New Ghostbusters movie in OG movie universe Jason Reitman directing 2020

[drgon78]

Dragon Ball Evolution = Ghostbusters(2016) I agree with this so much.

[snake]

Nah, Evolution is 10 times worse than GB 2016.

[Anarchistguy]

Nah...at least Evolution didn't genderbend Goku for the hell of it.

[snake]

They made him a f*cking high school teenager, not to mention what they did to every other character.

[Candy Kappa]

you gotta be poppin' the biggest rage boner ever over Answer the Call saying Dragon Ball Evolution was a better movie.

[TMNT-Leonardo]

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

again, it's not about being a 'true' fan. it's about being a 'real' fan.

and in this case, you can't be a real fan if the only thing you'll ever exopse yourself too is the copy of the real thing. and a half hearted one at that.

It's like watching Dragonball Evolution and suddenly saying you love the dragonball universe.

There's no such thing as a "real fan" either. You're either a fan of something or you aren't. Again, some people only like one version of TMNT and no one seems to be calling them "fake fans". People are allowed to only like certain parts of a franchise.

Saying you're a "real fan" or "true fan" sounds reeks of self entitlement. It sounds like something a child would make up to boost their ego.

And again, the 2016 film was the real thing. It was a version licensed by the copyright holders. Your personal bias of it doesn't change that fact.

FYI, very few people are gonna be claiming to be a "real fan" or "true fan" after only seeing a reboot version. Most people who try to claim that crap are longtime fans that seem to think they have more worth than they actually do. Either way, that argument holds no merit. You might as well calm you're a true King Leperchauns while you're at it.

[Candy Kappa]

Clearly, only true real Ghostbusters fans only acknowledge the superior version that had a great ape as a group member.

[Vegita-San]

how does encouraging one to seek out the source material reek of 'entitlement?' seems to me that is what you are doing...saying one can call themselves a fan, without seeing any of the thing that the franchise is truly made of.

No one is saying you can't be a fan of the new stuff. I am trying to argue you are not a real ghostbuster fan if all you like is the feig stuff, which is NOT a real Ghostbuster movie. simple as that.

but, whatever.

[Allio]

So... what have we thought about the recent comics?

We had one shots for 5 different teams: original, real, extreme and the 2016 for the 35th as well as Sactum team for 20/20

[snake]

They made King Piccolo yellow, I mean jesus christ.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

again, it's not about being a 'true' fan. it's about being a 'real' fan.

and in this case, you can't be a real fan if the only thing you'll ever exopse yourself too is the copy of the real thing. and a half hearted one at that.

It's like watching Dragonball Evolution and suddenly saying you love the dragonball universe.

No such thing as "Real Fan".
If I like Fred Wolf series more than others it doesn't make me "not real fan" of Turtles, for example and so on.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

how does encouraging one to seek out the source material reek of 'entitlement?' seems to me that is what you are doing...saying one can call themselves a fan, without seeing any of the thing that the franchise is truly made of.

No one is saying you can't be a fan of the new stuff. I am trying to argue you are not a real ghostbuster fan if all you like is the feig stuff, which is NOT a real Ghostbuster movie. simple as that.

but, whatever.

********.

I am not obligated to be familiar with the source material to be fan of something. I liked Batman'89 long time before I had ever encountered Batman comic books. Does it make not "real" fan or something?

The whole definition is so arbitrary and nonsensical that using "real / true fan" argument is a sure way to show that you had lost and have nothing to offer to the discussion at hand.

[Wildcat]

I’ve seen it before but I do not understand why they cut the dance scene out. It’s only about 40 seconds.

It’s kinda funny actually. For a ghost to possess you and make you do a silly dance. It fits well. It’s certainly better than some of the other jokes.

Anyway I agree with TMNT-Leonardo and Sumac but this movie is unfortunately in a different situation.

It could have had better humor, storyline and been in some continuity with the originals but those severely against it would have hated it no matter what simply based on its existence and perceived agenda.

It would have gotten some amount of hate as everything does (this new one will too and already has by a few ) but the reaction to just it’s announcement in 2014 was historic.

[TMNT-Leonardo]

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

how does encouraging one to seek out the source material reek of 'entitlement?' seems to me that is what you are doing...saying one can call themselves a fan, without seeing any of the thing that the franchise is truly made of.

So according to you, I have to read all the original superman comics in order to be fan of Superman? Despite me owning all Christopher Reeve movies on DVD, the 50s TV series and animated 90s series, the Fleischer cartoons, and various toys and memorbila? But nope, I guess I'm not a real fan because I never read the original comics.

Guess I'm not a fan of Men in Black fan either since I never read the original comics. I shouldn't have bought that replica Neuralyzer since I'm not a "real fan."

Fans aren't obligated to look at the source material. Just like how Power Ranger fans are not obligated to watch Super Sentai (which is what the show is based on) to be a Power Ranger fan.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

No one is saying you can't be a fan of the new stuff. I am trying to argue you are not a real ghostbuster fan if all you like is the feig stuff, which is NOT a real Ghostbuster movie.

Which is a stupid argument because it was made by the company that holds the license AND it is acknowledged by creator Dan Aykroyd and original director Ivan Reitman as a valid movie. It's like your arguing water isn't water because you say so. This is fan entitlement right here, thinking you can say what does and doesn't count.

Originally Posted by snake

They made King Piccolo yellow, I mean jesus christ.

He's actually light green in the film. But they colored it digitally so the tone was inconsistent. Sometimes it was darker, sometimes it was lighter.

[Andrew NDB]

I don't get involved in "true fan" stuff. But I do get involved in stuff where there is a huge disparity in quality... particularly when it's about source material that actually tries vs. things that do not. And when people say the lesser of those things is better or more valid.

[TMNT-Leonardo]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I don't get involved in "true fan" stuff. But I do get involved in stuff where there is a huge disparity in quality....

The quality though is in this case is subjective to the individual. Their's fans saying the better qaulity version of TMNT was the Fred Wolf cartoon and thereore the only ones that's valid. There's also people saying the same about the 2003 series. It's really tricky to go by quality or "better" as a reason for validity, because not everyone is going to agree. All of them are valid versions.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

particularly when it's about source material that actually tries vs. things that do not. And when people say the lesser of those things is better or more valid.

There's a difference between not trying, and not excuted well. You say the 2016 Ghostbusters film didn't try. I can point out things in the film definately did try, and these things were absent in the original film.

-Origin of the proton pack (the film had a prototype gun which didn't work properly, then first a prototpe proton pack with modifcations as the film went on. The original had the proton pack right at the first bust.
-An origin for the Ghostbusters logo
-Gave more an origin on how the Ghostbusters met
-More ghostbusting equipment
-The villain is present throughout the film more
-It also had more ghostbusting than the original film. The biggest scene in the original was slimers capture and the finale with gozer. The 2016 film had the the testing of the first proton gun, the bust at the concert, a battle with an army of ghosts plus another with the protagonist.

Like it or hate it, all those points are things that the original didn't have. The film did try, it just didn't work out well for most people. Some remakes TRY to do something, but don't execute it properly. Others are just very slight adjustments with little effort.

The RoboCop remake, tried to introduce new ideas that COULD have worked if they fleshed it out properly. The idea of trying to balance his duties while still maintaining his family. Struggling to adapt to his new life. These would have been interesting ideas for a RoboCop film, but was never expanded upon so we're left with a film filled with half-baked ideas.

The Total Recall remake, didn't try anything new. It felt like someone took the original script, removed some scenes, and filled it back in with pointless action. That's not even counting that the film markers tried to say it was closer to the original short story, when it was really just a bad rewrite of the Arnold film.

[sdp]

Answer the call was a mediocre movie but not that bad as people make it out to be, biggest mistake was having it be a reboot and not in continuity with the 2 other films. The anger by fans is that completely messed up what could've been a great revival and the studios doubled down on their decisions and called the agenda BS to get their way which didn't work.

It's really that simple but people are so polarized by the events that one side will either completely trash the movie or the other side just say that *insert insult" fans didn't let the movie shine. It's really neither, just bad decisions and an ok movie.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by TMNT-Leonardo

-Origin of the proton pack (the film had a prototype gun which didn't work properly, then first a prototpe proton pack with modifcations as the film went on. The original had the proton pack right at the first bust.
-An origin for the Ghostbusters logo
-Gave more an origin on how the Ghostbusters met
-More ghostbusting equipment
-The villian is present throughout the film more
-It also had more ghostbusting than the original film. The biggest scene in the original was slimers capture and the finale with gozer. The 2016 film had the the testing of the first proton gun, the bust at the concert, a battle with an army of ghosts plus another with the protagonist.

Oh my gosh yes to all of this!

The original 2 movies are great but it’s always bothered me that they already had the proton packs and stuff ready. If they had any prototype scene that would have been awesome.

And they did only have 1 major fight aside from the endings. Slimer in the first and Scoleri Brothers in the second. We get to see other ghosts and monsters but no actual battle.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, who I love, is barely around. He gets defeated pretty quick along with Gozer.

I’m surprised nobody has brought up the prequel that Dan Aykroyd wants. Ghostbusters High... like high school. It would be about how they met as teenagers set in 1969.

Personally I do not see how well that would work. An origin story is cool but that’s a long time prior. He mentions it would lead to a tv show (or its supposed to be a tv show). I guess he has some big vision that would bridge to the 80s.

I think it’d be better set just before the original movie that ends with them building the equipment.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by TMNT-Leonardo

The quality though is in this case is subjective to the individual. Their's fans saying the better qaulity version of TMNT was the Fred Wolf cartoon and thereore the only ones that's valid. There's also people saying the same about the 2003 series. It's really tricky to go by quality or "better" as a reason for validity, because not everyone is going to agree. All of them are valid versions.

Quality is not subjective. This claim is some post-modern bullcrap.

You can like Fred Wolf series all you want, but claiming that it has better story than 2k3 series would be absurd.

So, no, not all claims are valid. Some claims are ********.

Originally Posted by TMNT-Leonardo

There's a difference between not trying, and not excuted well. You say the 2016 Ghostbusters film didn't try. I can point out things in the film definately did try, and these things were absent in the original film.

All of those are details, which do not really influence quality of the movie or storytelling.

Because, following this logic you can say that Phantom Menace explanation about midichlorians (sic?) made it a better movie, when in fact it just added pointless trivia, which was absolutely unnecessary.

Also, Batman'89, for example, never explains why Bruce actually chose Bat as his symbol or how he had found batcave. Had it become a worse movie for it?
Nope.

[The Deadman]

Annie Potts Strongly Hints That Janine Melnitz Will Return in Jason Reitman’s ‘Ghostbusters’!

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/...-ghostbusters/

[drgon78]

So that includes all the living original cast members except Rick Moranis, correct?