Paul Feig wants to share his Cut of fembusters

[Autbot_Benz]

Paul Feig
@paulfeig
·
10h
There’s a three and a half hour cut of Ghostbusters: ATC I’d be happy to share. #FeygerCut twitter.com/profmdwhite/st…

Why does this exist ?

[IMJ]

I think it's a great idea. Let those fools spend more money on their flopped agenda film so that it flops again simply to hammer home the point that no one wants this nonsense.

[AquaParade]

Man, we really should be pushing for the Barron TMNT cut right about now.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

The difference between Feigbusters and Justice League is there's a chance this new cut of JL could be a marked improvement.

There ain't no improvin' on Feigbusters, unless you cut it down, not up. Way, WAY down. :tlol:

[ZariusTwo]

Release Batman Forever with the deleted scenes:D

[snake]

Release the 5 hour cut of The Phantom Menace

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

5 hour cut of Tommy Wiseau's The Room or I riot.

[Leo656]

Pretty sure he's joking. The "3.5 hours" thing gives it away, since Snyder had earlier stated that his cut of JL was 3.5 hours before WB offered to complete and expand it. Also, that hashtag makes it obvious.

Yet more proof that Paul Feig doesn't know what's funny.

EDIT: Yeah, look closer, it's definitely a joke. What a rube. BUT, he worked some'a you marks so I guess he got what he wanted. :lol:

But yeah, go ahead and breathe easy, guys, he was just trying (and failing) to be clever.

[Sumac]

Hm, and how many of those "Director's cut"s gonna pop out in the next few weeks and months, I wonder?

[Leo656]

Probably several, which honestly isn't a bad thing. The door's open for all kinds of things now. And lots of movies exist which weren't exactly treated well during production that deserve another chance.

Might be too late to fix something like Alien 3, for example, but it's a good example of a movie that IF it were possible to see a better version of, they'd be up for it. "Batman Forever" is another one people talk about a lot. Plus, there's gonna be an entertainment gap for a while depending on how long this pandemic lasts, so it gives people more content in a time when pickings are slim. So that's kinda nice to think about.

I mean, hell, f*ck it. I'm a huge free-market enthusiast. "Put your products out there and let them find their own audience", that's always been my attitude.

Like even this... thing, if it were real and it came out I'd support it on principle by saying, "Sure, it has a right to exist for anyone interested". I just would never, ever watch it or pay for it.

[Andrew NDB]

We can imagine what's in it. The "uncut" version of GB 2016 just added a bunch of dance numbers and the like.

[Xav]

Might be too late to fix something like Alien 3, for example, but it's a good example of a movie that IF it were possible to see a better version of, they'd be up for it.Wasn't Alien 3 already fixed with the "Assembly Cut"?

[Leo656]

I'unno, I missed that one. I'm more familiar with the legendary clusterf*ck surrounding its production because I really like reading about movies getting made. I probably spend a lot more time reading about the production of movies, than I do actually watching said movies. :lol: Like there's a few movies I've still yet to even watch but I can tell you all kinds of stuff about what happened while they were being made.

Big "Making Of" guy. Hook that sh*t to muh veins.

[Autbot_Benz]

Feig blames the 2016 election and being anti hillary for feigbusters doing so bad

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/ghostbusters-reboot-2016-election-director-blames-poor-reception/

[Leo656]

How noble of him to take another director's belated victory as an opportunity to get some attention for himself.

Seriously, Zack's JL cut gets the green light, this guy pops up and makes an obvious joke post, which I am still seeing some clueless nitwits reporting as if it's serious (It is NOT), and now he's back on the wagon ranting and raving.

I hadn't heard this guy's name written or spoken in like three years. Now he's got all this attention. Because another director got good news. "LOOKIT ME! I EXIST, ALSO!"

How f*cking crass and vulgar. Literally everything I've ever seen or heard from this guy makes me wanna put him in the Camel Clutch.

Also, this guy just needs to walk around wearing a shirt that says "I Hate My Own Dick." I've never heard anyone who identifies as male be such an "outspoken empowered woman" in my entire goddamn life.

And if Leslie Jones is "one of the funniest people you know and work with" then you need better friends.

[TommyT]

Serious question for the room. Does anyone here like Ghostbusters because they are legitimately afraid of ghosts, or is it all member berries? Is it the comedy? Is it the Romance? The effects?

[Leo656]

For me and others of a certain age I think a lot of the appeal comes in being able to see it from different and evolving angles as you go through different phases of life.

For me and my friends when we were 3, 4, 5 years old, it was all seen "straight" and the Ghostbusters were super-heroes. We noticed some of the comedy, but when you're a kid most things you're exposed to have comedy in them.

Then you get a little older and you notice more of how tongue-in-cheek it really is. But you can still take it at face value and watch it as "an action/adventure movie with comedy", OR "a comedy with action/adventure elements" and it's justifiable from either side.

I mean, the cartoons and comics of the day were also played totally "straight" with little of the movie's comedy, so it's not like it only ever existed as a lark. But you can get different kinds of enjoyment out of it regardless of what angle you view it from.

Although I feel that much of that charm is lost on people who were not first exposed to the property as children. It ages well with you if it's something you see as a kid and go back to later, BUT simply looking back on it as adults with no previous exposure, I see many people claim to not "get it". Which I guess can be true of anything. It makes me sad, though.

All I saw from "Answer The Call", by contrast, was a very not-funny "comedy" that tried to both mimic and deconstruct the first movie and did neither of those things very well. It might be the worst movie I've ever seen but I'm not entirely sure. I've seen worse-produced movies but this thing actually tried to be something of substance and completely imploded.

But if it's not that then it's probably "Legend of Chun-Li."

[TommyT]

Okay, so what is "it" that maybe some of us aren't getting today? From my understanding, it was meant to be played straight, to an extent, given Ackroyds family history with Mediums and spiritualism. It also doesn't seem like much of a send up, or subversive. Murray is the only one seemingly winking at the camera.

I saw it in theater as well, but It didn't hit me where maybe it hit you.

[Leo656]

I'm not sure if I could articulate it.

I find that many things in life are things that a person simply either feels a strong connection to, or does not. When pressed, it usually comes down to the person and not the product. What a person likes and why and how much is almost always a very personal thing.

It's like Jeff Jarrett famously once said about pro wrestling, but I find it applies evenly to all things in life: "If you get it, no explanation is necessary. If you don't get it, then no explanation will ever do."

Sounds like a polite way of avoiding even trying to explain it, but really, if you look at how these conversations usually go, it typically comes back to some variation of that. Could be a movie, a song, a cartoon, anything... on some level, it just has to do with the person themselves and what they value, and not the product. Which is why no two people will ever see any one thing the exact same way.

For example, most people on this forum don't get why He-Man is so cool. From my angle, I don't think TMNT is anywhere near as cool as He-Man is. And you could sit me and someone else across the table from each other to try and have an open and honest dialog about it, but at the end of the day nobody's going to convince anyone of anything except how strongly they hold on to their own personal opinions. So it might even be silly to have the conversation, unless it was merely an open exchange of ideas.

But most of the time it's not that, it's "Sell me on this." And that's almost impossible to do.

So I kind of feel that Ghostbusters is like He-Man, or Superman, or Rocky movies, or pro wrestling, or even TMNT, or anything else, really: If someone's not already into it, they probably wouldn't be into it even if someone else wrote an entire novel about why they like it or why you should also. It's just not possible for two people to "share a lens" in looking at or appreciating things.

So yeah, I don't know. I kinda gave up on trying to "sell" people on things back in high school. But maybe someone else is up for the challenge.

[TommyT]

He-man is cooler than TMNT. That’s a given.

A better question, what did they get so wrong in 16, aside from the women? What does a good GB reboot look like? GB 2021?

[Leo656]

He-man is cooler than TMNT. That’s a given.

A better question, what did they get so wrong in 16, aside from the women? What does a good GB reboot look like? GB 2021?


Well, at least you see that. :lol:

I wouldn't presume how to reboot or revitalize Ghostbusters since I don't make movies. I know what I'd personally like to see or do, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's best.

I can go on and on about everything I don't think worked about "Answer the Call", though. For one thing, it was made by people who ranged from not knowing to not caring about the original property, and that was probably Misstep #1. When Feig said to Sony, "I don't think I should do this," that was a red flag. He only took the job because they morphed it into a Female Empowerment Comedy. That was another mistake, because if you were to make a chart or graph, you'd see very, VERY little cross-over between people who call themselves "Ghostbusters fans", and people who generally like Chick Power flicks OR simply the rest of the movies in Feig's catalog. But anyway, if a guy tries to beg off of a project, you should probably let him. Director, actor, anybody... you're not gonna get someone's best work if they're only doing it at gunpoint.

Mileage varies because this is all subjective, but I didn't think the movie worked at all on a technical level. As in, remove "Ghostbusters" from the equation and I still think it's a misfire on most levels. The characters were not easy to like or sympathize with, and most of them were incredibly annoying. Improv comedy is extremely hit-or-miss, and this was so incredibly "Miss". The only thing I remember even cracking a smile at was Ernie Hudson's bit about "Stackin' 'em like flapjacks" and that was mostly because of how he delivered it. The running gag about the Chinese restaurant, what... what the hell WAS that? It wasn't even funny the first time, and they did it what, four times? A bad joke doesn't get funnier if you keep telling it. SO much of that kind of thing in this movie.

I know some people laughed at the various stuff with whatsername, McKinnon? The blond one. I forgot most of their names. Like, okay, yeah, I don't think it was funny but I kinda see why someone might giggle. But y'know, I don't think Bug Bunny-style sight gags with fright wigs and such really have much of a place in Ghostbusters. It felt very lazy and try-hard.

It all felt like that. Every bit of the movie tried very, very hard to be as "outrageous" and "zany" as possible and it was just incredibly dumb. "There's ghost slime in muh pussay." Ha ha...? I know she didn't say it like that but that's essentially what she said. None of the jokes or parts that were supposed to be funny made me laugh, but a ton of them did make me go, "Really?" I mean, I am not kidding when I say this next bit: Before I watched "Answer The Call", I kinda liked Chris Hemsworth alright. After, I never wanted to see him in anything again, ever. Especially after hearing that most of his bits were improv. That guy is a f*cking doofus. Knowing that everything in that movie was his personal decision made me lose all respect for him. He's got a loose wire if he thinks he's funny. He is not.

Leslie Jones simply shouldn't be working anywhere in front of a camera. I'm sorry, but the absolute nicest thing I can say about her is that she has no business working in front of a camera. She's simply terrible and that's all I wanna say about her. She's like a racist caricature come to life. Like you couldn't invent someone so obnoxious, and that's her Default Setting. I'm sorry, I gotta move on.

What there was of the script was not good. I mean, they took time out of the plot to "throw shade" at the Internet Haters. We're stealing bits from f*cking Jay and Silent Bob movies, now? And at least in THAT sh*t, 1. They were making a bad movie on purpose, and 2. It was a plot point, not just giving the audience the finger out of spite and hurt feelings. The entire film spent too much time on striking back and being man-hating, to the point where the entire thing insists upon itself far too greatly for a movie with nothing important to say. They shoot the Boss Fight Ghost in the dick area to beat him. I mean, that was a choice. And a lot of the movie seemed hellbent on taking potshots at the original for no reason other than "Get it? We're better." And it's like, "Nah, you're not."

Also, the movie ripped off the ending of "Pacific Rim" and I almost fell the f*ck out of my chair. I did laugh at THAT part, but for all the wrong reasons. Not that it was funny, but because "Holy sh*t, did they think nobody would notice this is the ending to 'Pacific Rim'?" It's the same ending!

So, the improv was irritating, the script was not great, one of the four leads is unspeakably awful and the rest mediocre, and they wholesale ripped off another, better movie's climax. What else... OH, yeah. Didn't care for the effects. Some people love them but for me the whole thing looked more like Scooby-Doo than Ghostbusters. It was much too bright and the colors were incredibly over-saturated. Again, not everybody agrees on this but I think their chosen "spooky" aesthetic was too much like a cartoon and it would have worked better if it were more scaled back. The radioactive greens were screwing the sh*t out of my TV. The colors didn't need to ooze out of every frame like that. It was just too much. Like, people complained about "Speed Racer" but that was trying to be a movie-as-a-cartoon so the over-the-top color palette made more sense. It just didn't fit right for this kind of thing where it sometimes pretends to be serious.

As you can see, there are a lot of reasons I think this movie was awful that have nothing at all to do with it being a poor representation of the "Ghostbusters" brand. I think it is also that, but I think people don't pay enough attention to the fact that aside from what it's called, it just doesn't really work. I've said this about other things, but it feels like an SNL skit making fun of "Ghostbusters" that simply never ends, rather than a legitimate "Ghostbusters movie". And maybe that's on purpose but I don't think it's what they should have done.

It was without question one of the most unpleasant times I've ever had watching a film, and I'm not just saying that to be mean. I'd rather watch "Casualties Of War" every day for a week than watch "Answer The Call" even once. The fact that it has "Ghostbusters" in the title bothers me, but that's not really even the half of why I don't like it.

They probably should have called it "Spook Smashers" and marketed it as a straight-up spoof film a'la "Scary Movie". Framed like that, but with every single thing done exactly the same... maybe it would have worked. I still don't think it was funny, but it definitely feels more like a spoof than a "straight" picture. They should've leaned into that. Instead it sort of straddles the line between spoof and remake, and does both poorly.

It's all subjective, and some people love it, but I think anyone with any objectivity at all should be able to see why it's a mess. But that's my perspective. I do think it's telling that most people I've seen say they genuinely enjoy it, have at some point in their life spoken of drinking someone's salty tears, without irony. When considering opinions, one always does well to also consider the source.

I'm one of the few people who has not done cartwheels for the new movie that's coming out, simply because I think they missed their chance to do a "great" sequel when Ramis died, and because we simply haven't seen enough. I do think, though, that based on the one trailer we've seen, it has a very, very good chance of at least being better than "Answer The Call". I hope it's great, but I wasn't as blown away by the shot of the car in the barn like everyone else was. I'm not quite such a cheap lay. I'm easy, but not that easy. But I'll be the first to give credit where it's due if it turns out well.

[TommyT]

Thats why I was wondering what it is that people love about Ghostbusters.
If you remove that element, its a clone of every other fempower mcarthy prat fall comedy. Its that exact formula.

Which, as a non fan, is kind of what GB seems to be too, an ensemble comedy movie, which happens to have ghosts. Not shade, just what it seems to be.
So really, if you’re making that, and you hire those players, the actors and feige, thats the movie you’re going to get. GB is going to just be the background, they will poke fun at the idea, they won’t be serious.

The question is if you have to make a sequel, in 2016, what does it look like? Could have easily been cast with 4 dudes, I think it would have been just as bad to be honest. I don’t think you can make GB today, anymore than you could do a remake of 3 men and a baby.
2021 looks really stupid, but maybe its what fans want. But if you start treating GB like high art, don’t you lose the fun of it? Or is goofly wrong?