Culture Crossfire Forums

Comments that warrant a thread => TV/Film & Literature => Topic started by: Sabre on December 15, 2009, 08:28:55 PM

Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Sabre on December 15, 2009, 08:28:55 PM
Just came across this, is she trollin, or is it finally proof its happening.

Quote
Sigourney Weaver, who played Dana Barrett in the first two movies has let slip the shock twist in store for Bill’s character Peter Venkman when discussing her future with the franchise.

She said: “I’m afraid to say it: ‘Ghostbusters 3’ is happening, I hope people are excited about that.

“I don’t know if I’m going to be in it, I have had a couple of calls asking: ‘Would you read the script’.

“I know that my little son Oscar – who was kidnapped from me – I think he has grown up to be a Ghostbuster. I might be in it; I see nothing wrong with being in it, although I don’t think I will have a big part. I think Bill Murray has a little more to do with it – he’s a ghost.”

The 60-year-old actress – who has previously been reluctant to address whether she will appear In the movie – also spoke about how much she still enjoys acting.

She added to Channel 4 News: “To me films are still like that experimental feeling, I get so excited about that. I think as I get older I’m more aware of what a privilege it is to work with different generations of actors.”

Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on December 16, 2009, 03:30:35 AM
I saw the video of this interview somewhere, so she did really say it.  Now just remains to be seen if it's true.  At least all the old actors from the previous movies are still around and still alive.  And we better get Rick Moranis back again, dammit, that poor bastard hasn't worked in years. 
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Spaceman Spiff 🚀 on December 16, 2009, 03:46:52 AM
Quote
I think Bill Murray has a little more to do with it – he’s a ghost.
Thanks a lot, Spoilgourney.  >:(

Spoiler: show
 :P
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Baby Shoes on December 16, 2009, 03:54:48 AM
And we better get Rick Moranis back again, dammit, that poor bastard hasn't worked in years. 

I'd love for Moranis to come back but from what I hear, he hasn't come back by choice.  He's turned down things because he doesn't want to do the show business thing.  That's why he wasn't featured in the Ghostbusters video game and IIRC, the last thing he did really was the voice in Brother Bear.  Don't even think he did the straight to video sequel.

I'm curious where this would go.  I've always loved the old rumor of Ghostbusters 3 where they were going to be training new Ghostbusters including Chris Farley and lesser known at the time Ben Stiller and Dave Chappelle.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: chuck on December 16, 2009, 04:20:08 AM
According to wiki Moranis said he won't do it.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on December 16, 2009, 04:29:30 AM
Rick is retired and wants to stay that way. This is why he wasn't in the video game (which was a pretty good GB3 if this never gets made).
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on December 16, 2009, 07:21:59 AM
The Ghost Venkman plot point dates back to a script written in the 90s. Bill Murray was so against doing it that he demanded to be killed off in the opening, only to return as a ghost at the end to save the day.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Black Lushus on December 16, 2009, 10:19:39 AM
Ghost Venkman sounds beyond retarded...I hope Weaver was just fucking around there.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: luke-o on December 16, 2009, 08:09:50 PM
I can just see Ghost Murrey looking like Nearly Headless Nick in Harry Potter. So dumb.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Smues on December 16, 2009, 08:14:55 PM
This is the one where New York is attacked by an 80 foot Ed Koch right?
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: devo on December 17, 2009, 12:28:15 AM
HOW'M I DOIN'? HOW'M I DOIN'? HOW'M I DOIN'?
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on December 17, 2009, 03:56:46 AM
Allow me to illuminate a bit more on the Ghost Murray script. It comes from something Dan Aykroyd wrote in the late nineties, around the time they were looking at actors like Chris Farley and Ben Stiller as Young 'Busters. The story, entitled Ghostbusters Hellbound or something like that, involved Venkman dying (which necessitated the new recruits) and a cross-dimensional rift that revealed a Hell that was very closely identical to our own New York City (nyuck nyuck geddit?). The climax, where Venkman returns to save the day, had them taking on some mogul demigod based on Donald Trump with a name like Lou Cypher (lol) or something. The script was so bad that Ivan Reitman didn't want to take part in it, but his recent return aboard would indicate that the script has been changed and improved by the guys from The Office or that he needs the money. Point is, that bad script is probably the last one that Sigourney read since Aykroyd and Ramis have yet to polish the latest draft. If I had to guess, I'd say there's a good chance that Venkman survives.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on January 13, 2010, 06:09:24 AM
http://networkedblogs.com/p24132853 (http://networkedblogs.com/p24132853) Ivan Reitman confirmed to direct
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Sabre on January 13, 2010, 06:14:29 AM
Reitman said that the script from "Year One" writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky is in and that a second draft is currently in the works.

^ yay.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 13, 2010, 06:49:42 AM
You know, the problems with Year One were apparent...but I actually have faith that the cast of GB3 would see the bad aspects of the script and say "no, change this." Either way, it'll be good to see GB on the big screen.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: luke-o on January 13, 2010, 06:36:13 PM
We're happy that the guys who wrote Year One are writting this?

Did you guys see that film?
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on January 13, 2010, 08:09:05 PM
That might not be the best qualifier, since Year One was also cowritten and directed by... Harold Ramis, screenwriter on the original Ghostbusters.  And Egon.  He might be yet another piece of evidence towards Quentin Tarantino's theory that directors usually get worse as they get older, since it's difficult to comprehend that the same guy who made Caddyshack, National Lampoon's Vacation, and Groundhog Day could eventually sink so low as Year One

As for the other two writers, they've both done a bunch of episodes for The Office, so hopefully they've got some competence in there somewhere. 
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: The ghost of bps21 on January 13, 2010, 08:10:23 PM
What seasons of the Office?
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on January 13, 2010, 08:41:54 PM
They've worked as writers, producers, and story editors in every season from 2 on forward. 
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on January 22, 2010, 09:43:49 AM
Venkman will get a kick out of this.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH8yd2xLL8s&feature=related#)

Heh, I actually owned a few of these on VHS back in the day, and as a 5 years old kid, I wondered why they had a ape instead of Slimer, where the other two Ghostbusters were, and why they downgraded from the Ecto-1.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 22, 2010, 09:54:18 AM
Let's go, Ghostbusters, let's go
(Let's go, let's go)
Let's go, Ghostbusters, let's go
(Let's go, let's go)
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: AndrewTS on January 22, 2010, 10:17:24 AM
Hence, of course, "The Real."

I actually re-watched Ghostbusters 1 and 2 last weekend, and since they were on there anyway, I watched the bonus episodes of the animated series that were on there (damn it looked as if the "Slimer and" run was lower budget).   Kind of odd how Janine's character design changed from the Real one we're all familiar with to (in the "Slimer and" ep) to something more like GB2. 

That reminds me, why the hell was Egon blond?

Also noticed some voice actors' early roles were on there.  Cree Summer was apparently some obscure black chick character.  Janine was voiced by the awesome Kath Soucie (who would later on voice one of my favorite villains)--who was actually uncredited in the earlier episodes.  Huh.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 25, 2010, 01:20:17 AM
The characters had to be re-designed due to likeness issues with DiC, IIRC. Obviously they had no bearing on the recent video game, considering the cast lent their voices and, for 360 and PS3, the characters look identical to the real actors circa 1985 or so.

EDIT:
Oh, and they explained the Janine appearance and voice changes over the years of the cartoon. She had been in cahoots with some kind of demon who was modifying her appearance and voice so she could be more attractive to Egon. I remember that episode pretty well, and they even referenced it on an episode of XGB. That was one of the cool aspects of XGB: it referenced RGB a lot, and some of the plots of episodes were really fucking good.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Sabre on January 25, 2010, 02:49:16 AM
And the fucking awsome 2 part series ending when old meets the youngins.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on January 25, 2010, 03:06:35 AM
It's been years since I had seen The Real Ghostbusters, so I looked up a few episodes ("Citizen Ghost" and "Slimer Come Home") and if all of the other episodes are as good as those then I would say that the cartoon has held up pretty well. I've never seen Extreme Ghostbusters, but I will have to look up a few episodes.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: AndrewTS on January 25, 2010, 11:03:13 AM
Well, not necessary *all*, but it was damn good for its time to be sure.  Great writing and excellent animation from Tokyo Movie Shinsha (aka TMS).   Hell, they were doing Cthulhu before it was cool (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e24tkBx4mNQ#).

Also a friend tells me that you should avoid the "Slimer and The Real Ghostbusters" runs.  The writing and animation took a huge dive and Venk was voiced by freakin' Uncle Joey (who, despite sounding more like Murray than Lorenzo did, just didn't gel right).  Although he says that the episode with Al Capone's ghost was really good, and probably the last episode worth a look.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: AndrewTS on January 26, 2010, 11:37:22 AM
The characters had to be re-designed due to likeness issues with DiC, IIRC. Obviously they had no bearing on the recent video game, considering the cast lent their voices and, for 360 and PS3, the characters look identical to the real actors circa 1985 or so.

EDIT:
Oh, and they explained the Janine appearance and voice changes over the years of the cartoon. She had been in cahoots with some kind of demon who was modifying her appearance and voice so she could be more attractive to Egon. I remember that episode pretty well, and they even referenced it on an episode of XGB. That was one of the cool aspects of XGB: it referenced RGB a lot, and some of the plots of episodes were really fucking good.

I'm checking out that episode on Youtube now.  And the demon (or "Fairy Godmother" as she claims to be) is voiced by Kath as well--and in its true form it's actually the same voice she'd later use for Nerissa on W.I.T.C.H.!
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Scroby on January 26, 2010, 06:31:15 PM
This is the one where New York is attacked by an 80 foot Ed Koch right?
No, Moranis was in that one.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 27, 2010, 03:08:58 AM
It's been years since I had seen The Real Ghostbusters, so I looked up a few episodes ("Citizen Ghost" and "Slimer Come Home") and if all of the other episodes are as good as those then I would say that the cartoon has held up pretty well. I've never seen Extreme Ghostbusters, but I will have to look up a few episodes.
What AndrewTS said regarding RGB. As for good XGB eps, here are my favorites:
One thing to note is the drastic animation change, which takes on a feel more akin to "Aaah! Real Monsters" or the dreadful "Jumanji" cartoon than anything else. Also, whenever they fire the proton packs, be sure to look away if you're seizure-prone, because they have the screen flash into different color schemes.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on February 08, 2010, 07:41:36 AM
In a rare interview (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1248557/Bill-Murray-Actors-high-salaries-travel-trouble-known.html), Bill Murray confirms what fate awaits [the real] Dr. Venkman in Ghostbusters 3.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on February 08, 2010, 06:26:46 PM
INTERESTING STUFF: A draft entitled Ghostbusters: Hellbent, written by Aykroyd and dated March of 1999 had Venkman dead before the movie even started. God takes his form to talk to the Ghostbusters near the end of that script.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on February 09, 2010, 08:10:49 AM
The characters had to be re-designed due to likeness issues with DiC, IIRC. Obviously they had no bearing on the recent video game, considering the cast lent their voices and, for 360 and PS3, the characters look identical to the real actors circa 1985 or so.

EDIT:
Oh, and they explained the Janine appearance and voice changes over the years of the cartoon. She had been in cahoots with some kind of demon who was modifying her appearance and voice so she could be more attractive to Egon. I remember that episode pretty well, and they even referenced it on an episode of XGB. That was one of the cool aspects of XGB: it referenced RGB a lot, and some of the plots of episodes were really fucking good.

On the above note, I recall reading that there's an EGB episode featuring little statues of the RGB in the background that had to be blurred out due to them using DiC model sheets for the designs.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on February 09, 2010, 11:40:21 PM
Yep. There's a statue in the upstairs lab of the firehouse that's obviously meant to be Venkman, but the face is blurred due to it being based on the DiC model. You can tell it's Venkman due to the style of hair on it, which is not blurred.

XGB was a very claustrophobic show, now that I think about it. Whereas RGB had a lot of open spaces on the set design, everything on XGB, even when out in the park or whatever, seemed real close and uneasy. It probably didn't help that half of the episodes saw the team chasing down some demon in an office building or hidden underground temple or whatever.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on March 01, 2010, 03:31:51 PM
Bill Murray was on Letterman just now talking about Ghostbusters. He says that "technically" there was a Ghostbusters 2, and 3 would be his worst nightmare. He did confirm that he wanted to be killed off. He also said he enjoyed doing the video game and got some dirty looks because he was walking around the streets at night singing the theme song. All in all, it was his usual awesome appearance on The Late Show, and if you watched Jay instead, you're a slack-jawed faggot, sorry.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Scroby on March 01, 2010, 04:06:01 PM
Is Leno back on tv now?
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Baby Shoes on March 01, 2010, 06:14:09 PM
Is Leno back on tv now?

Leno returned March 1 seeing the Olympics ended on February 28th.  First week guests include Sarah Palin and Brett Favre, which makes me glad he is back on the air because I really feel like the media never covers those two.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on May 04, 2010, 10:23:44 AM
Follow That Marshmallow: A Ghostbusters Tour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niKZrc2_eX0#lq-lq2-hq-vhq-hd)
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on October 07, 2010, 09:22:59 AM
Dan Aykroyd is doing the re-writes. (http://www.killerfilm.com/articles/read/dan-aykroyd-re-writing-ghostbusters-3-48618#comment-59536)
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Zetterberg is Go on October 07, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
Yeah I met him a few weeks ago and he confirmed it's happening, referencing the aforementioned re-writes.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: luke-o on October 07, 2010, 07:01:18 PM
Urgh...
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on October 07, 2010, 09:50:57 PM
I think Ghostbusters 3 is going to be one of those films where I'll believe it when I see a production still of all four guys in costume together or a trailer or something. There's just to much talking going on at the moment.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Teenage Mutant King Kamala on October 08, 2010, 12:46:00 AM
Urgh...
Seconded. Can't somebody r find a good comeback role for Aykroyd to occupy his time? I mean it happened to Chevy so why the hell not?

At this point, every interview I hear with him about Ghostbusters 3 sounds like my dad when he talks about putting his old band from the '80s back together. No, Dan Aykroyd, that doesn't mean I want a third Blues Brothers movie with Jim Belushi in it.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Black Lushus on October 08, 2010, 12:52:55 AM
They must let any hack write movie news articles on the internet...that was a grammatical nightmare to read through.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Teenage Mutant King Kamala on October 08, 2010, 12:56:49 AM
They must let any hack write movie news articles on the internet...that was a grammatical nightmare to read through.
Bob Barron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpooI-ZnvgA#)

Spoiler: show
 I know Barron writes general fluff stories for some small town paper but I just wanted to post "Here Comes Shitty bob_barron again"
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 08, 2010, 01:21:56 AM
my dad when he talks about putting his old band from the '80s back together.

dog police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0359hSerDeE#)
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on March 14, 2011, 01:58:09 AM
I have a friend who works for JP Morgan Chase as an events planner. He plans parties for celebrities, and he did one recently for Sigourney Weaver. He got a chance to meet her and said she is a really great person. He brought up Ghostbuters 3, and apparently it's already done shooting and all the problems that were reported were just to cover up the fact that they were making it. Don't know if I believe that and even he was weary of it, but you never know.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on March 14, 2011, 02:32:46 AM
Yeah, that's what someone who has no idea how movies are made says.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on March 14, 2011, 02:43:14 AM
Nah its true facts bro they totes made this movie on the DL
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on March 14, 2011, 03:10:48 AM
oh ok kewl
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on March 14, 2011, 03:15:47 AM
OK, who wants to be the lucky duck to e-mail this thread to Nikki Finke.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on March 14, 2011, 03:39:06 AM
Bill Murray did an interview on Howard Stern a few weeks ago, and he said he's had a script on his desk for a couple years but hasn't gotten around to reading it yet.  He gave off the impression that he really doesn't want to do the movie, but could end up getting roped into it as a favor to Akroyd, Reitman and Ramis.  There's also the belief that the studio won't go forward on it without Murray attached, so he's basically holding the project hostage right now

Personally, I don't need to see a Ghostbusters 3.  It's been too long, everybody is too old, and Akroyd is too fat.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on March 14, 2011, 03:41:45 AM
Now, I wasn't saying it was 100% true, and maybe she was talking about a different part, like the script being done or preproduction or something else.

dead man, I'm with you on not needing a new Ghostbusters film. After seeing Year One, I never want anyone associated with the making of that film to ever make another one.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on March 14, 2011, 03:49:28 AM
He gave off the impression that he really doesn't want to do the movie, but could end up getting roped into it as a favor to Akroyd, Reitman and Ramis. 
AND HUDSON!
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on March 14, 2011, 03:52:20 AM
Bill Murray strikes me as the type of person who doesn't do favors.

Now, I wasn't saying it was 100% true, and maybe she was talking about a different part, like the script being done or preproduction or something else.

We know. We're making fun of your stupid friend, who said they'd finished shooting it.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on March 14, 2011, 04:02:32 AM
His friend is JN News' MSN contact, btw.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on March 14, 2011, 04:03:36 AM
JP Morgan, Mister Venkman.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on March 14, 2011, 04:05:10 AM
That's who he works for, yes.

I believe it happened though. Sigourney knows the rule - when someone asks you about Ghostbusters 3, you say YES.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 14, 2011, 06:10:16 AM
I could actually see Murray doing a favor for Ramis and Aykroyd since he somewhat owes his career to them. However, Ghostbusters: The Video Game could be seen as the "favor" being done.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on March 14, 2011, 06:18:46 AM
I could actually see Murray doing a favor for Ramis and Aykroyd since he somewhat owes his career to them.

Guh?
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 14, 2011, 10:53:21 PM
He was obviously going to be huge because of his comic delivery and just overall charisma, but it was really SNL, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes, and Ghostbusters that cemented him as a star, all of which involved Ramis and/or Aykroyd in the writing department.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on August 30, 2011, 10:36:03 PM
Hey, guys...kinda big fucking news (http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/film/ghostbusters-3-shooting-spring-bill-murray.html).
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on August 31, 2011, 01:12:30 AM
Quote
He says rather definitively, “we begin production in the spring, I hope.”

That isn't very definitive, I hope.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: ChrisMWaters on August 31, 2011, 03:06:27 AM
Basically what I get from that is they're pretty much making this a movie.

(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2057/egbdesktopka7.jpg)
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on August 31, 2011, 06:41:29 AM
You know, that show got a hugely bad rap. A lot of the episodes were actually pretty brutal in tone, especially compared to the overall lighthearted slapstick of the original RGB cartoon. The long-term story arc of Kylie and Eduardo secretly being in love and never openly admitting it wasn't too shabby for a kid's cartoon, either.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: ChrisMWaters on August 31, 2011, 09:13:52 AM
You know, that show got a hugely bad rap. A lot of the episodes were actually pretty brutal in tone, especially compared to the overall lighthearted slapstick of the original RGB cartoon. The long-term story arc of Kylie and Eduardo secretly being in love and never openly admitting it wasn't too shabby for a kid's cartoon, either.
Oh, I'm not knocking the show, don't get me wrong.

It just seems like an extremely (no pun intended) similar concept.

Someone did have a good idea for who to get to play Kylie: Pauley Perrette
(http://www.jewlerykingdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Pauley-Perrette.jpg)
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on August 31, 2011, 09:15:21 AM
When I saw Aykroyd suggesting wormy dude from bullshit crime show for the cast, I was going to mockingly suggest her for a part
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on August 31, 2011, 09:35:41 AM
Seriously, that lady is on CBS doing an impersonation of someone trying to be funny. Keep her out of Ghostbusters.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on August 31, 2011, 11:39:52 AM
(http://crushable.com/files/2009/04/krysten-ritter-breaking-bad-12.jpg)

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEEME
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on August 31, 2011, 02:46:18 PM
You can tell he's awesome because of the wings around his pockets.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Next Big Comedy Star on September 08, 2011, 10:13:00 AM
I just had a vision of Donald Glover, Charlie Day, Glenn Howerton, and Rob McElhenny as the new Ghostbusters, Liam McPoyle as new Louis Tully, and it being written by Akyroyd/Ramis.

If that were to happen, Ghostbusters 3 wouldn't need Murray.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on September 21, 2011, 04:27:37 AM
Ghostbusters is playing in theatres this October. Only Halloween here (and perhaps most places), but I think I want to go.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on September 21, 2011, 06:25:19 AM
Ghostbusters is playing in theatres this October. Only Halloween here (and perhaps most places), but I think I want to go.
A chance to see one of my all time favs on the big screen, oh yeah, I'm all over that :D
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on September 21, 2011, 07:23:52 AM
If it's anywhere near me I'm going.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Aero on September 21, 2011, 08:25:18 AM
I read that last week, but there weren't any details. Is it limited to a particular theater?
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on September 21, 2011, 09:44:12 AM
I think the same company that handled distribution for the Back to the Future anniversary re-release is doing this, so it should be playing at AMC theaters, of which there are none near me.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on September 21, 2011, 10:10:53 AM
Searched the AMC Theaters site to see if they had any more information on it. I found this (http://www.amctheatres.com/Network/Blog.aspx?id=30660&blogid=438450&terms=ghostbusters) instead.

Despite how mediocre it turned out to be, I think the Shaft reboot actually got it right: it's TECHNICALLY a sequel, as the original Shaft appears (and they make it clear that Samuel L. Jackson's Shaft is the original's nephew), but they made it its own movie.

This got me thinking. Instead of going with a straightforward sequel or another lame-ass reboot (it made me laugh that the author of that blog I linked said nobody born after 1989 knows of the movie, because it's not like it's one of the single most beloved comedies movies of the last 30 years or anything), I actually would kinda dig the idea of the original team only making cameo appearances as themselves, maybe taking the GB company in the movie into a franchise with the original team only around as the head chairmen, or at least primary stock holders. I could see Ray and Egon heading the research and development department, Venkman as the company's spokesperson, and Winston as one of the head trainers for new recruits. They'd basically be a privatized version of the fire department, a main theme could be the government wanting to take over their business and run it, antitrust lawsuits, etc.

...I just developed a fanfic...with less gay sex...
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on September 21, 2011, 10:47:27 AM

Wasn't that the plan though? That they were passing the torches onto a new team and this was essentially a way to get the franchise back to life WITHOUT having to restart it?
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on September 21, 2011, 02:26:30 PM
I think so, but that makes it seem like the plot will be Aykroyd/Ramis/Hudson/Murray (maybe) actively doing so throughout the course of the movie instead of having them be cameo parts. It'd piss off a lot of the core fanbase, but you can do GB without having a bunch of fat old guys actively trying to do the same things they did 20 years ago.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: luke-o on September 22, 2011, 12:21:43 AM
Oh man, apperantly the Ghostbusters re-release is going into cinemas Worldwide. Thank the lord!
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on September 22, 2011, 08:29:59 AM
I think so, but that makes it seem like the plot will be Aykroyd/Ramis/Hudson/Murray (maybe) actively doing so throughout the course of the movie instead of having them be cameo parts. It'd piss off a lot of the core fanbase, but you can do GB without having a bunch of fat old guys actively trying to do the same things they did 20 years ago.

But that is a great story! It's them realizing guess what, we are too old for this shit. Them trying to have that one last grab at glory. I do not see the main issue with a story like that.

Let's be real here, how many reboots have led to a new franchise? Batman?
I really cannot think of many reboots that led to anything more than one underperforming lukewarm response of a film.

Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on September 22, 2011, 11:17:09 AM
Aye. True, true...

Remember the last season or two of Scrubs when the main cast was barely in it besides Dr. Cox, Turk, and Carla? A GB3 without the original cast playing a major role would be like that.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on September 22, 2011, 11:50:44 AM
Let's be real here, how many reboots have led to a new franchise? Batman?

Casino Royale Opening (Best Audio) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfc9GLxlhEw#ws)
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on September 22, 2011, 12:32:56 PM
That got ruined fast.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on September 22, 2011, 01:17:09 PM
No it didn't
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on September 22, 2011, 02:48:27 PM
That's not what I heard on the internet. I remember leaving QoS thinking it was ok, but I heard I hated it with a passion.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on September 22, 2011, 02:56:10 PM
Everything on the Internet is true.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 13, 2011, 05:27:15 AM
So, Ghostbusters is being re-released into theaters TONIGHT ONLY to commemorate its 25-year anniversary. Here's a good way to find showings near you (http://www.facebook.com/#!/Ghostbusters?sk=app_282996701729481) (you'll need to be logged into Facebook to use it).
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: blade2kxx on October 13, 2011, 06:39:21 AM
So, Ghostbusters is being re-released into theaters TONIGHT ONLY to commemorate its 25-year anniversary. Here's a good way to find showings near you (http://www.facebook.com/#!/Ghostbusters?sk=app_282996701729481) (you'll need to be logged into Facebook to use it).

Tonight only is wrong Corey. The movie will be played tonight, the 20th, and the 27th.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 13, 2011, 02:15:39 PM
Well then. I feel stupid for saying that.

I do not, however, feel stupid for seeing it anyway. Seeing Ghostbusters on the big screen for the first time in my life was an experience. I've memorized every line from it, learned the majority of its backstory (including how Bill Murray improvised the least of the main cast, oddly enough), and all that noise...but I still laughed my fucking ass off at all of the little things I missed because I'd only seen it on your average TV screen. Case in point?

-When Janine tells Egon that she's afraid that he's going to die and then hugs him, Egon rolls his eyes at her concerns before comforting her.
-When Peck is walking around Venkman's office, Janine peaks her head around the corner to see what's going on.
-When Venkman is using the squeeze-pump instrument in Dana's apartment, he's holding it very precariously in the region of his crotch/waist, even squeezing it harder once or twice while he points it at Dana's face.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on October 13, 2011, 02:40:47 PM

Really pissed I can't go see this. Closest location is over an hour away unless something changes and I work. Fucking thursday only really sucks.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on October 14, 2011, 12:17:21 PM
Corey, let me ask you, how was the crowd? When I saw Back to the Future on the big screen, I was afraid that everyone would call out the lines before they happen, but they didn't. It was great. Did they do that at your screening for this?
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 14, 2011, 12:54:01 PM
Well, there was a grand total of 12 people in the audience, and I think the only people who actually knew the lines were my friend Joey and I. We recited a few of the lines along with the movie, but not so loud that anybody beyond our own group could hear it.

...except we did sing along to the song at the end...because we're fucking tools like that...
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 14, 2011, 01:36:55 PM
Ya'll know I hate the idea of saying lines along with a movie and cheering and all that, but I fear I won't be able to stop myself from saying "They go up." when Ray asks where those stairs go.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 14, 2011, 01:39:22 PM
I had to be a fag and cheer at the end of it. It's fucking GHOSTBUSTERS, man!
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 14, 2011, 01:44:42 PM
I can't say I blame you. In the DVD commentary, they say that the audience cheered the first time the Ghostbusters showed up in full uniform, too.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that Ghostbusters is one of the most well made movies ever.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 14, 2011, 01:55:29 PM
It really is. Even the pacing is more reminiscent of the old 40's horror/comedies that Aykroyd loved so much as a kid, stuff like Ghost Breakers and whatnot.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 14, 2011, 01:56:38 PM
"Premakes" Ghost Busters (1954) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAboGO9MDsQ#)

You've probably seen this, but whatever. I watch it every couple of months.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 21, 2011, 01:34:10 AM
(http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/billmurray-akroyd.jpg)
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 27, 2011, 02:52:29 AM
By the way, I did get to go see this last weekend, and if you have a chance to see it tonight, you won't regret it. The print looked better than even the original DVD.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 27, 2011, 03:40:13 AM
By the way, I did get to go see this last weekend, and if you have a chance to see it tonight, you won't regret it. The print looked better than even the original DVD.
This.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 27, 2011, 03:51:56 AM
For instance, the scene where Venkman goes back to Miss Barrett's apartment to check her out, I'd always thought the entire thing was off on any release I'd ever seen. Something about it makes Bill Murray look like he's in pancake makeup. That's not the case with this theatrical print. I was stunned to see it looking so normal.

Also, I'd never noticed it before when watching it on TV, but
Spoiler: show
you can see a faded Stay-Puft Marshmallow ad painted on a building in the foreground when the containment unit blows
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 27, 2011, 03:56:02 AM
That was one of those instances of being able to see so much more on the big screen than just a TV. Catch Egon rolling his eyes during the "I'm afraid you're gonna die" part?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on April 07, 2012, 02:38:19 AM
http://www.movieline.com/2012/04/06/doc-peeks-into-ingmar-bergmans-vhs-collection-finds-ghostbusters/ (http://www.movieline.com/2012/04/06/doc-peeks-into-ingmar-bergmans-vhs-collection-finds-ghostbusters/)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on April 07, 2012, 02:46:24 AM
Never trust somebody who doesn't like Ghostbusters.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 05, 2012, 11:47:59 AM
Dan Aykroyd says that GB3 has new writers (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/07/aykroyd-ghostbusters-3-has-new-writers/)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on July 05, 2012, 12:23:35 PM
It seems like Bill would be willing to do it if it didn't suck. I think he has been nice about it and saying it was age, but I think it was a mix of both. Bill seems like he wants to do one where they pass on the torch and call it a career but the one that was written wasn't worth his time.

Maybe Dan finally got the message loud and clear. The script sucks, I won't do it, fix it and I might.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 05, 2012, 12:41:09 PM
The majority of the movie being a new team failing at trying to be Ghostbusters could work with the right cast. Keep the Apatow regulars out of it except for maybe brief cameos (well, maybe not Jason Segel, because he could actually rule in it), treat it with the love and respect that they didn't treat Ghostbusters 2 with but did treat Ghostbusters: The Video Game with, and it could work.

I once did an outline on how the "old crew training the new crew" could work, even within Murray's initial "Venkman needs to be a ghost" demand, while chatting with a friend on AIM. I wonder if I can find it...
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on July 05, 2012, 02:06:11 PM
It doesn't seem like the hardest story to even make. I don't know where the struggle is.
Some of the names I heard tossed around made me ill. Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Sean William Scott, Seth Rogen and even someone suggested Justin fucking Bieber would be good for it. If any of those names was cast, I'd ignore the film altogether.

I'd really like to see one of the new ones be a female, like say Kristen Bell. Of course, this just could be because of the geekiest crush I have on Kristen Bell.

And fuck killing Bill, have him pull a Space Jam. Was barely in it, but was in it enough to be considered a solid piece and then rides in to save the day at the end. Then he can pull his "I'm too old for this shit" and walk off after it is over.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 05, 2012, 03:55:17 PM
I think that was how my friend and I found the out, actually. I can't find the chat, so I didn't save it, but it was all about the GB franchise going global and the original crew were the CEOs and following a new batch of recruits through training to their early missions. Hilarity ensues until a demonic force possesses people in high enough power to shut the GB company down and our new recruits just happen to be the only ones not laid off (due to being so inept or just via oversight).

Yes, we came up with this while I was very high.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on August 02, 2012, 03:05:34 AM
Bill Murray will NOT be involved.

Credit: Metro (http://www.metro.co.uk/film/907075-dan-aykroyd-im-sad-bill-murray-wont-be-in-ghostbusters-3)
Quote
Dan Aykroyd: I'm sad Bill Murray won't be in Ghostbusters 3
Dan Aykroyd talks to Metro about his sadness at Bill Murray's absence from Ghostbusters 3, buying his own island and his new show on Jazz FM.

...

Is Ghostbusters 3 finally happening?
Yes, we've got a brilliant new writer on it and we'll be passing the torch on to a new generation. We're working on it to make it just right to satisfy our fans. I'm confident we'll be in production in the next year.

It's been a long process, hasn't it?
Yes, but now we've got the studio on side. We've tried a few concepts which weren't right but now we've got a good structure and will make it happen.

Is Bill Murray doing it?
No, I can tell you he won't be involved.

How do you feel about that?
It's sad but we're passing it on to a new generation. Ghostbusters 3 can be a successful movie without Bill. My preference would be to have him involved but at this point he doesn't seem to be coming and we have to move on. It's time to make the third one.
So, basically, what everybody already knew years ago is accurate, and rumors to the contrary (that Murray would be involved if the script was better) are false or, at the very least, no longer true.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on May 20, 2013, 06:06:52 PM
http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/174035-plot-details-revealed-for-ghostbusters-3 (http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/174035-plot-details-revealed-for-ghostbusters-3)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on May 21, 2013, 04:28:00 AM
He says this shit every few months. And they are on now like the 5th different script idea in the last two years. Putting paddles to a skeleton horse now.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on May 21, 2013, 08:07:48 AM
I really want this to happen and I really want it to be good but I just know that it'll be, at best, a run-of-the-mill comedy or, at worst, Year One with ghosts.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on March 19, 2014, 10:37:18 AM
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/74728/ghostbusters-iii-go-ivan-reitman-will-not-direct#axzz2wSEyDMyo (http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/74728/ghostbusters-iii-go-ivan-reitman-will-not-direct#axzz2wSEyDMyo) So Murray's out, Ramis is dead and now Reitman is gone, at this point maybe it'd just be best to A. let it die or B. do a remake instead of a "sequel", just toss Akroyd in as the mayor and have Hudson be Walter Peck, or vice versa.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: The ghost of bps21 on March 19, 2014, 10:39:24 AM
Just leave it dead.  That they keep trying to push it in spite of a host of reasons not to is making me hate Dan Akroyd. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on March 19, 2014, 12:06:29 PM
If Seth Rogen's in it, I'm out.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on March 19, 2014, 10:15:04 PM
Like anyone making these has ever been concerned about Ernie Hudson
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 19, 2014, 10:42:50 PM
Has anybody in your family ever seen an Ernie Hudson, specter, or ghost?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on March 20, 2014, 04:57:14 AM
Ernie, would you be in the movie if it starred Seth Rogen, Jon Lovitz, a talking chimp, a Gorilla that signs, a animated mouse and Dan Aykroyd?

Uhh as long as there is a steady paycheck involved, I'll star with anyone you say.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on March 20, 2014, 05:04:16 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FnG7Hd6NwI

Boom, Ghostbusters III. Let's leave it at that.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 20, 2014, 08:33:16 AM
Honestly, if they were to make another Ghostbusters movie, I'd rather it be more like the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft reboot/sequel than a bunch of guys in their 60's trying to keep up with younger folks.

I'll just walk out this door now before the slime gets hurlOH GOD, IT'S THE BAD KIND, FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on August 03, 2014, 10:05:00 PM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ghostbusters-3-targets-paul-feig-723028

Quote
Sources say the film will be a reboot focusing on female Ghostbusters.

Probably never actually going to go into production, but this would be dope.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on August 03, 2014, 10:28:04 PM
with Feig directing I'll guess that the cast will be

Kristen Wiig as Venkman

Melissa McCarthy as Ray

Maya Rudolph as Winston

Amy Poehler as Egon
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on August 03, 2014, 10:54:04 PM
Poehler and Maya can come, but McCarthy can fuck right off. Wiig I'd be indifferent to.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on August 03, 2014, 11:11:23 PM
Jon Hamm as Daniel Barrett
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on August 03, 2014, 11:24:53 PM
Chris O'Dowd as John Melnitz
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on August 03, 2014, 11:27:44 PM
Lizzy Caplan as Louise Tully
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on August 04, 2014, 12:17:23 AM
Annie Potts as Rick Moranis

Sigourney Weaver reprises her role as the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on August 04, 2014, 12:32:44 AM

Lizzy Caplan as Louise Tully
I would be in favor of this.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on August 04, 2014, 08:11:30 AM
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/6cfbe6cd5a618305f4b82fdf236fcd14/tumblr_mq7dguDmHf1rbrhnko1_500.gif)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on August 04, 2014, 08:14:04 AM
Kristen Bell would need to be a Ghostbuster. She's already posed with the damn car!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on August 04, 2014, 09:59:06 AM
"Ghost Bust Hers" performed by Katy Perry, Nikki Minaj, and a girl from a Disney Channel show you don't know about at this date
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on August 04, 2014, 10:00:42 AM
"It's that slime of the month," Dr. Peta Venkwoman said
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on August 04, 2014, 11:41:30 AM
with Feig directing I'll guess that the cast will be

Kristen Wiig as Venkman

Melissa McCarthy as Ray

Maya Rudolph as Winston

Amy Poehler as Egon

I would say Tina Fey as Egon

Amy Poehler as Louis Tully

Melissa McCarthy's husband as Janine.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on August 04, 2014, 12:02:49 PM
seth rogen as walter peck
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Next Big Comedy Star on August 04, 2014, 12:08:31 PM
with Feig directing I'll guess that the cast will be

Kristen Wiig as Venkman

Melissa McCarthy as Ray

Maya Rudolph as Winston

Amy Poehler as Egon

I would say Tina Fey as Egon

Amy Poehler as Louis Tully

Josh Gad as Janine.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on August 04, 2014, 01:46:29 PM
"It's that slime of the month," Dr. Peta Venkwoman said
This is too witty to be in a Melissa McCarthy movie.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: 2GOLD on August 04, 2014, 01:49:41 PM
"It's that slime of the month," Dr. Peta Venkwoman said
This is too witty to be in a Melissa McCarthy movie.

She can get mad at Slimer for eating all the doughnuts to balance it out. We can put in a scene where she chases him while he has a cake, and she falls down! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH CAUSE SHE'S FAT YOU SEE!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 08, 2014, 09:16:00 AM
Quote from: Paul Feig
It's official. I'm making a new Ghostbusters & writing it with @katiedippold & yes, it will star hilarious women. That's who I'm gonna call.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: The ghost of bps21 on October 08, 2014, 09:17:17 AM
Fucking fat melissa McCarthy slowly squeaking down the fireman poll will be at least ten seconds of a trailer no one laughs at.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 08, 2014, 09:22:25 AM
I will accept Kristen Wiig and the Apatow regulars or even the Happy Madison crew (who can deliver with the right material), but please, please not fucking Melissa McCarthy...
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on October 08, 2014, 10:07:07 AM
Only way this movie has a chance is if Melissa McCarthy splits her pants going down the pole and yells "fuck" every two seconds.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Anakin Flair on October 08, 2014, 11:22:03 AM
I'll believe it when they actually start FILMING.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 08, 2014, 11:33:54 PM
I will accept garbage and the garbage regulars or even the garbage crew (who can deliver with the right material), but please, please not fucking garbage...
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on October 09, 2014, 12:00:59 AM
Kristen Wiig isn't garbage you misogynist PIG.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Next Big Comedy Star on October 09, 2014, 01:31:50 AM
Kristen Wiig isn't garbage you misogynist PIG.

(https://media.zenfs.com/en-US/video/video.snl.com/SNL_1544_08_Gilly.png)

Does Wiig event want to make comedies anymore? Her last few films have veered towards drama or dramadies and I'm fine with that. I'm sure she'll be a fine actress, but I've seen enough SNL to agree that she's comedic trash.

I just want unknowns or lesser knowns instead of SNL/McCarthy/Cameron Diaz/Sandra Bullock/Sarah Silverman.

Just put Kaitlin Olson, Kristen Schaal, or Jillian Bell in this. One of them with the aforementioned three and I'm fine.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Skywarp! on October 09, 2014, 02:12:59 AM
I would honestly rather this not happen at all. But Hollywood's too ball-less to green light a movie without slapping an existing and recognizable IP on it, so here we are.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on October 09, 2014, 02:33:18 AM
I never saw Wiig on SNL, but I liked her fine in the handful of comedic roles in other TV shows I've seen and Bridesmaids.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on October 09, 2014, 03:37:37 AM
Ok, female Busters aside, who will become the male versions of the female characters, Dana and Janine.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Next Big Comedy Star on October 09, 2014, 03:39:41 AM
Tyler Perry and Jason Biggs
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on October 09, 2014, 03:44:08 AM
Just put Kaitlin Olson, Kristen Schaal, or Jillian Bell in this. One of them with the aforementioned three and I'm fine.

I say Kristen Schaal, for Rick Moranis role and Kaitlin Olson for Walter Peck.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 09, 2014, 03:48:06 AM
Without going too far into fanfic or "fantasy booking" territory, I think the best plan would be to have the company be a huge international conglomerate, use the old cast (that will show up) as cameos, and focus on a newer team of veterans and rookies. There's the option to really tap into a blue collar vs. white collar dynamic and "forgetting where you came from" and maybe even some satirical poking at '80s tropes and unnecessary sequels, wrap it all up in a PG/PG-13 package, and then create some new big bad demonic force to contend with, complimenting and adding to the established canon and general mythos.

I'm expecting 2 hours of horrible "wink wink" jokes and a shyte subplot about Twinkies being temporarily extinct.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on October 09, 2014, 03:51:11 AM
Peter Venkman starts female ghostbusters in an attempt to sleep with young hot chicks. The whole movie is Venkman being a sleeze bag trying to bang the female ghostbusters.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 09, 2014, 04:21:30 AM
Kristen Wiig isn't garbage you misogynist PIG.

Merely conducting a language experiment.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 09, 2014, 04:43:16 AM

Peter Venkman starts female ghostbusters in an attempt to sleep with young hot chicks. The whole movie is Venkman being a sleeze bag trying to bang the female ghostbusters.
Venkman is played by Chris Pine in a fat suit.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Epic by Faith No More on October 09, 2014, 04:49:45 AM
Neil Patrick Harris and Seann William Scott.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on October 09, 2014, 07:22:51 AM
http://www.superherohype.com/news/317881-paul-feig-says-new-ghostbusters-movie-will-be-a-total-reboot (http://www.superherohype.com/news/317881-paul-feig-says-new-ghostbusters-movie-will-be-a-total-reboot)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 09, 2014, 08:22:51 AM
...fuck you, Dan Aykroyd.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on October 09, 2014, 10:45:44 AM
Quote
Feig also gushed about loving the dream cast of potential funny ladies Bill Murray opined about in a recent interview, which included Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Linda Cardellini and Emma Stone


last two are great choices.  I'm not a Wiig fan at all but I think I could tolerate her in something like this
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on October 09, 2014, 11:47:55 AM
I'm assuming the scene where the ghost gives a ghostbuster oral will be cut.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 09, 2014, 12:03:23 PM
The ghost will sneak up on Melissa McCarthy and she'll see it, go "hey you're kinda cute," and then chase it down saying something like "mama wants a piece!"
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on October 09, 2014, 12:24:14 PM
The ghost will sneak up on Melissa McCarthy and she'll see it, go "hey you're kinda cute," and then chase it down saying something like "mama wants a piece!"

She'll then die by getting shot by the proton packs since the other Busters will think she's Slimer.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: chuck on October 09, 2014, 12:48:29 PM
The only thing certain about this movie is that it will be horrible.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on October 10, 2014, 01:14:01 AM
http://comicbook.com/2014/10/09/ernie-hudson-thinks-all-female-ghostbusters-is-a-bad-idea/

Quote
"I love females. I hope that if they go that way at least they'll be funny, and if they're not funny at least hopefully it'll be sexy. I love the idea of including women, I think that's great."

"But all-female I think would be a bad idea. I don't think the fans want to see that."
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Skywarp! on October 10, 2014, 01:39:27 AM
Believe it. He's seen some shit that will make...oh, forget it.

There's going to be a sight gag where one of them is trying to finesse a busted particle accelerator and it looks like she's giving it a handy, isn't there? Or some callback line about not crossing the streams, which will be met with, "Of course not. We're women, not a bunch of boys taking a whiz after roasting some Stay-Puft."
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on October 10, 2014, 01:44:02 AM
Aww, I thought it was going to be She-Ra.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 10, 2014, 05:28:23 AM
Nobody steps on an OBGYN in my town!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: The ghost of bps21 on October 10, 2014, 06:56:02 AM
Guys...we should write the all female ghostbusters.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 10, 2014, 07:27:52 AM
Guys...Vince Russo should write the all female ghostbusters.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Edwin on October 10, 2014, 03:46:22 PM
This Ain't Ghostbusters 2016 XXX: Bustin Makes Me Feel Good, starring Emma Bone, Kristen Vag, Linda Carditinme, and Melissa McCarthy
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Richard on October 10, 2014, 05:35:30 PM
There actually is a porn star going by Emma Stoned.

Anyway I'm going to tell everyone I think the movie's funny no matter what so people don't think I'm a misogynistic mra rape-culture supporting neckbearded bro or whatever.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on October 10, 2014, 06:27:18 PM
What if they Whedon-ed it?  Summer Glau, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Eliza Dushku, Amy Acker, Jewel Staite, and Gina Torres.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on October 11, 2014, 12:51:23 PM
What if they rebooted a movie from 1984 and pretended it was 1997
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 12, 2014, 06:30:09 AM
Ghostbusters: The Fall of Draghul, Pt. 1
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Skywarp! on October 13, 2014, 02:32:50 AM
-"You are what you eat!"

-"Well then..." (holds out plate next to dancing toaster as it pops out bread) "THIS CHICK IS TOAST!" (crunch!)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on October 14, 2014, 04:33:07 AM
Apparently Gillian Anderson has expressed interest in being in this, I could totally get behind her in the Egon role.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 14, 2014, 05:48:48 AM
Dr. Scully: "I collect spores, molds, and used tampons."
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on October 14, 2014, 06:46:45 AM
I can't imagine what shitty "trendy" thing that Stay Puft will be replaced with. Probably a giant dildo or some sex toy.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 14, 2014, 07:05:03 AM
"It's the Kale Breakfast Shake Man."
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Next Big Comedy Star on October 14, 2014, 07:12:03 AM
A giant McDonald's Whopper container
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on October 14, 2014, 07:17:34 AM
A giant Activia yogurt voiced by Jamie Lee Curtis
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Skywarp! on October 15, 2014, 04:44:20 AM
I can't imagine what shitty "trendy" thing that Stay Puft will be replaced with. Probably a giant dildo or some sex toy.

-"It's a Twinkie...thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six-hundred pounds."

-"That's a big Twinkie."

-"Why did you think of that?"

-"Actually, the most harmless thing I could think of was a 'twink,' but I don't think Gozer understood that."
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on October 15, 2014, 06:16:15 AM
Still too clever. Make a reference to Justin Bieber instead.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on January 09, 2015, 11:44:12 AM
Quote
Melissa McCarthy is finally in those long-rumored discussions to star in the Ghostbusters reboot. THR reports that the talks are very early at this stage and a lot has to be worked out in terms of her commitments to Mike & Molly and her next film, Michelle Darnell. If it all works out the film would begin shooting in June.

The film is to be directed by Paul Feig and will not have any continuity with the original film. It is said to have a more frightening tone and will be led by a female cast.

This is something worth burning down the town over.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on January 10, 2015, 03:11:45 AM
It was inevitable McCarthy was going to be cast.  I knew from the second this was announced she would be the star.  Hopefully they surround her with a talented, like able cast
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: NoCalMike on January 10, 2015, 03:34:07 PM
Has Melissa McCarthy done any kind of comedy or acting period where she wasn't the kind of character she is basically known for always being? Because if THAT is the direction they are going for with the this movie, then fuck that.

I hate getting into this conversation with the wrong people because this isn't really about me not wanting an "all female Ghostbusters" movie so much as having zero confidence that the movie has any chance of being good considering how much the studios will want to turn it into a paint by numbers generic comedy, instead of going with what made the original so great, but really that would go for Ghostbusters 3 period, regardless of it being an all-female cast or not.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on January 10, 2015, 05:35:13 PM
I thought she was fine on Gilmore Girls.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on January 27, 2015, 08:00:26 AM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/new-all-female-ghostbusters-cast-767610

Legit stoked for this.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Lord of The Curry on January 27, 2015, 08:04:18 AM
I was too until I saw that Melissa McCarthy is in it. Ugh.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Next Big Comedy Star on January 27, 2015, 08:08:42 AM
I hope this is a breakout for Kate McKinnon. I'm probably skipping this though.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on January 27, 2015, 08:32:38 AM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/new-all-female-ghostbusters-cast-767610

Legit stoked for this.

(http://i.imgur.com/GDDRWkA.gif)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: geniusMoment on January 27, 2015, 08:48:37 AM
At least Gillian Anderson didn't get stuck in this festering corpse of a movie.  I'm hoping the movie doesn't screen well so I won't have to see many of the ads for it, and I can then just pretend it never occurred.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Youth N Asia on January 27, 2015, 08:56:47 AM
What's the over/under on how many times McCarthy has a hilarious fat girl fall while yelling out "oh boy!"?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on January 27, 2015, 12:21:51 PM
I already hate this movie. Not because of what it can or can't be, but because people are already saying that you're sexist if you have anything negative to say about it.

A friend of mine posted that he doesn't think it will be good, a couple other people agreed and he received the generic, "Why not? You don't think women can be funny?"
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Damaramu on January 27, 2015, 12:49:03 PM
I already hate this movie. Not because of what it can or can't be, but because people are already saying that you're sexist if you have anything negative to say about it.

A friend of mine posted that he doesn't think it will be good, a couple other people agreed and he received the generic, "Why not? You don't think women can be funny?"

Your response should be: "No. Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are hilarious. It's the other two that suck."
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 27, 2015, 12:56:06 PM

I already hate this movie. Not because of what it can or can't be, but because people are already saying that you're sexist if you have anything negative to say about it.

A friend of mine posted that he doesn't think it will be good, a couple other people agreed and he received the generic, "Why not? You don't think women can be funny?"

Your response should be: "No. Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are hilarious. It's the other two that suck."
Or "I have no problem with funny women, just a problem with thinking women are funny for doing a ripoff of a ripoff."
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on January 27, 2015, 03:05:04 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8Y1YXrCcAEfYFL.jpg)

Miley as Gozer amirite?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on January 27, 2015, 03:08:42 PM

I already hate this movie. Not because of what it can or can't be, but because people are already saying that you're sexist if you have anything negative to say about it.

A friend of mine posted that he doesn't think it will be good, a couple other people agreed and he received the generic, "Why not? You don't think women can be funny?"

Your response should be: "No. Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are hilarious. It's the other two that suck."
Or "I have no problem with funny women, just a problem with thinking women are funny for doing a ripoff of a ripoff."

How is this a ripoff? It's literally the same franchise.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Damaramu on January 28, 2015, 12:39:36 AM
What's the over/under on how many times McCarthy has a hilarious fat girl fall while yelling out "oh boy!"?

I already imagine there's going to be a scene where they're running and they all have to hop over a wall and she tries to get up it, can't and falls while making panting noises.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Lord of The Curry on January 28, 2015, 12:59:17 AM
Her and Slimer fight over who gets to eat a whole pizza or some shit.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on January 28, 2015, 04:02:47 AM
I already hate this movie. Not because of what it can or can't be, but because people are already saying that you're sexist if you have anything negative to say about it.

A friend of mine posted that he doesn't think it will be good, a couple other people agreed and he received the generic, "Why not? You don't think women can be funny?"

"You're only against this because you have a penis, you sexist pig!"

There's a surprisingly big ratio of females whom are against this idea too so...girl power...I guess? I was actually for a female cast. I found the idea interesting, but this cast is just....

(http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/1-29-2015/a0vTjY.gif)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on January 28, 2015, 05:05:08 AM
It sucks when men are forced to reflect upon whether or not their opinions might actually be based in or contain some kind of implicit sexism, I agree. The world would be so much better if we men could just dismiss things made by or featuring women out of hand without having to explain ourselves. Especially us men who know we're not sexist, trust us. This persecution must stop.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on January 28, 2015, 05:46:27 AM
I'm sure the asshole city inspector, Walter Peck, will still be a white male.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on January 28, 2015, 06:18:51 AM
It sucks when men are forced to reflect upon whether or not their opinions might actually be based in or contain some kind of implicit sexism, I agree. The world would be so much better if we men could just dismiss things made by or featuring women out of hand without having to explain ourselves. Especially us men who know we're not sexist, trust us. This persecution must stop.

THANK YOU

It's so nice having strong men like Byron around to stand up against the oppressive matriarchy for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on January 28, 2015, 06:27:18 AM
Damn, Byron really running with the #problematic gimmick after Kreese dropped it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on January 28, 2015, 06:33:25 AM
Someone's gotta check the privilege around these parts.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on January 28, 2015, 06:37:34 AM
I mean this is probably gonna suck, though.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Damaramu on January 28, 2015, 06:38:05 AM
I mean this is probably gonna suck, though.

Misogynist!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Lord of The Curry on January 28, 2015, 06:42:43 AM
Meninist.
Title: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 28, 2015, 07:04:55 AM
How is this a ripoff? It's literally the same franchise.
That's in reference to Melissa McCarthy being Chris Farley...who was just a second-rate John Belushi.

EDIT:
And it's not about checking privilege or some misogynist rant. I loved Melissa McCarthy in St. Vincent and want her to do more roles like that. I'm actually a fan of Wiig, and I think Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are hilarious from the little I've seen of them. It's about remaking a movie that doesn't need to be remade, stunt casting (face it: "all female cast" IS stunt casting, just like "all male cast" is), and a complete lack of trust in this movie being anywhere near as watchable as even the fan films were on the grounds of Paul Feig having precisely one movie in his background worth watching (and, even then, it falls apart upon rewatching).

But no, it's definitely because I have a penis and not because of a dislike of the creative mind behind it nor think the cast is up to snuff.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: HSJ on January 28, 2015, 07:07:12 AM
I don't need to be a sexist to know that Kristen Wiig is terrible.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on January 28, 2015, 07:14:26 AM
Cool post, "misogynist at heart"
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on January 28, 2015, 07:18:40 AM
Offended by lack of Hispanic female ghostbuster
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Lord of The Curry on January 28, 2015, 07:37:12 AM
Who was the Hispanic male in the original?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on January 28, 2015, 07:56:54 AM
That shit was made in the 80s. Society has progressed. Ray should be replaced by an hispanic. Janine should be replaced by a gay male.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Two-Time Hall of Famer on January 28, 2015, 08:01:22 AM
Those women are all cisgender.  Progress my ass.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: BorneAgain on January 28, 2015, 08:09:48 AM
No handicapped characters? Clearly Sony is not interested in smashing ableism like Extreme Ghostbusters did.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Lord of The Curry on January 28, 2015, 08:16:39 AM
I thought obesity had been declared a handicap?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on January 28, 2015, 08:54:17 AM
I don't disagree with most of what Corey Lazarus said, but the preemptive whining about how no one will be able to call this a bad movie without being attacked by all those darn feminists on social media is not a good look. And this

Quote
just like "all male cast" is [stunt casting]

is patently absurd.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Two-Time Hall of Famer on January 28, 2015, 09:07:42 AM
I was going to comment on that, but I wasn't sure if he was under the impression that this film is going to literally have an all-female cast, with either no male roles or actresses in the male roles.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on January 28, 2015, 09:12:25 AM
My initial reaction to this is not interested.  I'm willing to give it a chance, but there's a high chance I won't even bother seeing it.  But I'm open minded and will take the wait and see approach

What is the title?  If it's a re-boot it's just gonna be 'Ghostbusters', right, which is sacrilege, but whatever
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on January 28, 2015, 09:14:29 AM
How insecure must one be to have his feelings hurt over a supposedly groundless slight that actually hasn't happened yet because the movie hasn't even been made?

Pretty insecure, I'd say!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Edwin on January 28, 2015, 09:14:54 AM
#notallghostbustersfans
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on January 28, 2015, 09:20:31 AM
some movies just shouldn't be 're-booted'

especially this one where people have been talking about GB3 for 20 years and Murray had no interest and Akroyd was sadly and pathetically trying to keep the idea going and then Ramis dies and Reitman drops out and everyone is like 'fuck it' and then the studio takes over and is like "OK, WE'VE GOT A GREAT IDEA!"

It might be fine, it might be good, and I might not care either way.  We'll see
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 28, 2015, 09:35:10 AM

I don't disagree with most of what Corey Lazarus said, but the preemptive whining about how no one will be able to call this a bad movie without being attacked by all those darn feminists on social media is not a good look. And this

Quote
just like "all male cast" is [stunt casting]

is patently absurd.
If your primary selling point of a film that has yet to have a single shot in the can is the gender of the principal cast? Yes. Stunt casting.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on January 28, 2015, 09:36:25 AM
#notallghostbustersfans

Eh, what the hell, I'll give it 4*.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on January 28, 2015, 09:47:43 AM

I don't disagree with most of what Corey Lazarus said, but the preemptive whining about how no one will be able to call this a bad movie without being attacked by all those darn feminists on social media is not a good look. And this

Quote
just like "all male cast" is [stunt casting]

is patently absurd.
If your primary selling point of a film that has yet to have a single shot in the can is the gender of the principal cast? Yes. Stunt casting.

Stunt casting would be more like if they were casting women in male roles. For instance, if Wiig's character is named Dr. Peter Venkman and her character is a man, but it is a woman (Wiig) playing him. I assume the women in this film will be playing female characters.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Edwin on January 28, 2015, 09:54:51 AM
first promotional photo released, smh:

(http://feminspire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_l16xgn0yIk1qze7x5o1_400.jpeg)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: pujoljunkie on January 28, 2015, 11:20:42 AM
What's with all the Kristen Wiig hate? She's great. Is this because of Gilly? Are people still mad about Gilly?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on January 28, 2015, 01:46:23 PM

I don't disagree with most of what Corey Lazarus said, but the preemptive whining about how no one will be able to call this a bad movie without being attacked by all those darn feminists on social media is not a good look. And this

Quote
just like "all male cast" is [stunt casting]

is patently absurd.
If your primary selling point of a film that has yet to have a single shot in the can is the gender of the principal cast? Yes. Stunt casting.

Except no one ever treats "all male cast" like it's some kind of selling point, because so many movies actually *have* practically all male casts. Unless, like, you think The Hangover or whatever was an example of stunt casting.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on January 28, 2015, 02:34:26 PM
Legit happy for Leslie Jones.  She's great
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on January 28, 2015, 02:42:00 PM
Btw, not to change topic but everyone knows that Dan Aykroyd thinks ghosts are real, right?  The whole story was based on his grandfather and his "paranormal studies".   Lets start making fun of him
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Star Ocean 3 on January 28, 2015, 04:21:52 PM
Btw, not to change topic but everyone knows that Dan Aykroyd thinks ghosts are real, right?  The whole story was based on his grandfather and his "paranormal studies".   Lets start making fun of him

What? You mean he's completely serious in this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKqjIv91Zx8
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on January 28, 2015, 10:36:32 PM
That vodka is actually pretty good. It's probably the most successful thing that Dan Aykroyd has produced in twenty years.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on January 29, 2015, 01:57:05 AM
What's with all the Kristen Wiig hate? She's great. Is this because of Gilly? Are people still mad about Gilly?
I haven't actively watched SNL since the 90s so no comment there, but I've liked Wiig well enough in the movies and TV guest spots I've seen her in.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on January 29, 2015, 02:04:34 AM
It's about remaking a movie that doesn't need to be remade
Is it a remake (same story) or a reboot (same concept, different story), though? Or is it a soft reboot within the same universe a la X-Men (would one of the old 'Busters be their mentor, etc)? Need to know more about what the plot will be before we can say that this is a movie that doesn't need to be made, IMO.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 29, 2015, 02:04:38 AM


I don't disagree with most of what Corey Lazarus said, but the preemptive whining about how no one will be able to call this a bad movie without being attacked by all those darn feminists on social media is not a good look. And this

Quote
just like "all male cast" is [stunt casting]

is patently absurd.
If your primary selling point of a film that has yet to have a single shot in the can is the gender of the principal cast? Yes. Stunt casting.

Except no one ever treats "all male cast" like it's some kind of selling point, because so many movies actually *have* practically all male casts. Unless, like, you think The Hangover or whatever was an example of stunt casting.
Was The Hangover advertised as having an all male cast? No. Was Bridesmaids advertised as an all female cast? No. Is one of the earliest selling points of Paul Feig's upcoming flick an all female focus? Yes.

It's a gimmick. Thus, stunt casting.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on January 29, 2015, 02:06:19 AM


I don't disagree with most of what Corey Lazarus said, but the preemptive whining about how no one will be able to call this a bad movie without being attacked by all those darn feminists on social media is not a good look. And this

Quote
just like "all male cast" is [stunt casting]

is patently absurd.
If your primary selling point of a film that has yet to have a single shot in the can is the gender of the principal cast? Yes. Stunt casting.

Except no one ever treats "all male cast" like it's some kind of selling point, because so many movies actually *have* practically all male casts. Unless, like, you think The Hangover or whatever was an example of stunt casting.
Was The Hangover advertised as having an all male cast? No. Was Bridesmaids advertised as an all female cast? No. Is one of the earliest selling points of Paul Feig's upcoming flick an all female focus? Yes.

It's a gimmick. Thus, stunt casting.
Where is it being advertised? There are no promo (that I know of) posters or trailers exclaiming "ALL FEMALE CAST!" These are all casting news articles reporting on that fact, not necessarily promoting it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on January 29, 2015, 02:10:52 AM
What's with all the Kristen Wiig hate? She's great. Is this because of Gilly? Are people still mad about Gilly?
I haven't actively watched SNL since the 90s so no comment there, but I've liked Wiig well enough in the movies and TV guest spots I've seen her in.

uhh yeah we know you already said that:

I never saw Wiig on SNL, but I liked her fine in the handful of comedic roles in other TV shows I've seen and Bridesmaids.

stop smoking all that florida dank bro
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Incandenza on January 29, 2015, 02:13:40 AM
A man can't reiterate his appreciation for Wiig in the face of hate smh
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on January 29, 2015, 02:14:56 AM
Honestly, I don't get the backlash here. I like all of these actresses. Admittedly McCarthy in smaller doses, but that's only based on some of her recent work.. she's been in many roles that aren't a regurgitation of her Bridesmaids character.

..and people can brush it off all they want, but there are a lot of mouth breathers out there who are upset that they are all women because they are all women. These are the same people who are probably upset that the new Johnny Storm is black.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on January 29, 2015, 02:27:44 AM


I don't disagree with most of what Corey Lazarus said, but the preemptive whining about how no one will be able to call this a bad movie without being attacked by all those darn feminists on social media is not a good look. And this

Quote
just like "all male cast" is [stunt casting]

is patently absurd.
If your primary selling point of a film that has yet to have a single shot in the can is the gender of the principal cast? Yes. Stunt casting.

Except no one ever treats "all male cast" like it's some kind of selling point, because so many movies actually *have* practically all male casts. Unless, like, you think The Hangover or whatever was an example of stunt casting.
Was The Hangover advertised as having an all male cast? No. Was Bridesmaids advertised as an all female cast? No. Is one of the earliest selling points of Paul Feig's upcoming flick an all female focus? Yes.

It's a gimmick. Thus, stunt casting.

Bridesmaids got a ton of press for being a female-oriented Apatow comedy, even if that wasn't the explicit focus of the advertising.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on January 29, 2015, 03:02:46 AM
Byron and DubQ are right. A lot of the pre-emptively defensive posts in here remind me of when people say stuff like “oh you can’t criticize any black person anymore or the race pimps will crucify you, they’re immune to any criticism, the black community.” Most people that say stuff like that have real prejudice towards those groups.

If the idea of criticizing something female-dominated induces a fear in you of a bunch of females ripping you for being a misogynist, then maybe you really do look at women differently than men. I mean, you don’t worry about that backlash when criticizing an all-male cast, so the fact that you have that worry here suggests that you look at them as being different. There’s no reason to think that you can’t give an opinion about a fucking movie without coming off as a bigot unless you think the people you’re talking to are incapable of being reasonable with you and listening to you. Hey, thinking all women are unreasonable and don’t listen, well that sounds a bit familiar.

That sort of unmeasured worry when placed against the reality wrt a certain group, that irrational fear, is a classic sign of prejudice.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on January 29, 2015, 03:07:03 AM
I mean I'll probably think this movie sucks because it probably will. Will I be worried about being called a misogynist LOL HELL NO

Will that happen? Maybe with like 0.01% of the women out there, and I won't care because I'll think they're the foolish ones for believing that. I feel like if I were that paranoid to the point where I worried about getting that response for simply believing what I believe, then I'd probably have some strong biases against women.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on January 29, 2015, 04:02:18 AM
Honestly, I don't get the backlash here. I like all of these actresses. Admittedly McCarthy in smaller doses, but that's only based on some of her recent work.. she's been in many roles that aren't a regurgitation of her Bridesmaids character.

..and people can brush it off all they want, but there are a lot of mouth breathers out there who are upset that they are all women because they are all women. These are the same people who are probably upset that the new Johnny Storm is black.

Or maybe Ghostbusters is a GOAT movie and this on paper look like a steaming pile of shit?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on January 29, 2015, 04:06:44 AM
The reaction is this was cast as Sandler, Rock, James and Schneider would be the same if not worse than the reaction for the women.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on January 29, 2015, 04:10:05 AM
Honestly, I don't get the backlash here. I like all of these actresses. Admittedly McCarthy in smaller doses, but that's only based on some of her recent work.. she's been in many roles that aren't a regurgitation of her Bridesmaids character.

..and people can brush it off all they want, but there are a lot of mouth breathers out there who are upset that they are all women because they are all women. These are the same people who are probably upset that the new Johnny Storm is black.

Or maybe Ghostbusters is a GOAT movie and this on paper look like a steaming pile of shit?
That's fine. I just figured that remakes/reboots are so commonplace that people would be over this by now. They never effect the quality of the original, and what do I care what movie tweens think came first?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on January 29, 2015, 04:13:59 AM
..and people can brush it off all they want, but there are a lot of mouth breathers out there who are upset that they are all women because they are all women. These are the same people who are probably upset that the new Johnny Storm is black.
I'm more upset that it appears as though Sue is adopted. And, you know, maybe Sue and Johnny not being blood related is not important to the story, but it still annoys me, a little. I'd rather that they were either both white, or both black. Also, the cynic in me wonders why, if you're only going to have one member of the FF be black, why it just happens to be the one who doesn't harbor any romantic feelings towards any other member of the FF?

Anyway, sorry for the hijack.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 29, 2015, 04:37:11 AM
Agnes and Roy get it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on January 29, 2015, 06:07:05 AM
I'd just like to also take the time to say that Bridesmaids was one of the most overrated piece of shit movies of 2011. That movie, along with this one, can die of gonorrhea and rot in hell.

Spoiler: show
Laces out. ;)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on January 29, 2015, 06:33:22 AM
Agnes and Roy get it.
Maybe. Or maybe the three of you just hold the original Ghostbusters in too high esteem.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Epic by Faith No More on January 29, 2015, 06:51:19 AM
I think the overall negativity is people thinking Hollywood changes things outside of the source material just because they can. Black Kingpin, black Johnny Storm, all female Ghostbusters, etc. it's just not what people are used to and Hollywood not caring because they're in the minority.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: geniusMoment on January 29, 2015, 06:58:23 AM
I don't mind an all female Ghostbusters, but any vehicle starring Melissa is horrible.  Also, Gillian Anderson was perfect for the scientific role.  Honestly, I don't like any of the 4 they picked.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on January 29, 2015, 07:23:20 AM
I don't mind an all female Ghostbusters, but any vehicle starring Melissa is horrible.  Also, Gillian Anderson was perfect for the scientific role.  Honestly, I don't like any of the 4 they picked.

I think that poses an interesting question: rather than bitch about the change, let's just accept, for the purpose of moving this discussion along, that there's gonna be a Ghostbusters remake. Let's further accept that there's gonna be an 'all female' cast, at least in terms of the four principles. Who would you cast in the roles, that you would be okay with?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: BorneAgain on January 29, 2015, 07:32:09 AM
Give her some decent material and I think Aubrey Plaza could do a Ghostbuster role some justice.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on January 29, 2015, 07:54:15 AM
I think the overall negativity is people thinking Hollywood changes things outside of the source material just because they can. Black Kingpin, black Johnny Storm, all female Ghostbusters, etc. it's just not what people are used to and Hollywood not caring because they're in the minority.

Don't you think that maybe the fact that "what people are used to" is almost always white men might signal some kind of deeper problem?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Former Faithless Fool on January 29, 2015, 08:15:19 AM
They almost proved their point but fail in the end by having a male director. Should've went all out.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: NoCalMike on January 29, 2015, 12:02:51 PM
If you want to make the argument that Hollywood needs more diversity, I will agree with you, however this is really just more remake/reboot bullshit under the guise of diversity.  Instead of a Ghostbusters all-female reboot, why not give McCarthy, Wigg, etc etc a vehicle and budget to create something completely new?

This could be good, it could be crap, but my :eye roll: is not really directed at "All Female....." and pretty much completely at ".....reboot"
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Youth N Asia on January 29, 2015, 01:19:59 PM
Bridesmaids was promoted as "the female Hangover." And the poster would lead you to believe that it's the case. Instead we had a comedy that was over two goddamn hours and was 80% Kristen Wiig. McCarthy was just fine in the limited role. But now they're letting Her carry movies and it's just too much of her doing a female Farley.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Epic by Faith No More on January 29, 2015, 01:30:07 PM
I think the overall negativity is people thinking Hollywood changes things outside of the source material just because they can. Black Kingpin, black Johnny Storm, all female Ghostbusters, etc. it's just not what people are used to and Hollywood not caring because they're in the minority.

Don't you think that maybe the fact that "what people are used to" is almost always white men might signal some kind of deeper problem?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just trying to explain why people have complained and will continue to complain about stuff like this. If some hardcore comic book fan all his life read that Johnny Storm was a white man and all of a sudden he sees him portrayed by a black actor in a big budget flick, his instinct is to bitch and moan about it. Same thing goes for the dedicated Ghostbusters fans here. Their Ghostbusters are Murray, Akroyd, Hudson, and Ramis. Throughout both movies and both animated series, the principle cast were played by men. Now they're seeing it reimagined with women and they're cautious to accept it. It's a cycle that unfortunately will never end.

For what it's worth, I don't really have much of an opinion as I was never a huge fan of the franchise. The films were enjoyable, sure, but I don't hold it as high of a regard as a lot of fans. I'd rather wait until some actual footage comes out.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Brooklyn Zoo on January 29, 2015, 02:23:24 PM
What's with all the Kristen Wiig hate? She's great. Is this because of Gilly? Are people still mad about Gilly?
I haven't actively watched SNL since the 90s so no comment there, but I've liked Wiig well enough in the movies and TV guest spots I've seen her in.

uhh yeah we know you already said that:

I never saw Wiig on SNL, but I liked her fine in the handful of comedic roles in other TV shows I've seen and Bridesmaids.

stop smoking all that florida dank bro

(http://media.giphy.com/media/L4TYWQn8rALRu/giphy-facebook_s.jpg)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on January 30, 2015, 12:51:38 AM
Give her some decent material and I think Aubrey Plaza could do a Ghostbuster role some justice.
I find her more annoying than Wiig and McCarthy in their worst roles combined..
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on January 30, 2015, 02:36:15 AM
I'd rather they hire real actresses and have a funny script.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Youth N Asia on January 30, 2015, 02:41:02 AM
Give her some decent material and I think Aubrey Plaza could do a Ghostbuster role some justice.
I find her more annoying than Wiig and McCarthy in their worst roles combined..

I find Plaza twice as funny as either of them while only trying half as hard
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on January 30, 2015, 05:15:13 AM
I'd rather they hire real actresses and have a funny script.
Can we trouble you to name a few, or do you just want to sit there and keep bitching?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: skullman80 on January 30, 2015, 03:15:41 PM
Fuck this.

Leave my childhood alone. I didn't want a Ghostbusters 3 when all of the original four actors were all still alive. Some things are just better off alone. The first Ghostbusters is a classic. It's also if not my favorite move ever, in my top 3. The second one was meh, but whatever. That being said sometimes Hollywood just needs to leave shit alone. Was there a need for another Ghostbusters when Ramis was alive? No... not really. Is there a need for one now that he is dead and Hollywood can reboot it and tarnish the name ... just because they can? Fuck no. This angers me. I also don't care that it's four chicks. If it was four dudes who were popular these days my opinion would be the same.

It's going to happen, nothing I can do to stop it, but it still pisses me off.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: tekcop on January 30, 2015, 09:01:55 PM
Quote
If some hardcore comic book fan all his life read that Johnny Storm was a white man and all of a sudden he sees him portrayed by a black actor in a big budget flick, his instinct is to bitch and moan about it.
Already been done (in this thread!), but #notallcomicbookfans.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on January 30, 2015, 10:48:43 PM
Fuck this.

Leave my childhood alone. I didn't want a Ghostbusters 3 when all of the original four actors were all still alive. Some things are just better off alone. The first Ghostbusters is a classic. It's also if not my favorite move ever, in my top 3. The second one was meh, but whatever. That being said sometimes Hollywood just needs to leave shit alone. Was there a need for another Ghostbusters when Ramis was alive? No... not really. Is there a need for one now that he is dead and Hollywood can reboot it and tarnish the name ... just because they can? Fuck no. This angers me. I also don't care that it's four chicks. If it was four dudes who were popular these days my opinion would be the same.

It's going to happen, nothing I can do to stop it, but it still pisses me off.
You realize your childhood will be fine even after this comes out, right? No one is going to jump in a DeLorean and go back to when you were a child to rape it either. It's just a movie that you don't have to see.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on January 30, 2015, 11:33:53 PM
Tall comic book fans are the worst!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: skullman80 on January 31, 2015, 05:00:17 AM
Fuck this.

Leave my childhood alone. I didn't want a Ghostbusters 3 when all of the original four actors were all still alive. Some things are just better off alone. The first Ghostbusters is a classic. It's also if not my favorite move ever, in my top 3. The second one was meh, but whatever. That being said sometimes Hollywood just needs to leave shit alone. Was there a need for another Ghostbusters when Ramis was alive? No... not really. Is there a need for one now that he is dead and Hollywood can reboot it and tarnish the name ... just because they can? Fuck no. This angers me. I also don't care that it's four chicks. If it was four dudes who were popular these days my opinion would be the same.

It's going to happen, nothing I can do to stop it, but it still pisses me off.
You realize your childhood will be fine even after this comes out, right? No one is going to jump in a DeLorean and go back to when you were a child to rape it either. It's just a movie that you don't have to see.

I'm aware of this yes. I'm aware my hate on this is probably irrational. I just don't care. It just annoys the piss out of me that they are doing it, nothing more, nothing less.  There are some notable exceptions, but for the most parts when stuff gets "remade" whether it's a reboot, a remake, a retelling, or just something sharing the general idea with the original... it sucks.  I'd be perfectly fine with this just being another shitty movie if it didn't have the name Ghostbusters.  Call it something else. Like I said I know my hate is irrational, but when hollywood does this it drives me insane.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on January 31, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Fuck this.

Leave my childhood alone. I didn't want a Ghostbusters 3 when all of the original four actors were all still alive. Some things are just better off alone. The first Ghostbusters is a classic. It's also if not my favorite move ever, in my top 3. The second one was meh, but whatever. That being said sometimes Hollywood just needs to leave shit alone. Was there a need for another Ghostbusters when Ramis was alive? No... not really. Is there a need for one now that he is dead and Hollywood can reboot it and tarnish the name ... just because they can? Fuck no. This angers me. I also don't care that it's four chicks. If it was four dudes who were popular these days my opinion would be the same.

It's going to happen, nothing I can do to stop it, but it still pisses me off.

straight truth
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on January 31, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
I cant wait for the Gremlins (which btw came out the same day as Ghostbusters) reboot where Gizmo turns into Stripe!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Former Faithless Fool on January 31, 2015, 04:38:31 PM
Ugh no then they'll replace Hogan's cameo in the reboot sequel with John Cena and that would really be childhood memory rape.


PLZ NO
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: "Dot Com" Matt Postin (heel) on February 01, 2015, 05:26:48 AM
If there's gonna be a Walter Peck analog or even some sort of human antagonist, it should be Kaitlin Olson or bust. Make her a spiteful blogger if you have to.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: rollie on February 01, 2015, 11:06:22 PM
I think the overall negativity is people thinking Hollywood changes things outside of the source material just because they can. Black Kingpin, black Johnny Storm, all female Ghostbusters, etc. it's just not what people are used to and Hollywood not caring because they're in the minority.

But they kinda aren't changing it because they can, there's a method to it. Yes I understand that people are used to white men always being these characters but I think it's not the worst ideas to attempt to change things up a bit? Otherwise this stuff just propagates indefinitely. The fact that an all female ghostbusters is a "gimmick" says a lot
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on February 17, 2015, 05:37:33 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B99e_LFIAAAQaP5.jpg:small)

Weird that they only brought back Ernie Hudson.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: HSJ on February 17, 2015, 05:46:36 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B99e_LFIAAAQaP5.jpg:small)

Weird that they only brought back Ernie Hudson.

This isn't going to end well, is it?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Angle-plex on February 17, 2015, 05:57:51 PM
In that pic Melissa McCarthy is the looker of the bunch.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on February 17, 2015, 11:16:31 PM
After thinking about this for a few weeks, I'm just like...let them make it. Let them make it. They're going to no matter how much fans try to huff and puff and try to blow Columbia's house down. I've got Ghostbusters on VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray, so I can enjoy it on many formats, and they can go, make their shitty reboot. I'm not supporting it, and I'll probably never even see it.

Best of luck to them, but seriously, fuck this movie.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on February 18, 2015, 10:08:01 AM
Cecily Strong has been cast in the film

http://whatculture.com/film/cecily-strong-joins-ghostbusters-movie.php
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Brooklyn Zoo on February 18, 2015, 10:17:19 AM
After thinking about this for a few weeks, I'm just like...let them make it. Let them make it. They're going to no matter how much fans try to huff and puff and try to blow Columbia's house down. I've got Ghostbusters on VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray, so I can enjoy it on many formats, and they can go, make their shitty reboot. I'm not supporting it, and I'll probably never even see it.

Best of luck to them, but seriously, fuck this movie.

Wah wah
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on February 18, 2015, 10:43:11 AM
I try not to be all "This thread sucks" nowadays, but...Holy shit this thread fucking sucks.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on February 18, 2015, 01:47:22 PM
After thinking about this for a few weeks, I'm just like...let them make it. Let them make it. They're going to no matter how much fans try to huff and puff and try to blow Columbia's house down. I've got Ghostbusters on VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray, so I can enjoy it on many formats, and they can go, make their shitty reboot. I'm not supporting it, and I'll probably never even see it.

Best of luck to them, but seriously, fuck this movie.

Wah wah

 ???

Idk how what I wrote constitutes as whining, but okay, I suppose.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on March 09, 2015, 08:06:04 PM
yes we are getting two remakes at the same time...or something.  Oh Hollywood

They are planning a Channing Tatum led vehicle

http://news.yahoo.com/finally-male-ghostbusters-film-230058423.html;_ylt=A0LEVisPs_5URyUADn0nnIlQ


oh man, yeah already a separate thread but still... this is ...weird
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on March 10, 2015, 05:06:00 AM
That's nice...
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Epic by Faith No More on June 19, 2015, 01:12:50 AM
https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/first-photos-of-kristen-wiig-melissa-mccarthy-121875682337.html

First look. Yup.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on June 19, 2015, 04:30:27 AM
this movie happening killed matdotcom :(
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Epic by Faith No More on July 11, 2015, 07:00:47 AM
(http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2015/07/image11-720x480.jpg)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Anakin Flair on July 11, 2015, 07:13:14 AM
Can I just say I HATE the pink on Ecto-1? I wouldn't mind any other color- I would LOVE a fire engine red. But putting pink on the female Ghostbusters car? Ugh....
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: DMann1979 on July 11, 2015, 08:05:04 AM
Can I just say I HATE the pink on Ecto-1? I wouldn't mind any other color- I would LOVE a fire engine red. But putting pink on the female Ghostbusters car? Ugh....

That's not pink...more like a cherry red or maroon.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on July 11, 2015, 09:25:52 AM
It's probably the lighting since there is a shot of just the car and it's not pink.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Thrasher on July 11, 2015, 03:37:28 PM
Those jumpsuits are too baggy.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on July 11, 2015, 04:39:06 PM
Those jumpsuits are too baggy.

Looks pretty accurate to me:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0f/ee/80/0fee8025307d66657863f077e6e3a7b1.jpg)

The only real difference are those jogging-at-night construction-vest lines.  Of course they're gonna leave the pants a little baggy for McCarthy and whats-er-name, or else everyone would be complaining at getting such a good look at a fat chick's figure. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 24, 2015, 07:37:26 AM
All of the Ghostbusters fan pages on Facebook have devolved into the pro-remake and anti-remake crowds trolling the shit out of each other. I did, however, find this gem:

(http://i.imgur.com/rRkk4nR.jpg)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 24, 2015, 07:59:05 AM
All of the Ghostbusters fan pages on Facebook have devolved into the pro-remake and anti-remake crowds trolling the shit out of each other. I did, however, find this gem:

(http://i.imgur.com/rRkk4nR.jpg)
Ugh
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on July 24, 2015, 10:19:14 AM
The super-irony in that pic being: the original "Venkman burn in hell" graffiti was presumably left by one of Peter's date rape victims younger female acquaintances, since he was obviously a raging womanizer who constantly lied to the women he flirted with.  (Why did he Just So Happen to be packing A SEDATIVE IN A SYRINGE when he ran into Gatekeeper Dana, on what was supposed to be a date?)  So an angry backlash against misogyny has been corrupted by misogynists. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 24, 2015, 10:40:15 AM
Yes. Misogyny is the only reason to hate on a remake of a beloved classic by somebody whose work is mediocre.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on July 24, 2015, 10:52:09 AM
Paul feckin' Feig counts as "mediocre" now?  He only directed like half of Arrested Development.  Hell, he's a more consistent talent than the guy who directed the original Ghostbusters; Feig's never made anything nearly so terrible as most of the crap that Reitman has been putting out for the past twenty years. 

And of course, yes, "ew, girls!" is the main reason that this project has received the ridiculous amount of online complaining that it has.  We probably couldn't begin to count the number of beloved old classic movies that have received modern remakes, but I have never ever seen THIS much bile-soaked hatred directed at a movie that isn't even finished shooting yet. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 24, 2015, 11:06:21 AM
Fans wanted a sequel and we got a reboot. The "ew, girls" argument falls to shit when you realize most fans adore Janine and Kylie, particularly the episodes/comic issues where Janine suits up. There's also the whole "Wiig and McCarthy have plenty of detractors anyway" aspect.

So tell me another one.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: BorneAgain on July 24, 2015, 11:09:28 AM
I sense that most huge Ghostbusters fans are pretty "eh" about the new film overall with most of the complaints from people who likely hate the idea of the movie more so than they think it'll somehow stain the legacy of the franchise.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 24, 2015, 11:20:27 AM
I actually with Jingus on this one: It's one thing to be mad about a property you love being rebooted or whatever. However, a lot of the venom being spewed at this seems to boil down to the fact that a bunch of men are upset that girls want to play in their sandbox. There is a ridiculous amount of misogynistic rage (some of it in this thread) being directed towards this. Plus, if this counts as ruining your childhood, then guess what? Your childhood was pretty fucking easy.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on July 24, 2015, 11:36:07 AM
I've said it before, maybe not here but on Facebook, that if the fans of the original are so pissed about the remake, just be happy that it's already better than the second movie (in which there were only a couple of things worthwhile in the movie), so there's that.

And yes, 80% of the venom spewed at the movie is because it's a female cast. The fact that Wiig and McCarthy are part of that cast turns that venom up to 11. When it was announced that originally Channing Tatum was going to be another Ghostbusters movie that ran in the same universe, but had an all male cast that would cross over to the female cast in a later movie, very few people made a stink about it. That movie was later dropped. All we have from this movie are a couple of set pictures. This movie won't ruin anyone's childhood, it won't erase the original movie. If your childhood is ruined from this, you had a horrible childhood to begin with )not you, Laz, but that's something I always see people bitch about) And if the movie is bad, just watch the original and don't see this one.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on July 24, 2015, 11:39:38 AM
Leslie Jones and Kate are awesome.   I'm not a fan of Wiig or McCarthy but the other two will probably make this worthwhile


The Channing Tatum remake has a ready been dropped?  I thought Reitman was fully behind that
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: NoCalMike on July 24, 2015, 12:30:21 PM
Eh, if Channing Tatum was in a reboot, that would be 10x worse than this probable.

I don't care if it's a female cast. My issue are more with hollywood itself even rebooting it.  I question their ability to churn out a quality Ghostbusters movie PERIOD. Regardless of the cast.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on July 24, 2015, 12:35:55 PM
Channing has proven that he has great comedic timing. I wouldn't want to see it, because I'd rather see another Jump Street movie, but he'd be the least of the issues with it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on July 25, 2015, 12:47:05 AM
I've said it before, maybe not here but on Facebook, that if the fans of the original are so pissed about the remake, just be happy that it's already better than the second movie (in which there were only a couple of things worthwhile in the movie), so there's that.

(http://i.imgur.com/00upCxw.jpg)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on July 25, 2015, 01:36:48 AM
I can't even imagine caring that much about a movie, that I would get this bent out of shape about a remake... Maybe if they did a The Last Dragon reboot with white people?

Nah, I would totally watch that movie...
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on July 25, 2015, 05:42:09 AM
I've said it before, maybe not here but on Facebook, that if the fans of the original are so pissed about the remake, just be happy that it's already better than the second movie (in which there were only a couple of things worthwhile in the movie), so there's that.

(http://i.imgur.com/00upCxw.jpg)

He's one of the worthwhile things in the movie. I love everything about his character. And I like Vigo as well.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Sabre on July 25, 2015, 06:35:40 PM
I have no major issues with ghostbusters 2.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on July 25, 2015, 10:43:36 PM
Ghostbusters 2 was fine. A lesser sequel? Yes, but it was fine. I get the feeling that everyone involved were pressured into doing it due to the success of the first movie and the cartoon, and they did the best that they could do with it.

As for the the female casting, as I said before, the idea of a female cast intrigued me, and I was generally interested. Then the cast was announced and I bowed out. As Ventriloquist said, I'll be fine and content watching the original Ghostbusters at home.

EDIT - However, I will say that I am easily amused at some of the memes made about this movie. These were put into the comments section, a few weeks ago, when Entertainment Weekly posted the first pic of the cast:

(http://i.imgur.com/cWKsrKT.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/k8tk8fF.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/OJuUHx9.jpg)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on July 25, 2015, 11:55:27 PM
Ghostbusters 2 was fine. A lesser sequel? Yes, but it was fine. I get the feeling that everyone involved were pressured into doing it due to the success of the first movie and the cartoon, and they did the best that they could do with it.
Yeah pretty much.  It's a Predator 2 step down from the first movie, not a Highlander 2 falling off a cliff.  And those memes are perfect examples of "ew, girls, the Ghostbusters have cooties now!" basement-dwelling fanboy whining. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 26, 2015, 03:11:55 AM
EDIT - However, I will say that I am easily amused at some of the memes made about this movie. These were put into the comments section, a few weeks ago, when Entertainment Weekly posted the first pic of the cast:

(http://i.imgur.com/cWKsrKT.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/k8tk8fF.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/OJuUHx9.jpg)
None of these are funny, and just prove my point that most of the complaining is basically a bunch of sad men who are upset that women want a piece of the action.

Seriously though, those aren't funny at all. I let out an audible, annoyed groan when I saw them. If you actually think this is funny...what the fuck man?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on July 26, 2015, 05:59:19 AM
I actually think the Filmation Ghostbuster picture is amusing. It's still a "lolz women suck" pre-judgment, but it's supposed to be at the expense of those guys too.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on July 26, 2015, 08:52:38 AM
The original Ghostbusters is honestly a pretty gross hunk of Reaganite propaganda and part of me hopes this new one shits all over it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on July 26, 2015, 09:45:55 AM
(http://media.giphy.com/media/qn2t1VIIr1alq/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Former Faithless Fool on July 26, 2015, 09:53:23 AM
(http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEzLzA2LzI2LzE2L3R1bWJscl9tbjN3Ljc3MjFmLmdpZgpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/87a1e42b/791/tumblr_mn3wnpcCkf1s9dykmo1_500.gif)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Two-Time Hall of Famer on July 26, 2015, 09:58:38 AM
(http://gif.mocksession.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DON-DRAPER-PUKES.gif)

Dong Draper learning of the Ghostbusters reboot.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Baby Shoes on July 26, 2015, 10:03:51 AM
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/1281016897_0840109a.gif?w=400&h=187)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Venkman on July 26, 2015, 01:30:54 PM
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/hamm-gif.gif)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on July 26, 2015, 02:18:07 PM
Yeah but really though. The bad guy was from the EPA.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on July 26, 2015, 02:25:56 PM
Actually, if you want to be technical, Walter Peck was right and justified about his concerns about the Ghostbusters. These guys are walking around NYC with unlicensed nuclear accelerators on their backs and causing thousands (and probably millions) of dollars in property damage. He was just an asshole about the whole situation.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on July 26, 2015, 08:27:53 PM
Yeah, he wasn't a bad guy because he was from the EPA, he was a bad guy because he was an asshole from the EPA.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 26, 2015, 10:22:45 PM
Actually, if you want to be technical, Walter Peck was right and justified about his concerns about the Ghostbusters. These guys are walking around NYC with unlicensed nuclear accelerators on their backs and causing thousands (and probably millions) of dollars in property damage. He was just an asshole about the whole situation.
Plus the whole "power outage leads to containment explosion" thing. There's a recurring theme of the three originals being in over their heads and rushing into things without thinking them through. It just so happened that they were able to save the world by doing something so risky they never tried it again.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Harley Quinn on July 27, 2015, 12:41:12 AM
Also Peck didn't help his case when he tried to have the Ghostbusters locked up, thrown in jail, and shut down as chaos ensued all around NYC knowing full well that the group was probably the closest to being able to save the world from what was going in. The only reason the group was allowed to save the world was convincing the Mayor of schmoozing for votes and getting them.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on July 27, 2015, 06:22:52 AM
And of course, yes, "ew, girls!" is the main reason that this project has received the ridiculous amount of online complaining that it has.  We probably couldn't begin to count the number of beloved old classic movies that have received modern remakes, but I have never ever seen THIS much bile-soaked hatred directed at a movie that isn't even finished shooting yet. 

No, the main reason is NOBODY WANTS TO SEE GHOSTBUSTERS REBOOTED!!!!!!

It could be Andy Samberg, Aziz Ansari, Paul F. Tompkins and Jay Pharoah and I'd still hate it

Also, like Laz said, a lot of people (myself included) aren't the biggest fans of Wiig or McCarthy

Hell, even with the female cast I could have done a better job casting it with funnier actresses who don't annoy the shit out of me
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 27, 2015, 07:45:53 AM
And of course, yes, "ew, girls!" is the main reason that this project has received the ridiculous amount of online complaining that it has.  We probably couldn't begin to count the number of beloved old classic movies that have received modern remakes, but I have never ever seen THIS much bile-soaked hatred directed at a movie that isn't even finished shooting yet. 

No, the main reason is NOBODY WANTS TO SEE GHOSTBUSTERS REBOOTED!!!!!!

It could be Andy Samberg, Aziz Ansari, Paul F. Tompkins and Jay Pharoah and I'd still hate it

Also, like Laz said, a lot of people (myself included) aren't the biggest fans of Wiig or McCarthy

Hell, even with the female cast I could have done a better job casting it with funnier actresses who don't annoy the shit out of me
Then don't watch it. Or just ignore it. You have the original, and this isn't going to take that away from you.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on July 27, 2015, 07:47:08 AM
Yeah, he wasn't a bad guy because he was from the EPA, he was a bad guy because he was an asshole from the EPA.

Hm can't see any possible ulterior motive behind making the guy from the EPA an incompetent asshole whose meddling almost causes New York City to be wiped off the map. C'mon guys. Pissy, intrusive bureaucrats were some of Reaganism's biggest bogeymen, right up there with welfare queens and leftist college professors. Ghostbusters is a libertarian fantasy about free enterprise triumphing over "unnecessary" government regulation.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on July 27, 2015, 07:57:57 AM
And of course, yes, "ew, girls!" is the main reason that this project has received the ridiculous amount of online complaining that it has.  We probably couldn't begin to count the number of beloved old classic movies that have received modern remakes, but I have never ever seen THIS much bile-soaked hatred directed at a movie that isn't even finished shooting yet. 

No, the main reason is NOBODY WANTS TO SEE GHOSTBUSTERS REBOOTED!!!!!!

It could be Andy Samberg, Aziz Ansari, Paul F. Tompkins and Jay Pharoah and I'd still hate it

Also, like Laz said, a lot of people (myself included) aren't the biggest fans of Wiig or McCarthy

Hell, even with the female cast I could have done a better job casting it with funnier actresses who don't annoy the shit out of me
Then don't watch it. Or just ignore it. You have the original, and this isn't going to take that away from you.

I'm not going to watch it, I'm just saying the idea that people of my generation who grew up on Ghostbusters aren't interested because of the female cast, as Jingus is suggesting, is ridiculous.  Some of us just don't want to see this movie rebooted period.  Has nothing to do with chicks

And yeah, I'm gonna have a bit of righteous indignation about it.  so what?  Ramis is dead, Murray has no interest, it's a total bastardization Hollywood cash grab. 

It's no sweat off my back, I'm gonna p much ignore it, but it's still annoying
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on July 27, 2015, 08:00:03 AM
Yeah, he wasn't a bad guy because he was from the EPA, he was a bad guy because he was an asshole from the EPA.

Hm can't see any possible ulterior motive behind making the guy from the EPA an incompetent asshole whose meddling almost causes New York City to be wiped off the map. C'mon guys. Pissy, intrusive bureaucrats were some of Reaganism's biggest bogeymen, right up there with welfare queens and leftist college professors. Ghostbusters is a libertarian fantasy about free enterprise triumphing over "unnecessary" government regulation.

woah
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 27, 2015, 08:04:43 AM
Paul feckin' Feig counts as "mediocre" now?  He only directed like half of Arrested Development.  Hell, he's a more consistent talent than the guy who directed the original Ghostbusters; Feig's never made anything nearly so terrible as most of the crap that Reitman has been putting out for the past twenty years. 
Yes. MEDIOCRE. Unaccompanied Minors is not exactly a comedy classic, Bridesmaids has its moments but is very uneven (and I actually like it), The Heat is more "let's laugh at McCarthy being fat," and Spy seems like the kind of movie that's going to be doomed once it gets TV edits (from what friends who have seen it have said).

His TV work is actually fairly solid, but get this "half of Arrested Development" bullshit the fuck out of here. 7 episodes have him credited as director, none as writer, and there are 68 episodes altogether. TV, though, is a different beast than cinema, and if we're comparing/contrasting the crew behind the reboot and the original?

Ghostbusters '84, written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and directed by Ivan Reitman. Before it, Aykroyd wrote for 63 episodes of Saturday Night Live during its golden years and wrote the screenplay for The Blues Brothers; Ramis wrote four legitimate comedy classics in Animal House, Caddyshack, Meatballs, and Stripes; and Reitman served as a producer for Animal House and Stripes as well as the director for Meatballs and Stripes. This is some Grade-A legend tier level of work heading into what was, to Aykroyd especially, a labor of complete love.

Compare and contrast that pedigree to the remake and it's so one-sided it hurts, even more so given that Feig's writing partner, Katie Dippold, has only The Heat, Parks & Rec, and fucking MADtv to her credit (the last of which aren't even the decent years, but the abysmal 2006-2009 final days).

Again...
So tell me another one.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 27, 2015, 08:14:23 AM
Then don't watch it. Or just ignore it. You have the original, and this isn't going to take that away from you.
Not that you're wrong or anything or that it's a completely logical thing to be upset over, but everybody has something they cherish from their childhood. To just completely dismiss it as "meh, I don't care so you shouldn't" is pretty bullshit when I'm sure some digging around could reveal things you've loved, stories or characters or whatever, and got upset over it being cheapened.

Hm can't see any possible ulterior motive behind making the guy from the EPA an incompetent asshole whose meddling almost causes New York City to be wiped off the map. C'mon guys. Pissy, intrusive bureaucrats were some of Reaganism's biggest bogeymen, right up there with welfare queens and leftist college professors. Ghostbusters is a libertarian fantasy about free enterprise triumphing over "unnecessary" government regulation.
And the army only being used as crowd control shows the ineffectiveness of the American military post-Vietnam, the mayor choosing only to let them save the world after being promised political power is symbolic of the corruption of career politicians, and choosing an old ambulance as their primary vehicle is supposed to represent the power of life over death, blah blah blah
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on July 27, 2015, 08:15:41 AM
Ramis also had Back to School and Groundhog Day on his resume.  He arguably had the greatest comedy career of all time factoring in all phases of film making
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on July 27, 2015, 08:39:47 AM
the mayor choosing only to let them save the world after being promised political power is symbolic of the corruption of career politicians

Yes, another element of the movie's toxic libertarianism, "career politicians" being another favorite villain of the right-wing's juvenile ideology.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 27, 2015, 08:45:48 AM
the mayor choosing only to let them save the world after being promised political power is symbolic of the corruption of career politicians

Yes, another element of the movie's toxic libertarianism, "career politicians" being another favorite villain of the right-wing's juvenile ideology.
It's a favorite of just about every remotely political viewpoint expressed in movies. Porky's II isn't exactly some libertarian/conservative diatribe and one of its villains is seen as a career politician.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Byron The Bulp on July 27, 2015, 09:01:03 AM
Porky's II isn't exactly some libertarian/conservative diatribe

Most gross-out comedies are pretty reactionary.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on July 27, 2015, 09:50:16 AM
Ramis also had Back to School and Groundhog Day on his resume.  He arguably had the greatest comedy career of all time factoring in all phases of film making



(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTcyMjI2OTgxN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODU3ODkzMg@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on July 27, 2015, 10:04:58 AM
Ramis also had Back to School and Groundhog Day on his resume.  He arguably had the greatest comedy career of all time factoring in all phases of film making



(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTcyMjI2OTgxN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODU3ODkzMg@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg)

Kind of a ridiculous statement tbh, nothing against Ramis

Mel Brooks anyone?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Former Faithless Fool on July 27, 2015, 10:24:41 AM
Reading these recent byron posts reminds me of the MGTOW CRITICAL BREAKDOWN on the latest Mad Max film or the other side of an Armond White like troll critic.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on July 27, 2015, 10:25:49 AM
I don't think it's that ridiculous.  Look at Ramis's resume.  Unbelievable stuff.  Most definitely one of the greatest careers in comedy, factoring everything in
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 27, 2015, 11:44:24 AM
I was bringing up their work prior to Ghostbusters, for what it's worth. Ramis also has Year One.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on July 27, 2015, 02:29:37 PM
And of course, yes, "ew, girls!" is the main reason that this project has received the ridiculous amount of online complaining that it has.  We probably couldn't begin to count the number of beloved old classic movies that have received modern remakes, but I have never ever seen THIS much bile-soaked hatred directed at a movie that isn't even finished shooting yet. 

No, the main reason is NOBODY WANTS TO SEE GHOSTBUSTERS REBOOTED!!!!!!

It could be Andy Samberg, Aziz Ansari, Paul F. Tompkins and Jay Pharoah and I'd still hate it

Also, like Laz said, a lot of people (myself included) aren't the biggest fans of Wiig or McCarthy

Hell, even with the female cast I could have done a better job casting it with funnier actresses who don't annoy the shit out of me
At the risk of coming across as contrarian, I kind of want to see Ghostbusters rebooted; I didn't care much for the first one, and I'm kind of optimistic that they might get it 'right' this time, at least, from my point of view.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Amy pats fan on July 27, 2015, 05:57:02 PM
well, I rarely agree with you about anything, so at least we're consistent
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on July 30, 2015, 01:02:13 AM
the Channing Tatum, Chris Pratt remake is apparently still on


http://411mania.com/movies/male-ghostbusters-movie-still-being-planned/
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on August 09, 2015, 12:23:04 AM
Spoiler: show
Bill Murray is shooting his cameo this week.  Aykroyd will also cameo.  Plus Ozzy Osbourne
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CletusVanDamme on December 09, 2015, 11:04:06 AM
"Inverse has confirmed that “Games of Thrones” baddie Charles Dance has a prominent role in Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters, most likely as an additional villain."
http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3372595/villainous-charles-dance-stars-in-ghostbusters/ (http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3372595/villainous-charles-dance-stars-in-ghostbusters/)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on December 09, 2015, 01:30:42 PM
Brother Numpsay!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on March 03, 2016, 02:49:47 AM
here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw


to be honest I can't get a good read on it but Paul Feig comes from the Apatow School of not wanting to reveal much in the trailer.

making the not so bold prediction that Leslie Jones will be a scene stealer
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Cartman on March 03, 2016, 03:16:49 AM
This looks brutal...
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 03, 2016, 03:17:00 AM
I've said it before, maybe not here but on Facebook, that if the fans of the original are so pissed about the remake, just be happy that it's already better than the second movie (in which there were only a couple of things worthwhile in the movie), so there's that.
You are so full of fucking shit on this one it hurts.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on March 03, 2016, 03:19:33 AM
It looks...not that good IMO. Not because of the cast, but because it looks so...meh. I got one laugh out of it (with Kate McKinnon) but the rest feels hollow.

Also, the Youtube comments are terrible, but this one in particular

Quote
So this is literally the same movie with 3 chicks and a silverback?

I hate people sometimes.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on March 03, 2016, 03:42:09 AM
The trailer is poorly edited, ruining the timing of most of the jokes, to the point where it's hard to tell much about the quality of the actual movie.  The couple of times it just let a shot go on for a few seconds were the best moments, "Let's go!" and "Is the wig too much?"
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on March 03, 2016, 04:36:58 AM
Real talk? I thought the original Ghostbusters was kind of lame. I feel like, based on that trailer, there's at least a small chance that I'll enjoy the reboot, as opposed to not enjoying the original at all.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on March 03, 2016, 06:24:27 AM
So you're that one guy, huh? 

Although, I do notice the new movie appears to be completely copying one of the old movie's few mistakes.  It's totally "the adventures of three intelligent white people... and their streetwise black sidekick who completely lacks any higher education and is only in it for the money".  Somehow that seems to have been ignored in the flood of whining about the gender flip. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on March 03, 2016, 06:30:43 AM
also noticed that when the film was first greenlit it seemed Wiig was going to be the star but going by that trailer it seems McCarthy and even Kate are getting pushed ahead of her.  But of course we still have the promotional push upcoming
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 03, 2016, 06:44:01 AM
So you're that one guy, huh? 

Although, I do notice the new movie appears to be completely copying one of the old movie's few mistakes.  It's totally "the adventures of three intelligent white people... and their streetwise black sidekick who completely lacks any higher education and is only in it for the money".  Somehow that seems to have been ignored in the flood of whining about the gender flip. 
I already made a joke about it on friend's FB post. Winston was just a guy looking for a job, Leslie's entire gimmick is that she's FROM THE STREET and acts like every Tyler Perry stereotype you can think of.

Good ol' progressive Paul Feig, ladies and gentlemen.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on March 03, 2016, 06:52:46 AM
So you're that one guy, huh? 

Although, I do notice the new movie appears to be completely copying one of the old movie's few mistakes.  It's totally "the adventures of three intelligent white people... and their streetwise black sidekick who completely lacks any higher education and is only in it for the money".  Somehow that seems to have been ignored in the flood of whining about the gender flip.

That is, by far, the most legitimate criticism of this movie that I've heard yet.

What do you mean by "that one guy," though? That one guy who didn't like OG Ghostbusters? If I tell you that I didn't like most of the movies that came out in the eighties, would that make a difference?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 03, 2016, 08:02:26 AM
That's what he means. It's astonishing that you find somebody who doesn't like the original.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on March 03, 2016, 08:29:55 AM
That's what he means. It's astonishing that you find somebody who doesn't like the original.

Is it? I know plenty of people who weren't feeling the original Ghostbusters. Granted, none of them post here. And few of them would be likely to like the remake, either, but still...
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on March 03, 2016, 08:48:22 AM
I've seen people online who didn't like Ghostbusters; but just for comparison's sake, I don't think I've ever spoken to someone face-to-face who didn't love that movie.  It's pretty universally worshipped among everyone I've ever heard talk about it. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 03, 2016, 12:05:43 PM
I've yet to meet anybody that didn't at least like it. Plenty who didn't love it, sure, but never anybody who just outright didn't care for it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Broward on March 03, 2016, 01:17:48 PM
Just watched the trailer.

God. Fucking. Awful.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: DorianS on March 03, 2016, 01:38:49 PM
I have watched the trailer. It looks like someone just decided "hey, what thing haven't we tried bringing back that will make money even if we fucked it up".

I mean, that was fucking awful.  :-\
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on March 03, 2016, 02:14:49 PM
I mean. I still don't understand why they had to reboot it and just couldn't make a new movie/story, 20 years later, in the same universe?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Epic by Faith No More on March 03, 2016, 04:20:30 PM
Looks so so but goddamn, Kate McKinnon is cute.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 03, 2016, 10:44:52 PM
I mean. I still don't understand why they had to reboot it and just couldn't make a new movie/story, 20 years later, in the same universe?
Because, um...Paul Feig sucks. That's what it keeps coming back to. Fans say they want a third movie, meaning a sequel, and they reboot it with the type of garbage jokes that the original didn't really have.

Kate McKinnon is cute.
Yes. She normally looks eh, but the look she's rocking for this steaming, festering pile of shit works wonders for her.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: JHawk on March 03, 2016, 10:52:16 PM
That trailer actually exceeded my admittedly low expectations as I actually saw two minutes of something Melissa McCarthy was in that didn't have a joke about how fat she is.  That's immediately a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: HSJ on March 04, 2016, 03:29:55 AM
I have a feeling this being the first trailer will be the worst of it. I can see a future trailer coming out that will be better (similar to Batman vs Superman recently).
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: DorianS on March 04, 2016, 03:56:03 AM
I'm hoping the next trailer would be better, but this one just dropped the ball.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: devo on March 04, 2016, 12:35:14 PM
What Jingus said about the trailer's poor editing might have some merit given how much better this fan edit is.

http://kotaku.com/fan-edited-trailer-for-the-new-ghostbusters-is-so-much-1762907527
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: NoCalMike on March 04, 2016, 03:03:00 PM
It looked meh, but I especially cringed every time Leslie Jones was on screen for the mere fact of how stereo-typical that character was. I reaaaaally thought they would purposely look to avoid "going there" but they went there....at 100mph.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: DorianS on March 05, 2016, 05:34:47 AM
Actually, yes, the fan edit of the trailer looked much better.

And you know what? That's how I see this movie going. It is literally going to be a good movie, but because of how it was edited, it'll suck. Worse, I bet it'll get a fan edit version and we'll all like that better. With nothing changed.

I'm losing all hope for this.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Harley Quinn on March 05, 2016, 07:37:29 AM
Nobody will make a fan edit of the full film because they'll get sued out of existence and the only reason a fan edit of Star Wars was made is due to popularity/"necessity" to fix and re-do stuff to replicate something that was 20-25 years ago when it first came out.

As for the trailer, I've seen enough bad trailers to not judge but I'm weary that they seem to be leaning too much on the humor and playing up the B Horror aspect. Also not a fan of the CGI use for the ghosts and giving them the same color/quality either. Part of what made Slimer a classic character was his green color and he was basically a 2 scene wonder.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 05, 2016, 11:43:46 AM
There was also a real sense of horror in the first one. This looks like Halloweentown with better SFX.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Epic by Faith No More on March 05, 2016, 04:45:20 PM
It looked meh, but I especially cringed every time Leslie Jones was on screen for the mere fact of how stereo-typical that character was. I reaaaaally thought they would purposely look to avoid "going there" but they went there....at 100mph.

http://uproxx.com/movies/leslie-jones-shuts-down-criticism-ghostbusters/6/
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Youth N Asia on March 06, 2016, 02:28:52 AM
I loved how the internet painted any guy that didn't like the idea of this movie as misogynistic, when really the idea and casting just sounded bad. Well, now the trailers is out... and while Kate looks great in it, the rest looks like shit.

How many times does McCarthy need to play the fat buffon? Every one of her rolls looks like the exact same things. Jones' scenes looked just terrible. Wiig has never done it for me as an actress.

I always found it funny when people use the "raped my childhood" call on bad reboots. When really, Ghostbusters 2 was a stinker that pissed on the first movie and somehow gets a pass now.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on March 06, 2016, 02:35:20 AM
Jones' reaction is the kind of defensiveness that screams "yes, this is going to suck, but I need to sound proud of it because I'm getting a paycheck."

Or, "if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on March 06, 2016, 03:16:52 AM
I loved how the internet painted any guy that didn't like the idea of this movie as misogynistic, when really the idea and casting just sounded bad. Well, now the trailers is out... and while Kate looks great in it, the rest looks like shit.

How many times does McCarthy need to play the fat buffon? Every one of her rolls looks like the exact same things. Jones' scenes looked just terrible. Wiig has never done it for me as an actress.
I thought McCarthy was pretty subdued in this trailer, but hey.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Mr. S£im Citrus on March 06, 2016, 04:15:32 AM
I loved how the internet painted any guy that didn't like the idea of this movie as misogynistic, when really the idea and casting just sounded bad...
I don't know about that. YMMV, of course, but if the comments I've seen online are anything to go by, it doesn't seem to me that "the internet" is "painting" these guys as misogynists, so much as many of them are revealing themselves. I mean, I'm sure that some of them have legit beefs with the movie (#notallghostbustersfans*), but either they're all really shitty at articulating those legit beefs, or maybe some of them aren't as "legit" as they want other people to think they are.


*Shout-out to Edwin for #notallghostbustersfans
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: NoCalMike on March 06, 2016, 06:24:29 AM
It looked meh, but I especially cringed every time Leslie Jones was on screen for the mere fact of how stereo-typical that character was. I reaaaaally thought they would purposely look to avoid "going there" but they went there....at 100mph.

http://uproxx.com/movies/leslie-jones-shuts-down-criticism-ghostbusters/6/

Yeah well, I wouldn't say she "shut down" criticism. She merely gave a response.  Just because she offered a response doesn't mean there aren't valid points made about her character.   I mean they easily could have made McCarthy the "regular every day buffoon" character instead since that is what she usually plays in every other movie.  They instead chose Leslie Jones for that.  I am not even criticizing Jones herself because I believe "a paycheck is a paycheck" is a valid enough argument when it comes to a movie, but that doesn't mean the eye-rolling reaction(s) to how she was featured in the trailer aren't valid, it's just an opinion.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: skullman80 on March 06, 2016, 08:28:11 AM
Everything about that trailer is awful. This looks even worse than I expected... and I was expecting trash.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: DorianS on March 06, 2016, 08:43:25 AM
It is literally we've done this before. There's nothing about this that says "yeah, we'll be better or take it in a different direction than the original". It doesn't even matter that there are women in that trailer. Replace the women with men and it will still be terrible. It is just that fucking bad.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: NoCalMike on March 06, 2016, 09:42:04 AM
I kind of feel like there are two camps when it comes to the Ghostbusters movies. (Obviously more the original, but still) There are those that view The Ghostbusters as a specific brand, specific style of comedy.  It's not a generic laughs-unlimited style of comedy such as something like The Hangover where you could literally find any four guys and throw them in the movie and it wouldn't make any difference.

Then there is the camp that to them The Ghostbusters is just another comedy movie which they like.

I think for the second camp the trailer goes over well.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: no fact, no matter on March 07, 2016, 01:33:49 AM
Then there is the camp that to them The Ghostbusters is just another comedy movie which they like.

I think for the second camp the trailer goes over well.
This is probably why I don't get the sometimes hyperbolic outrage over this trailer.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on March 07, 2016, 01:57:55 AM
I'm mostly indifferent to it. It looks bad, but it's not the worst thing ever some are making it out to be.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: CuckBright7831 on March 08, 2016, 02:38:12 AM
The trailer sucks because...well...because it just sucks. It also gets double "FUCK YOU!' points for being misleading at the beginning.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Baby Shoes on March 09, 2016, 02:38:59 AM
Haven't watched the International Trailer but it is out and everything I hear is more Hemsworth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Egs6RfGenvg
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on May 03, 2016, 03:02:39 PM
Quote
Ghostbusters: Movie's Trailer Is Most Disliked in YouTube History
The official trailer received more than 600,000 dislikes within its first 30 million views, making it the most disliked nonmusic video on the website.

wow
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on May 04, 2016, 03:49:29 AM
I think we can all agree that this, although not a good trailer, is certainly nowhere near the worst trailer of all time, right?  The number of people I've seen who claim this movie isn't getting wildly disproportionate online backlash because of its female cast is approaching an apocalyptically depressing level.  It's clearly receiving a ridiculous amount of hate simply for the gender switch, there's been no other remake in years which has received such an overwhelmingly negative pre-release hype. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Youth N Asia on May 04, 2016, 04:12:44 AM
I think we can all agree that this, although not a good trailer, is certainly nowhere near the worst trailer of all time, right?  The number of people I've seen who claim this movie isn't getting wildly disproportionate online backlash because of its female cast is approaching an apocalyptically depressing level.  It's clearly receiving a ridiculous amount of hate simply for the gender switch, there's been no other remake in years which has received such an overwhelmingly negative pre-release hype.

With that being said you had the social just warriors claiming sexism when people weren't initially into the idea of the movie. Then the trailer hits and it's total dogshit. Other than Kate looking great there was nothing good at all in the trailer. And "That's gonna leave a mark" should have been retired 20 years ago
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on May 04, 2016, 04:35:05 AM
But it so obviously does hinge a great deal on sexism.  We've had a million remakes with shitty trailers that have come along over the past decade.  None of them got anywhere near this amount of complaining from the fanboys.  Only the one which dares to gender-flip the original cast and present a team of girls actually manages to enrage the internet to this extent.  And the trailer itself doesn't come close to being worth inspiring that much hatred, it makes the movie just look mediocre in a generic and run-of-the-mill fashion.  We've already seen countless movies which were much worse than this one looks like it will be.  Yet, once again, this is the first movie which managed to achieve this level of anti-hype.  Literally the only difference between this and dozens of previous lousy remakes is that this is the only one that has a bunch of females replacing a formerly all-male team.  It's pretty hard to conclude that misogyny isn't playing a large part in the overall reaction. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Youth N Asia on May 04, 2016, 04:53:59 AM
I agree that there was a portion that was angry because it was women. But some people that thought it just didn't sound good got the same label.

When you're fighting from behind on a movie like this that trailer needs to kill. Instead it was just awful.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Next Big Comedy Star on May 04, 2016, 05:22:31 AM
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/03/melissa-mccarthy-ghostbusters-trailer-confusing (http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/03/melissa-mccarthy-ghostbusters-trailer-confusing)

Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on May 04, 2016, 07:27:27 AM
Literally the only difference between this and dozens of previous lousy remakes is that this is the only one that has a bunch of females replacing a formerly all-male team.  It's pretty hard to conclude that misogyny isn't playing a large part in the overall reaction. 
It's not hard to reach that conclusion at all when you actually think about it.

This is a remake of a classic property that comes along at the peak of anti-remake sentiment. Fans were teased with a possible sequel (note: not a remake) for over a decade with Bill Murray being the sole stoping block until Harold Ramis' death.
MISOGYNY: 0
OTHER REASONS: 1

Yes, there is more backlash to this than to other remakes. Most remakes, though, are not of films as well-liked as the original GB. Most are of low budget horror and/or foreign films. The loudest uproar over a remake in recent memory was NOES, and that was more subdued because horror films don't receive the level of attention by media, old and new, as other genres. Disregarding NOES, F13, Evil Dead, and Dawn of the Dead, how many remakes have been made of well-regarded older movies? How many were not initially met with an air of optimism due to updated effects or other modern filmmaking aspects?
MISOGYNY: 0
OTHER REASONS: 2

Its lead, Melissa McCarthy, is the star of abysmal pieces of shit like Identity Thief and Tammy, with the biggest criticism of her film career being that she's always the fat and stupid one, with much of it calling her a female Chris Farley. There are plenty who dislike simply for being an overweight woman, and there are plenty who dislike her because her work is subpar. Split decision.
MISOGYNY: 1
OTHER REASONS: 3

The "stunt casting" argument needs to be brought up. As progressive as it may seem to remake an older film with an entirely different type of cast, is it not stunt casting when the early hype is based on the gender of the cast, demeaning their importance to comedy to their sex, as opposed to the focal points of big hits collaborating together? This one is also split.
MISOGYNY: 2
OTHER REASONS: 4

So please...
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/ghostbusters/images/e/ef/FirstCopbio.png)
Tell me another one.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on May 04, 2016, 07:40:32 AM
I try not to be all "This thread sucks" nowadays, but...Holy shit this thread fucking sucks.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Jingus on May 04, 2016, 05:30:19 PM
Disregarding NOES, F13, Evil Dead, and Dawn of the Dead, how many remakes have been made of well-regarded older movies?
How many?  Are you kidding?  Literally dozens.  The number one movie in America right now is a remake of a well-regarded older movie. 

Quote
Its lead, Melissa McCarthy, is the star of abysmal pieces of shit like Identity Thief and Tammy, with the biggest criticism of her film career being that she's always the fat and stupid one, with much of it calling her a female Chris Farley.
Except that she's made two movies before with this same director, and although she couldn't do anything about being the fat one, neither Bridesmaids nor The Heat cast her as a Farley-esque idiot.  And even the preview makes it clear that she's not playing that kind of character here either. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on May 04, 2016, 10:46:47 PM
Disregarding NOES, F13, Evil Dead, and Dawn of the Dead, how many remakes have been made of well-regarded older movies?
How many?  Are you kidding?  Literally dozens.  The number one movie in America right now is a remake of a well-regarded older movie.

It's also another film adaptation of a classic novel, and a live-action one as opposed to a musical animated one. There's enough of a difference to not go "ugh, just another remake" since it's changing the genre of film as a whole.

That also feeds even further into the "remake apathy" first point.
Quote
Quote
Its lead, Melissa McCarthy, is the star of abysmal pieces of shit like Identity Thief and Tammy, with the biggest criticism of her film career being that she's always the fat and stupid one, with much of it calling her a female Chris Farley.
Except that she's made two movies before with this same director, and although she couldn't do anything about being the fat one, neither Bridesmaids nor The Heat cast her as a Farley-esque idiot.  And even the preview makes it clear that she's not playing that kind of character here either. 
Are you fucking kidding me on the bolded part? That entire character existed solely to be the crazy, off-the-wall goofy one, and she stood out more because of her body size. How is that NOT the Farley-esque idiot? She was basically playing Tommy Boy in it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Baby Shoes on June 03, 2016, 08:42:14 AM
NBA Ghostbusters commercials

http://www.nj.com/knicks/index.ssf/2016/06/carmelo_anthony_kobe_bryant_star_in_ghostbusters_n.html
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Former Faithless Fool on June 05, 2016, 11:46:11 AM
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282221-judd-apatow-says-ghostbuster-haters-must-be-trump-supporters

anyone that doesn't like the trailer and doesn't wanna see this is FUCKING SCUM
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on June 05, 2016, 10:51:34 PM
Judd Apatow hasn't made a good movie without Seth Rogen.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on June 06, 2016, 11:47:55 AM
At this point the PR team really needs to step in. I'm interested in seeing the movie, but the more the people behind the movie talk, the less I care about seeing it in the theater. Instead of blasting the people against the movie, cut a better trailer to get more people interested and just stop talking.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Youth N Asia on June 07, 2016, 12:59:51 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282221-judd-apatow-says-ghostbuster-haters-must-be-trump-supporters

anyone that doesn't like the trailer and doesn't wanna see this is FUCKING SCUM

Yeah you're pretty much a mysogonistic piece of shit unless you're totally on board.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Baby Shoes on June 23, 2016, 02:11:42 AM
http://youtu.be/2AQ44nPrRTM
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on June 23, 2016, 02:41:46 AM
 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOVQIBCLjao)

WHY IS FLO THE GHOST AND NOT THE BUSTER?!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Smues on July 10, 2016, 12:48:16 PM
Reviews are out, and internet awfulness has already begun. I'm gonna go hide in a hole for a few weeks until this thing blows over.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 10, 2016, 02:55:51 PM
Reviews are out, and internet awfulness has already begun. I'm gonna go hide in a hole for a few weeks until this thing blows over.
The general consensus seems to be "it's not as good as the original, but it's actually a fun time"

If it turns out this thing is actually good or at least decent, I'm going to laugh at everyone who spent the past one to two years uselessly bitching about this movie. If it isn't-I'm still gonna laugh because y'all took this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Smues on July 10, 2016, 03:34:37 PM
"it's not as good as the original, but it's actually a fun time"

And yet I've already seen a LOT of "the critics have been paid off" bullshit. Again, I'm hiding for a few weeks. Enjoy the rage bullshit storms everyone!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 10, 2016, 11:59:05 PM
"it's not as good as the original, but it's actually a fun time"

And yet I've already seen a LOT of "the critics have been paid off" bullshit. Again, I'm hiding for a few weeks. Enjoy the rage bullshit storms everyone!
You know, they're doing a sequel to "Blade Runner", which is one of my favorite movies of all time. Do I want that? Hell no. I'm not going to act like a fucking bitch on the internet about it though. I've got the original, so why bother complaining?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Brooklyn Zoo on July 11, 2016, 12:22:23 AM
Fuck, they're remaking lost boys?!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on July 11, 2016, 01:24:55 AM
they waited for Corey Haim to die :'(
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Former Faithless Fool on July 11, 2016, 05:14:48 AM
When they finally gonna remake Back To The Future trilogy? At least that will be a time I can understand the rage.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: geniusMoment on July 11, 2016, 05:27:15 AM
When they finally gonna remake Back To The Future trilogy? At least that will be a time I can understand the rage.

They tried, but Robert Zemeckis has some level of rights to it, and blocked it.  He has said as long as he is alive there won't be a reboot of BTTF.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 11, 2016, 05:38:48 AM
I like how the bigger story about this movie is the shitstorm surrounding it sight-unseen, from both its detractors (varied in credibility of argument) and defenders (same). It almost makes me want to see it until I remember it's a Paul Feig movie.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Baby Shoes on July 13, 2016, 07:00:52 AM
Denied release in China

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-denied-release-china-910563
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Harley Quinn on July 13, 2016, 07:42:04 AM
Denied release in China

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-denied-release-china-910563

"The original Bill Murray-starring 1984 classic, which never screened theatrically in China, was translated as "捉鬼敢死队," five characters literally meaning "Ghost Catcher Dare Die Team."

That is AWESOME.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 13, 2016, 08:25:26 AM
That's not at all what I thought the reason would be.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: RedJed on July 16, 2016, 03:39:47 AM
So I spent Thursday revisiting the first two GB films....the original is still just so damn awesome and the second is still so damn stupid. Saw the new one in IMAX last night and well, I was pleasantly surprised to end up coming out of it greatly entertained and shocked this wasn't a total shitbomb.

That said, I can't believe I'm saying this, and maybe this isnt saying much anyway, but the new one is much better overall that the debacle of GB 2. Of course it can't even be compared to the original but it does pay homage to it quite well (again I can't believe I'm saying this as I was very against this idea from the start) and the cameos are for the most part fucking great.

I'd say give this a look in the IMAX 3D format to get the most out of the experience. The 3D was better than anything I've seen in awhile, as they formatted it specifically to have things jump out of you from even past the normal letterbox format, so the 3d effects would literally take form more than usual. It was a nice touch that I believe they just did for IMAX format specifically with them implimenting the screen size uniquely. The effects were excellent needless to say.

I still and always will absolutely not be entertained by f'n Melissa McCarthy's typecast character of predicable lame unfunniness, but I thought all of the other women did great with things. Especially McKinnon. I liked that there was really little copying the original, instead taking a different and fun take on structuring similarities. The story was kinda weird and all over the place, but I thought this could have been and should have been much worse than what the output ended up being.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Damaramu on July 16, 2016, 09:28:13 AM
I didn't mind McCarthy in this.  She wasn't playing the crazy fat woman like she normally does.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: #sorrynotsorry on July 16, 2016, 02:34:33 PM
I saw this today and it was perfectly acceptable. The cameos were very well done as well.

The hate for this was really stupid.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 17, 2016, 09:20:41 AM
First things first: I always liked the original "Ghostbusters", but I never saw it as this absolute classic. Hersey, I know.

So, my thoughts on this one: It's...decent. Perfectly acceptable as a summer popcorn movie, but no, not as good as the first one. I didn't expect it to be though. Now, further thoughts with some spoilers

-Melissa McCarthy is pretty subdued. If anything, she's the straight woman here. Leslie Jones isn't as over the top as the awful trailers suggested. If anything. Kate McKinnon and Chris Hemsworth steal the show, as damn near everything they do and say is hilarious. McKinnon in particular deserves to be a star. Also, this movie is more proof that Chris is the better of the Hemsworth brothers. Dude's genuinely talented, where's Liam is just a dull block of wood.

-If, like Byron, you go into this with a trollish "I hope this one does shit on the original"...you are gonna be disappointed. This move is basically a love letter to that one.

-There are tons of references and Easter eggs referencing the first one, as well as cameos. The cameos are all fine-except for Bill Murray, who clearly doesn't want to be there. I thought Ernie Hudson's was the best, as they manage to include him in a way that went beyond "hey, look who it is!"

-There are a few jokes that bomb
Spoiler: show
(particularly a really unneeded queef gag)
but they hit more than miss.

-The villain was kind of a letdown.
Spoiler: show
He's basically an embodiment of the kind of Reddit and Chan site trolls who were bitching about the movie, in particular the fact that it the Ghostbusters are women here. Granted, he's nowhere near as ugly and sexist as those guys, but it still left me wishing they had a more interesting


-It kinda falls apart in the second act. The concert scene
Spoiler: show
(with a pretty lame band, the terrible new theme song and an unnecessary Ozzy Osborne cameo)
is the low point IMO, and it feels like the second act runs out of steam and has trouble maintaining interest.

-The third act is an improvement though-all psychedelic blues, greens and reds, and some pretty sweet action scenes to boot. Also, the bit with Slimer was actually pretty funny IMO

-After watching this-I kinda want to see Paul Feig do a horror movie. Or at least something in the vein of a movie like "An American Werewolf in London". No, not a remake of that movie, but something that's a horror movie with comedic elements. I think he could pull it off.

-I forget who it was who said it, but someone on Twitter brought up a good point: they were going to remake "Ghostbusters" anyways. It's not like Jonah Hill saying "aw man, Slimer got green jizz all over you!" was going to be any better.

As a whole, I'd give it 6.5/10. It could have been better, but it's an alright little popcorn movie, and is at least an improvement over "Ghostbusters 2"
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 17, 2016, 09:27:21 AM
I saw this today and it was perfectly acceptable. The cameos were very well done as well.

The hate for this was really stupid.

The general online consensus among those who actually saw it seems to be either "that was actually pretty good" or "that was acceptable." There are people who didn't like it, but most of them (not all of them, but hey) at least saw it and have some genuine complaints beyond "they fucked my childhood memories over". Honestly, I think most of the people who are going to hate this either 1.) saw it and were going to hate it no matter what, or 2.) haven't or won't see it, and have decided they hate it anyways. Honestly, who fucking cares about that second group.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Big Beard Booty Daddy on July 17, 2016, 09:41:04 AM
Saw it today, and I really, really liked it. I love the original, and have seen it on the big screen, so I'm a fan of it. There are a few moments that were a miss, but overall, I found it very entertaining. It helped that the crowd I saw it with all had fun with it as well. There was much laughter and the audience even applauded at the end.

I loved the cameos, especially Hudson, Weaver, and Annie Potts. I love that they got the same voice actor who did Slimmer in part 2 to come back in this one. The shot of the apartment building from the first movie to start this one was a nice touch. I also loved the use of the original theme multiple times. Leslie Jones was a lot of fun, and I echo how fantastic Hemsworth and McKinnon are, especially the latter. McCarthy was very subdued, and she and Wiig did a great job allowing the other actors to shine.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on July 19, 2016, 08:24:10 AM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/07/19/ghostbusters_leslie_jones_leaves_twitter_due_to_racist_abuse.html

sad
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on July 19, 2016, 09:35:36 AM
I feel so bad for Leslie.  Disgraceful beyond belief
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: tekcop on July 19, 2016, 11:07:01 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/19/leslie-jones-twitter-abuse-deliberate-campaign-hate

Looks like our buddy Milo led the campaign against her. #BanNero

Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 19, 2016, 01:36:29 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/19/leslie-jones-twitter-abuse-deliberate-campaign-hate

Looks like our buddy Milo led the campaign against her. #BanNero


I'm amazed Yiannopoulos  hasn't gotten his ass kicked yet. If Perez Hilton can get punched in the face, why not this living embodiment of /pol/? Also, remember that when his Twitter account got suspended, he bitched about it to the White House (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/breitbart-editor-asks-white-house-twitter-badge-article-1.2553980).

Speaking of /pol/, Chan sites and Milo-I hope I don't sound paranoid, but I wonder if we end up getting some sort of awful internet laws passed because of people like this. It's one thing to go "well, they're trolling"...but this is well beyond that. This is openly setting out to ruin people's lives, trafficking in ironic racism and antisemitism (that really isn't ironic at all) and other forms of awful behavior, and constantly getting away with it. This shit can only go on for so long until something goes down.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: tekcop on July 19, 2016, 02:48:49 PM
He's been banned from Twitter. So that's something at least.

http://www.recode.net/2016/7/19/12232460/milo-yiannopoulos-permanently-suspended-twitter
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 20, 2016, 12:34:48 AM
He's been banned from Twitter. So that's something at least.

http://www.recode.net/2016/7/19/12232460/milo-yiannopoulos-permanently-suspended-twitter

The only drawback to this is the that that his fans are going to try and make him some sort of martyr for free speech.This also further proves my belief that nobody understands what free speech is and how it actually works, but that's for another discussion.

Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Firmino of the 909 on July 21, 2016, 03:39:18 PM
That's all total bullshit and I'm not surprised people here would actually defend it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Firmino of the 909 on July 21, 2016, 03:40:45 PM
ISIS can run their Twitter accounts but when a homo makes a controversial tweet about somebody with a history of their own racist tweets the guy gets banned.

Someone tell me the logic there.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Brooklyn Zoo on July 21, 2016, 03:48:20 PM
Can someone start over
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Two-Time Hall of Famer on July 21, 2016, 03:50:08 PM
You mean can Milo start over with a new account? I don't see why not!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 22, 2016, 06:58:39 AM
https://youtu.be/Sn_vAcFGTJU

After the introduction (roughly 2 minutes), she starts making a great point about the forced "gender war" that sprang up around this.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on July 22, 2016, 07:10:18 AM
I really like her hair colour.

I don't think that gender war was forced. I can understand why people are mad that they feel like they might be accused of sexism if they criticize this movie, but there genuinely were lots of people who were pissed about this movie because it starred a bunch of women.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 22, 2016, 08:29:19 AM
I really like her hair colour.

I don't think that gender war was forced. I can understand why people are mad that they feel like they might be accused of sexism if they criticize this movie, but there genuinely were lots of people who were pissed about this movie because it starred a bunch of women.

Pretty much all of this. I'd say that not liking the idea of remaking a classic or having cautious skepticism towards it (i.e. telling the director "I'm not crazy about this idea" without resorting to trolling or at least just saying "Hey man, don't fuck this up.") is natural response. However, a lot of people really went too far with this, and I don't even think those that did go too far even cared that "Ghostbusters" was being remade. They just wanted an excuse to humiliate women and minorities.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Firmino of the 909 on July 22, 2016, 09:03:04 AM
That's true for sure and can be seen earlier in this thread and elsewhere around the internet.

It's not like they were turning The Godfather into The Godmother. It made perfect logical sense for the movie to be made this way. I've never seen a Ghostbusters movie before but I can say I'm more likely to watch this one than the originals.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on July 22, 2016, 09:17:59 AM
Honestly, I never thought "Ghostbusters" was one of those movies that can't be remade. For me, that would be something like "The Wild Bunch" or "Suspiria" or the like-movies that I feel couldn't benefit from a remake not just because of their quality, but because of the time they were made. You couldn't really recapture that IMO.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Harley Quinn on July 22, 2016, 10:41:48 AM
Ghostbusters is also the type of franchise, much like Star Trek or Star Wars, that could lend itself to different concepts/ideas being tackled & explored in regards to future remakes so I didn't get the hoopla about all of the insanity regarding the franchise itself seeing a remade film.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on July 23, 2016, 05:53:33 AM
That's because neither of you loved it like most who complained (myself included).

Case in point, I don't think either of the movies Gary mentioned are beyond remaking. They're important milestones in cinema and great in their own right (caveat being I think Suspiria is ridiculously overrated), but The Wild Bunch being remade with the right cast/crew could be wonderful.

Addressing the two franchises HQ brought up, Star Wars isn't going to be remade in our lifetime. There'll be sequels, side stories, and maybe even further prequels, but an outright remake isn't happening. Abrams' Star Trek remake, though betraying a big reason why hardcore Trekkies love the property, made it a point to show this as an alternate timeline, which fit into the sci-fi setting perfectly.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Fan of Sports with Integrity on August 10, 2016, 05:37:19 AM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515

damn.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on August 10, 2016, 07:45:00 AM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515

damn.
At least that "Ben-Hur" remake will make a lot more...right? Right?
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on August 10, 2016, 07:47:57 AM
ISIS can run their Twitter accounts but when a homo makes a controversial tweet about somebody with a history of their own racist tweets the guy gets banned.

Someone tell me the logic there.
Uh, Twitter actually deletes ISIS accounts regularly Also, "when a homo"? Really? What's next, calling him "a fuckin' queer" or something (though considering he's cool with being called a faggot, he probably wouldn't mind if you did)
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Baby Shoes on October 03, 2016, 03:09:23 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OisCO5XRRE
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Kotzenjunge on November 14, 2016, 01:51:34 PM
I finally watched this. Shame there won't be a sequel probably, I liked it. Whoever made the trailers hated this movie and wanted it to fail. Not perfect by far, but if the original is a ***** gold standard that's impossible to replicate then this was ***1/4. My extremely low expectations may have played into me looking upon this so well but whatever, I was happy I finally saw it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: KingPK on August 08, 2017, 12:50:00 PM
https://youtu.be/AHUV8QLpEAc
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Gary on August 08, 2017, 01:15:00 PM
https://youtu.be/AHUV8QLpEAc

Am I alone in not liking Red Letter Media? I feel like everyone but me likes them.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Next Big Comedy Star on August 08, 2017, 01:26:16 PM
https://youtu.be/AHUV8QLpEAc

Am I alone in not liking Red Letter Media? I feel like everyone but me likes them.

I don't like them either. I find most of the guys on there pretty unfunny.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 11, 2019, 12:07:41 AM
Finally gave in and watched Ghostbusters (2016). Yuck. The worst part of it is how much wasted potential was there. If Feig could understand the difference between quality improv and the dogshit that permeates this flick's "humor" then this could've had a chance. Kate McKinnon is a highlight but Leslie Jones steals the entire show, the only one who seems to understand her character and how to make a joke while moving forward.

There's also the lack of actual wit on display that the original had in spades. It's just a series of bad SNL sketches one after another with a bit of plot thrown here and a little throwback scene there. The finale feeling like a third tier superhero flick didn't help matters in the least.

Paul Feig is a poor filmmaker. Katie Dippold is an awful writer. This movie never should have existed, but I won't lie: I actually enjoy the redesign of the gear quite a bit, but it's still a shame it went into Batman Forever territory with all the different gear clearly being used to market toys. Toys that never came nor sold because the movie was crap. Sony may be the world's largest churner of b-movie blockbusters ever.

5.5/10
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 15, 2019, 03:01:52 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jason-reitman-to-direct-sequel-to-original-ghostbusters-films

Jason Reitman is directing a new GB entry, an official sequel to the originals. Production starts this summer.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: The Valeyard on January 15, 2019, 05:01:06 PM
Fingers crossed Michael Cera plays Lewis and Janine's heroic son.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: strummer on January 15, 2019, 10:14:52 PM
I pretty much echo Laz's thoughts exactly.  This movie absolutely felt like a series of SNL sketches spliced together.  You would have sworn this was a Lorne Michaels' production
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 16, 2019, 01:34:08 AM
More on the true GB3 (per EW (https://ew.com/movies/2019/01/15/new-ghostbusters-movie-jason-reitman)):
-Jason Reitman will direct and co-write
-The other writer is Poltergeist remake and Monster House director Gil Kenan
-It is a DIRECT SEQUEL to the 80s films. Whether it incorporates the 2009 game isn't clear, but the game is considered canon.
-Aiming for a summer 2020 release with pre-production underway and filming to begin summer 2019.

Jason Reitman, as a director, knows how to pace jokes and plot. Thank You For Smoking is hilarious and the weak part of Juno is Diablo Cody's script. I've heard nothing but good about Tully and his other works.

Gil Kenan's Monster House was practically a love letter to GB and felt like an extended RGB episode. The direction of his Poltergeist remake was the only positive about it. I haven't seen City of Ember, but the clips I've watched are very interesting visually (reminiscent of City of Lost Children).

Also of note is that the status of the remaining original cast is up in the air, but the likelihood of their involvement is probably high. Aykroyd is a gimme, it's his baby and he's wanted to do a proper third film for decades at this point, and it's doubtful Ernie Hudson would say no. I can also see Sigourney and Annie Potts having, at least, cameos. Murray, though, will be in question until set photos show up, but I can see him popping in as both a way to cap off his most popular role and a favor to old friends. He's already worked with Kenan as part of the City of Ember cast and has been good friends with Ivan Reitman since before the first GB.

Also something worth noting: Gil Kenan is friendly with Max Landis, who shared a pretty solid outline of a GB3 treatment before the 2016 remake. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those elements, which have also shown up in the IDW comics, make it into the movie.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: RedJed on January 16, 2019, 02:47:21 AM
I'm uber excited that they decided to do this. I was really worried by the critical and financial bomb that the GB reboot/in another GB universe/what in the fuck exactly that the all-female version was. I thought with a pretty strong certainty that this was it for the franchise for at least live action film/TV. So this was a great surprise.

Murray you would think will be involved. I mean shit, they got him in a cameo in the reboot so it seems likely. I think whatever animosity there is can be alleviated by the right folks involved here, with Ivan and Jason Reitman being the bridge to getting things arranged and together in the best way possible. Have a lot of confidence in this whole thing.

Teaser trailer already got dropped today too, its not much but its something.

FWIW, I wouldnt even be opposed to having the ladies from the reimaging involved in some way, but it would have to be a stretch to even get a cameo going. Maybe they open up other dimensions and pull a Spiderman Into the Spiderverse thing and have them involved via those means? And if so, it would just be ideally a scene or two at most.

Please Rick Moranis, come back to Hollywood for this one!!!
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Epic by Faith No More on January 16, 2019, 02:51:16 AM
Yeah, I'm wondering what it's going to take to get Rick Moranis to come out of exile for this.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 16, 2019, 03:38:32 AM
His kids would probably have to pester him incessantly about it.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Baby Shoes on January 20, 2019, 07:54:43 AM
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Dandy on January 20, 2019, 08:00:05 AM
Could not disagree any harder with her. People want to see the same actors/characters that were in the originals. Had there been a reboot with all male leads that were not the original actors, everyone would still be hyped for this movie.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: KingPK on January 20, 2019, 08:19:10 AM
Putting that Trump dog whistle in is kinda disgusting as well. 
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Firmino of the 909 on January 20, 2019, 08:29:16 AM
Their movie didn't make money. That is literally all that matters.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Avid Warehouse Enthusiast on January 20, 2019, 12:56:39 PM
Actor famous for her role in a film that was a reboot is disappointed she isn't involved in the next reboot. Irony.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Epic by Faith No More on January 20, 2019, 12:57:58 PM
Putting that Trump dog whistle in is kinda disgusting as well.

Judd Apatow pulled the same nonsense when the reboot came out. He said in an interview that anybody who wasn't on-board with the remake is no better than a Trump supporter. That's a bad take, Judd.
Title: Re: Ghostbusters 3
Post by: Youth N Asia on January 20, 2019, 01:13:05 PM
Leslie Jones can eat shit on this one. People didn’t want her movie. They wanted this one.