believe in ghosts. It's what makes her befriend Abby, defriend her again, creates the book Rowan uses, explains her character, career choices and causes her to release Mayhem, why she leaves the GB again, etc. She is constantly trying to fit in, while knowing for a fact ghosts exist, but none believe her, and the one who does she left for trying to fit in the normal world she wants so much, while her childhood trauma makes it impossible for her to be 'normal'.

If people already believed in ghosts her main theme, coming to accept who she is and finally finding real friends, would have been missing. It's the heart of the movie.

For possible future stories keeping the GB low profile, even portraying them as phonies, one could keep a regular working world as much as possible without inventing reasons why people suddenly forget ghosts exist as in GB2. (I still love that movie, btw).

I'll add more to this discussion when I have more time!
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4895076
I always felt the first movie didn't really deal with seeing the public reaction to ghosts because it wasn't really necessary or important to the story being told. To be honest, I always thought that was one of the funniest things about not just the movie but the concept of Ghostbusters in and of itself. Ghosts were seen as not much worse than a bad bug infestation, and I think the New York setting highlighted that comedic theme even more. New Yorkers are so jaded and pissed off they don't really stop and think about the larger implication of ghosts being real. Just another weird thing about living in a city to them.

Your point about how it affected Erin's character is valid, but I guess it just felt like kinda clunky superficial character development. While it drove her to be motivated and to be an active character it didn't change who she was. It just came off as the simplest arc they could give in a Ghostbusters movie.
Sav C, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4895091
Dr.D wrote:I always felt the first movie didn't really deal with seeing the public reaction to ghosts because it wasn't really necessary or important to the story being told. To be honest, I always thought that was one of the funniest things about not just the movie but the concept of Ghostbusters in and of itself. Ghosts were seen as not much worse than a bad bug infestation, and I think the New York setting highlighted that comedic theme even more. New Yorkers are so jaded and pissed off they don't really stop and think about the larger implication of ghosts being real. Just another weird thing about living in a city to them.

Your point about how it affected Erin's character is valid, but I guess it just felt like kinda clunky superficial character development. While it drove her to be motivated and to be an active character it didn't change who she was. It just came off as the simplest arc they could give in a Ghostbusters movie.
I think your first paragraph tries to explain why in GB2 no one cares about ghosts, but I think it's just a storyline that needed no attention in the first movie. Peck tries to convince they are charlatans, and the mayor get convinced by the Cardinal (or what is he), but that is indeed the extend of it.

Regarding Erins motivations I agree it's not a deep drama, and not one GB movie has ever tried to be. I mean, you said Peter has an arc in GB1 to not be an asshole all the time just by not responding to a line at the almost very end, (which GB2 sadly disproves as he is back to being an asshole). But Erins Arc and 'Not believing in ghosts' is there and it plays a big part in the movie, which is why I wanted to point it out to you.
I for one really did care for her ghost story and how it uprooted her life. I really liked that scene. It made me understand why she has so many quirks, why she connected with Abby at first, but leave her again and why she jumps after Abby to safe her in the end: she will never abandon her anymore just because she is different. So yeah, she did change.
Again, not shakespeare, but it gave the movie more then just 'busts some ghosts' as while that concept is new for a few generations, if it would only do that it would be even more of a rehash.

I did like there are more setpieces in this movie, as we have never seen so many ghost scenes (mostly it's just scary start. one bust and then of to the main bad guy) so I liked they tried to give more of the RGB vibe where they bust quite a lot of ghosts. ATC still cannot touch the original, though I personally think it's just a little better than GB2. (I love GB1, and like GB2 and ATC).
Last edited by Alphagaia on June 28th, 2017, 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895092
Dr.D wrote:Sequel/remake comes around...we know all of that. We knew that at some point that ghost would turn super crazy and scary with Kristen Wiig. When we know everything about the rules of a movie's universe
We know all of that. The audience who has never seen the first two movies didn't know that going into ATC. The audience that made it Favorite Movie at the Kid's Choice Awards. ;)

Heck, I was 6 years old in '89, I didn't know all of that seeing GBII in theaters.

It's a real flaw in the Hollywood formula that movies are so reliant on their initial box office. It's far too Old School when you think about it, harkening-back to the 1930s when the only place to see movies was a theater. There are so many movies throughout history that didn't make money initially, but then became huge favorites later on, on TV or home video. Those movies deserve sequels as much as anything else, but will never get them, purely because of an out dated formula.

Hollywood studios are always whining about TV, or VHS, or the Internet, or Netflix cutting into their profits, well you know, too bad. You guys have to move forward or get used to standing still and ultimately fading away.
Sav C liked this
By NHawk
#4895098
That formula is exactly why studios are trying to build franchises. To keep people coming back. For Sony this movie was supposed to do that.

Also that's not the only factor there's toys and merchandising that come into play. Look at the Batman stuff from the 80s. Unfortunately I don't believe this film succeeded there either. Looks like most people revert back to the original stuff.

I am curious though as computers and effects get better (and cheaper) if we'll see better quality on TV, Netflix, etc. To some degree we're already seeing it but I can't think of a real TV masterpiece that equates to a big budget film success.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895101
NHawk wrote:That formula is exactly why studios are trying to build franchises.
That's really all the studios have left, honestly. Not sure what they'll do when people finally tire of comic book movies.
For Sony this movie was supposed to do that.
Well, after all the dust has settled, I think it's safe to say a movie that starts out with so much drama behind the scenes is inevitably going to be at a disadvantage. Drama has a way of showing up on screen, if that makes sense.
By NHawk
#4895102
JurorNo.2 wrote:Well, after all the dust has settled, I think it's safe to say a movie that starts out with so much drama behind the scenes is inevitably going to be at a disadvantage. Drama has a way of showing up on screen, if that makes sense.
I agree.

Thing is if they wanted to salvage something they have to go pretty fast. After GB2 when they did the kids parties, I could see if they went back to the original-verse in some way just including a line about Ray selling everything off including movie rights. That resulted in a bad movie that barely resembled them or the events.

Ray: "blah blah blah"
Winston: "This better turn out better than that movie you talked us all into"
Ray: "For the last time I didn't know they'd make us women"

ATC becomes cannon in its own way.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4895103
You should read IDW's GB101 comic!
I'm obviously a fan, but the way they handle the canon, the ATC crew and the interaction between the OGB has even turned some people who disliked the movie on Reddit around on the characters.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4895109
NHawk wrote:Also that's not the only factor there's toys and merchandising that come into play. Look at the Batman stuff from the 80s. Unfortunately I don't believe this film succeeded there either. Looks like most people revert back to the original stuff.
Someone dropped the ball on the merch. I only ever saw a surge in the classic stuff, the ATC was on the shelves for a week. They tried to re create the pepsi perfect bottle fiasco with Ecto Cooler. It was never released nation wide as promised. Even the twinkies and marshmallow bags only featured the logo and and no ATC cast on the box.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By deadderek
#4895111
Alphagaia wrote:Did we ever get sales numbers beside Mattel saying the merch sold above expectations?
Of course not, and I honestly have trouble believing their word on the reboot merchandise.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4895112
deadderek wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:Did we ever get sales numbers beside Mattel saying the merch sold above expectations?
Of course not, and I honestly have trouble believing their word on the reboot merchandise.
I agree above expectations can mean anything depending on their expectations, but I'm more inclined to believe them as they also have stockholders to satisfy and these kind of 'lies' would discredit the company, but you are telling there is no website tracking this at all? Shouldn't the financial year be over at the end of this month? That always gives a good insight, right?
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By deadderek
#4895113
While they might release some financial statements, I HIGHLY doubt they'll release specific figures related to the Ghostbusters Reboot.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4895118
Chiming in again.

Not to be just a contrarian but opening weekend box office has become less and less significant in determining if a film is a success or not. Sure opening weekends are important as they are a pretty good indicator of how strongly a reaction to a movie is gonna be. But given the importance put into foreign markets (especially China) and merchandising, a movie can do poorly opening weekend but still be considered a "success" based on these other avenues of profit. Look at the Transformers movies, XXX 2, BvS, Warcraft, etc. All movies that under performed domestically but were still classified as successful in terms of generating profit for the studio.

ATC wasn't released in China which I'm sure was unexpected from Sony's point of view.

But...I don't think it should've been.

See, when I was finishing film school in LA we had a bunch of lectures from working producers and film financiers. One of them brought in a list with the names of about 20 A-list male actors. He told us this was a list of the most profitable film stars in the world from the standpoint of generating an international audience. Someone in class asked why there were no women on the list and I swear to God this man bluntly shouts out "Other countries don't see movies with women stars."

Blunt, kinda upsetting, but on paper totally true. Movies are a cultural thing and not everyone else in the world is a progressive (or progressive seeming) as the US. Women don't receive the same treatment as here which I'm sure is a shock to no one. Add to that that this was a comedy and you have an incredibly hard sell to Foreign markets. Nothing is more culturally specific than comedy. While I wasn't involved in making this movie, I guarantee part of the reason the comedy was so broad and over the top is because that translates better. Someone getting thrown up on doesn't need translation to be funny. A ghost getting shot in the balls will be universally understood by audiences in any country. This is why all of these crappy action movies all do great overseas. The broader the movie, the better the chance of a higher international gross. See China is such a huge market more and more studios are trying to pander to Chinese audiences (best example is the subplot in Iron Man 3 specifically shot for the Chinese release using huge Chinese actors) which is one of the reasons I think Feig's broad comedy sensibilities were chosen. But the fact that ATC was both female-led and centered around ghosts (which is still a pretty big taboo/touchy subject to Chinese audiences) SHOULD have raised a red flag to people at Sony. I mean, it's almost blatantly obvious the Chinese market wouldn't have wanted this movie. So I think one of two things happened. Either Sony was oblivious OR, given the release date of the movie in the US, they figured this was a surefire hit and wouldn't need the boost from the Foreign releases.

In any case, Mattel releasing anything regarding sales figures of merchandise is more of a desperate cry of "See! This wasn't a total bomb!" I can't honestly think of any other time that kind of info was even referenced publicly about any other huge movie. Hollywood accounting is notoriously shady and while I don't know what "above expectations" meant I can guarantee said expectations were probably pretty low.
Alphagaia, deadderek, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895119
Dr.D wrote:The broader the movie, the better the chance of a higher international gross...which is one of the reasons I think Feig's broad comedy sensibilities were chosen. But the fact that ATC was both female-led and centered around ghosts (which is still a pretty big taboo/touchy subject to Chinese audiences) SHOULD have raised a red flag to people at Sony.
So you're saying Sony was thinking of China when it came to humor you personally didn't like, but then Sony somehow forgot China entirely when it came to, oh, just the main characters and entire plot of the movie? I somehow doubt that.

EDIT: I do agree that broad humor has always been used to appeal to, for instance, immigrants to America who didn't yet know English. So what you're saying isn't entirely out there. I'm just saying there are gaps in that theory. Plus it's not like broad humor isn't popular with American audiences.
Alphagaia, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4895122
JurorNo.2 wrote:So you're saying Sony was thinking of China when it came to humor you personally didn't like, but then Sony somehow forgot China entirely when it came to, oh, just the main characters and entire plot of the movie? I somehow doubt that.
No. That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying they knew the main characters and plot were going to be a hard sell. I have a feeling they were trying to counterbalance that with broader humor. I also never once said it was humor I didn't personally like. I think it was more a case of trying to present the movie with something that could easily be packaged to other markets. I know broad humor is big here too, I was more making it a point of comparison to the original especially with that being one of the points of contention with fans. Studio execs don't really care that much about story and character. If you think this kind of mentality of ignoring story and worrying more about marketability isn't the norm, then I think you need to take a step back and think about how the film industry really works.

Story and character come from the script. Scripts are totally fluid and change day to day when a movie is being made. Literally every step of production leads to changes in script and story. So the higher ups don't really give two shits about the actual plot of the movie or characters. They care about what they can make money off of. And if you're gonna say that this is a totally cynical way of thinking just remember we are talking about a reboot/remake of a property that was last in theaters in 1989. A property that has survived essentially on nostalgia alone.

You'd be surprised how dismissive and unobservant studio executives are. Perfect example is what just happened with the Han Solo movie. Producers suddenly saw the finish line of production and realized it wasn't the product they wanted.
Did they just forget entirely that they hired a directing pair that is know exclusively for doing comedy? Did they suddenly realize that hiring comedy directors/writer would result in a more comedic movie? Happens more often than you'd think. I've heard stories about Amy Pascal spending seconds, literal seconds, attending important production meetings specifically put on for her. Meetings that production crew members spent weeks preparing.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895124
I'm saying they knew the main characters and plot were going to be a hard sell. I have a feeling they were trying to counterbalance that with broader humor.
Well it's Feig's style of humor, that had already been well received in America in a couple comedies. And that's something we've all been missing. ATC wasn't treated like a blockbuster. It was treated like a comedy. No Comic Con or super bowl screenings. Not much effort put into tie ins, because think about it, what comedy has tie ins? The cast was made up of SNL alumns, not generic kick ass actresses you see in action movies. The trailers that preceded the movie were comedies like A Medea Halloween. The People's Choice Awards filed it under Favorite Comedic Movie. And I'm not saying that's wrong. Ghostbusters has always been a comedy (despite some fanboys' strange obsession with insisting otherwise). And the box office was typical of a successful Paul Feig comedy. But it wasn't enough to launch a blockbuster franchise. The only part of the movie that was treated like a blockbuster was the FX. But then people complained it was too much CGI, not enough character moments. There was just something about the balance that wasn't quite right. And frankly I think blockbusters aren't long for this world anyway: http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-blockbu ... t-in-2018/
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4895126
JurorNo.2 wrote:And that's something we've all been missing. ATC wasn't treated like a blockbuster. It was treated like a comedy. No Comic Con or super bowl screenings.
The initial budget was $169 million, Feig's most expensive movie. There were plenty of tie-ins and promotions as well. But I guess a commercial with Kobe Bryant during the NBA finals isn't the Superbowl. It was also released right in the middle of summer tentpole season between two huge superhero franchise movies. I'm not sure what your definition of treating something like a blockbuster is...but Sony absolutely thought this would be a blockbuster. Ghostbusters is well known franchise and if you know anything about the state Sony is in regarding their IPs, you'd know they were desperate for a franchise they could get going again. Sorry if you don't think this was treated as a blockbuster, but most comedy moves don't need to earn the better part of a billion dollars to turn a profit.

Never once have I said it's wrong to like this movie or that you're wrong for liking it though. It's just a movie. I'm just pointing out observations I've made as a fan, writer, and someone who works in the film industry.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895128
I'm not sure what your definition of treating something like a blockbuster is.
Good thing I included it in my post. : ) Of course they hoped it would be a blockbuster, but in many significant ways, it wasn't treated like one.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]

I read Back in Town #1. Spoilers : Hate to b[…]

I'd really like to see the new t-shirt unlocks tra[…]