More Ghostbusters movies coming

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I think the only way I'd have appreciated seeing the old guard back in their original characters is if they were doing what Winston, Venkman, and Stantz would be up to in a world where Egon was taken too young.

That could work. Imagine another big ghost invasion... and the Ghostbusters are just mulling around, long retired and out of business (again). Occasionally they visit Egon's grave, and that's the only time they see each other. Columbia University students seek them out one by one for help with the invasion, but they're just not having it. They're old and retired and those days are long behind them, and all of that enthusiasm died with Egon.

Then we get the big Ghostbusters version of Unforgiven, with them taking the ibuprofen and grudgingly getting back in the saddle (or putting on the proton packs, in this case) to take on the new ghost Big Bad, played by some big, popular British actor or something. With or without the Columbia students on the team. Probably with, to appeal to younger audiences.

We're never going to see eye to eye on this.
I'm just shocked you're in support of more studio meddling.

Not in general. But Ghostbusters (2016) certainly needed... eh, something other than what it got. To put it diplomatically.

[Allio]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

I have no idea why this franchise needs to keep going. It had one funny/decent movie and that's all it should have been. How this franchise spawned comics, cartoons and more movies is beyond me. Not everything needs to be a "franchise."

I don't think any kids of today care about a bunch of middle age men running around capturing ghosts.

idw comics are amazing, so up yours.

I mean, it's about ghosts, unsurprising why it works.

What surprises me is "Puppet Master," I get action labs is desperate for titles, but Why?

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Christ, here we go again.

Reitman said he wished it'd made more money, which is not the same as a flop. Especially considering it made $229 million and had a production cost of $144 million.

If anything has salted the earth around this franchise, it's the incessant whining about the 2016 movie.

you forgot about the extra cost regarding how much it is for promoting the movie, which ends up being probably about 80 million, some reports says it was about 100 million.

[ToTheNines]

Originally Posted by Allio

idw comics are amazing, so up yours.

This.

I'll never watch a Ghostbusters 3, not without Ramis. They should have made it happen a decade ago. But they didn't, now they're screwed.

[ProphetofGanja]

Yeah, the IDW Ghostbusters comics are pretty good. Dan Schoening does a pretty good job on art, there are a few characters who look a little "off" to me but Erik Burnham's writing is pretty great also so all in all it works. I'm glad the Turtles got a crossover with them

[snake]

Doing GB3 without Ramis is f*cked. Enough said.

[ToTheNines]

Originally Posted by ProphetofGanja

Yeah, the IDW Ghostbusters comics are pretty good. Dan Schoening does a pretty good job on art, there are a few characters who look a little "off" to me but Erik Burnham's writing is pretty great also so all in all it works. I'm glad the Turtles got a crossover with them

I love Schoening, he puts so much detail into his work, even if his character designs can be simplified. I know what you mean about some characters looking off, but I always get used to them eventually.

Burnham is great. Very funny and knows GB inside and out. And Delgado is possibly my favorite colorist of all time.

[ProphetofGanja]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

I love Schoening, he puts so much detail into his work, even if his character designs can be simplified. I know what you mean about some characters looking off, but I always get used to them eventually.

Burnham is great. Very funny and knows GB inside and out. And Delgado is possibly my favorite colorist of all time.

I think the only thing that's weird to me is Winston, who looks waaay more buff than he did in the movies (I guess Dan is playing up the whole ex-marine thing?) and his female characters mouths, the way they all look the same and seem to sit at a funny angle. It works for some, not for others

His Chi-You was freaking bad ass though, I'm curious to see how other artists depict him if he ever turns up again. Maybe he'll at least be mentioned in the next Pantheon story coming up

[ToTheNines]

His Winston doesn't really look line Hudson, but it works for me. I hear his voice coming out of him just fine. His Venkman is what initially turned me off. And yeah the female mouths always reminded me of Angelica/Charlotte Pickles lol.

We got a glimpse of CP Wilson doing Chi-You, but Schoening is still king there. Imagine a Santolouco take though...

[ProphetofGanja]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

His Winston doesn't really look line Hudson, but it works for me. I hear his voice coming out of him just fine. His Venkman is what initially turned me off. And yeah the female mouths always reminded me of Angelica/Charlotte Pickles lol.

We got a glimpse of CP Wilson doing Chi-You, but Schoening is still king there. Imagine a Santolouco take though...

Mannnn, that will be freaking sweet. I hope Santolouco gets to do artist duties whenever IDW gets to the big Pantheon grand finale

[snake]

I'd be fine seeing the animated GB film following the original characters. I love TRGB anyway.

[ProactiveMan]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Short of that, the other cameos were a lot of fun and no where near as forced as Akroyd and Murray's were.

I didn't mind Aykroyd's, at least he looked like he was enjoying himself. I think the Sony hack revealed that Murray's cameo was almost literally forced, or at least heavily coerced under threat of legal action.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but Sony are probably better off making a sequel to "Answer the Call" than trying to bring the old guys back. Spend a little less money and see what happens.

[Wildcat]

Here we go again huh? I read this news yesterday.

Love how people continue to post box office numbers to prove whether people liked something. Bit of a double standard though...it justifies a "failure" or an underrated movie.

I would argue DVD/BR sales mean a little more since buying equals owning. Ive seen it's done well on home release. I can understand waiting. I hardly go to the theater.

I don't know if people realize (maybe but won't admit it concerning this) but movies that have done worse at the box office or initially had bad reception have gotten sequels. Movies that didn't even seem to make an impact either way.

Well I certainly hope they don't ignore the reboot. I'd like to see this universe they keep talking about. I want there to be multiple teams in other places.

[DestronMirage22]

This'll end well.
Feel bad for the real GB fans who have to experience this kinda stuff happen to their beloved franchise, but as already stated, at least there's the IDW comics.

[ProactiveMan]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Love how people continue to post box office numbers to prove whether people liked something. Bit of a double standard though...it justifies a "failure" or an underrated movie.

I don't know why people care so much. I guess Hollywood accounts are interesting on a certain level, but those studios cook their books so hard it’s very difficult for the average chud to know what’s going on with any certainty. Ghostbusters is a good example. The budget was cut before shooting, and we sort’a know what it was, but then most of the effects were apparently done by Image Works off the books, so how much did it cost? There are probably only a handful of people in the world who know for sure. More importantly, who gives a poop?! Movie finance is the studio’s problem; I just watch the damn things.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by ProactiveMan

I don't know why people care so much. I guess Hollywood accounts are interesting on a certain level, but those studios cook their books so hard it’s very difficult for the average chud to know what’s going on with any certainty. Ghostbusters is a good example. The budget was cut before shooting, and we sort’a know what it was, but then most of the effects were apparently done by Image Works off the books, so how much did it cost? There are probably only a handful of people in the world who know for sure. More importantly, who gives a poop?! Movie finance is the studio’s problem; I just watch the damn things.

Someone posted a good question on another site...If the budget was lower but it still did the same would people still say it flopped?

Those who like hating it obviously would. However it technically would have been a better ratio.

[Cure]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Someone posted a good question on another site...If the budget was lower but it still did the same would people still say it flopped?

That's not a good question at all; of course not. It's...common sense. "Get Out" hasn't made nearly as much money and probably won't by the end of its run but because it was made for like $5 million, it's considered a smash hit. Relativity, man.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Someone posted a good question on another site...If the budget was lower but it still did the same would people still say it flopped?

Those who like hating it obviously would. However it technically would have been a better ratio.

Originally Posted by Cure

That's not a good question at all; of course not. It's...common sense. "Get Out" hasn't made nearly as much money and probably won't by the end of its run but because it was made for like $5 million, it's considered a smash hit. Relativity, man.

Yeah, that's a pretty dumb statement/semi-question that sort of self-cancels itself out. Numbers are numbers.

[Wildcat]

Yeah but that's the point. A budget is not a pre-determined measurement for success. It's just the amount it cost to make the movie.

How far it goes over that threshold is just an arbitrary number because every budget is different. Unless it's something outrageous like Star Wars but that's in a league of its own.

The box office and budget are 2 different things. You can't look into the future and price your budget according to box office sales.

If I spend a lot of money to make a movie that's my decision. That's not what the movie must exceed in order to be a "success". Only to make a profit.

[ssjup81]

All I want is this...

Old Ghostbusters pass torch to new Ghostbusters. They could've done that with the 2016 film. It's a good premise, and they could've adapted something from the IDW comics.

[ProactiveMan]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Yeah but that's the point. A budget is not a pre-determined measurement for success. It's just the amount it cost to make the movie.

I think the hang up there is the term “flop”. Unless it’s qualified by something else, e.g. “critical flop”, I think most people would define a flop as a movie that experiences a financial shortfall. I would have thought that it meant a considerable shortfall, and I think the term is used pretty loosely in the media, but then again it’s not exactly scientific. How many flops = a disaster = a bomb?

It’s OK to like a flop, not all flops are bad movies, and not all bad movies flop.