An all Male Ghosbusters movie is also in the works at Sony

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by THGhost

That's not necessarily a good thing.

true enough but that means at least one original GB is involved

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Agree with this, excellent idea.

Might also get rid of some of the hostility over an all-women version and what ended up looking like a rather redundant all-men rebuttal.

And fits well with the trend of some tv series having different location versions, such as the Walking Dead getting another one.

Ya but I'd still like to see other teams working. I imagine each would have their own style and cars. Guess this works better in a TV series than separate full length movies.

I'd actually prefer a live action TV series than movies that take years to release. You can do more storylines. We don't even know exactly what they have in mind by "universe" anyway. I just assumed multiple team-movies but that does seem harder to do now that I think of it.

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Ya but I'd still like to see other teams working. I imagine each would have their own style and cars. Guess this works better in a TV series than separate full length movies.

I'd actually prefer a live action TV series than movies that take years to release. You can do more storylines. We don't even know exactly what they have in mind by "universe" anyway. I just assumed multiple team-movies but that does seem harder to do now that I think of it.

Or an animated series like The Real Ghostbusters, That was a great show back in the days.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

Or an animated series like The Real Ghostbusters, That was a great show back in the days.

Ya I'd be happy with a new cartoon but now that it's possible to do a live action show with decent special effects I'd rather have that.

Ghostbusters Inc. was a title suggested on imdb for a storyline involving other branches. This was well before the reboot was announced. Anyway I really like that name.

[Leo656]

I maintain that doing another movie, period, is an AWFUL idea, and anyone who supports it should feel bad. This franchise is done.

This whole article is pretty good (shockingly so, since it's Cracked and it's post-2012), but the part about why the Ghostbusters brand needs to be put down is practically bullet-proof.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-belove...much-faith-in/

-------------------------------------------
"Let me ask you all a question, and feel free to write your answer down or just speak it aloud to whatever room you happen to be sitting in -- what was it about Ghostbusters that made that movie so great?

Was it the rich, sprawling mythology of the ghostbusting universe?

Or was it Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis teaming up to make a comedy in the prime of their careers?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's that second one.

See, people have a borderline rabid sense of nostalgia for Ghostbusters and the Ghostbusters brand, but the movie is about those three actors, period. Three of the biggest giants in the history of comedy came together to make a weird, funny movie. That's what the fans clamoring for another Ghostbusters film and the maniacs who greenlit two different reboots don't seem to understand -- the Ghostbusters brand and the performances of Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis are the same thing. They're inseparable. That movie could've been about f*cking time-traveling cab drivers and it probably would've had the exact same impact on all of us. It was a unique premise executed by three of the most unique comedians ever captured on film. Without them, the brand is meaningless."
-------------------------------

That's entirely it. Without the originals, there is NO POINT. I loved and worshiped those movies to a degree that is 100% embarrassing as an adult, but like the article says, its "classic" status was completely and totally because of the original ingredients. Do that same movie with literally any other actors, and it's just another stupid "goofball comedy". You cannot recreate the chemistry of the original. Reviving the brand NOW - and, god forbid, expanding it, as they say they plan to do - is the most cynical, soulless kind of consumerist logo-worship. "Yaaaay, it has the same sticker on it as something I liked as a kid! Literally everything about it is different, and it kind of sucks really hard, but YAY, I enjoy things I remember!!!"

People should not be happy about either of these movies being made. Like lottery tickets, they do not offer you a gateway into something you've always wanted or dreamed of; it is simply an illusion presented by people who want to keep you ignorant and take your money. Nothing more. Don't support it. People DON'T want more Ghostbusters movies, what they always wanted was for those exact guys to somehow make a movie together one day that was as awesome as that one, and that can't ever happen.

So, now, instead of a universe where people refer to Ghostbusters and say, "Man, I remember that, it was awesome", like we have now, we get to have a universe where the brand will forever be spoken of as, "That one good movie, and an increasingly-depressing slide into National Lampoon-levels of embarrassing self-parody and irrelevance through a slew of gimmicky trash sequels." That's shameful.

[Brodie]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I maintain that doing another movie, period, is an AWFUL idea, and anyone who supports it should feel bad. This franchise is done.

-------------------------------------------
"Let me ask you all a question, and feel free to write your answer down or just speak it aloud to whatever room you happen to be sitting in -- what was it about Ghostbusters that made that movie so great?

Was it the rich, sprawling mythology of the ghostbusting universe?

Or was it Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis teaming up to make a comedy in the prime of their careers?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's that second one.

See, people have a borderline rabid sense of nostalgia for Ghostbusters and the Ghostbusters brand, but the movie is about those three actors, period. Three of the biggest giants in the history of comedy came together to make a weird, funny movie. That's what the fans clamoring for another Ghostbusters film and the maniacs who greenlit two different reboots don't seem to understand -- the Ghostbusters brand and the performances of Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis are the same thing. They're inseparable. That movie could've been about f*cking time-traveling cab drivers and it probably would've had the exact same impact on all of us. It was a unique premise executed by three of the most unique comedians ever captured on film. Without them, the brand is meaningless."
-------------------------------

That's entirely it. Without the originals, there is NO POINT.

You say this, but there are other instances of great Ghostbusters stuff. The Real Ghostbusters cartoon is great. Its what you're saying, about having the same sticker....but it IS Ghostbusters. Its fun, and interesting, etc. Its Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston, not exactly Akroyd, Murray or Raimis, but that's fine2.

Is it as good as the first movie? No, but its fantastic.

I agree that two more movies don't need to be made, but I completely disagree with the idea that only those two movies need to exist, and everything else thereafter is trash.

I liked the game, it was the only Ghostbusters 3 I'd need, and I get that now. I've come to terms that I won't get the Ghostbusters 3 movie I've wanted since I was a kid.

I think expanding the universe in this way, with these two movies...its dumb. Its increasingly unnecessary considering the comic books with IDW are doing such a spectacular job of expanding the movie universe, and tying in all the other materials; cartoons, games, etc. The art is great, and the writing hits on damn near close to movie levels at times.

The game and comics are what I'll take away as expanding Ghostbusters. These movies don't need to be made, and they won't be as good as the originals, the cartoons or even the comic books at this point.

But to say those original two movies are the only valid piece of Ghostbusters? That's ****ing horseshit.

[Leo656]

I'll agree that the cartoon and game were great, but even with that, it was still mostly connected to the "roots" of it all. There is absolutely no reason to have more product based on the brand NOW. The concept itself isn't exactly something people are in love with, it was just the characters.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Leo656

The concept itself isn't exactly something people are in love with, it was just the characters.

Tell that to everyone who ever made a proton pack replica and/or customized a car to look like an Ecto 1.

There are people who only liked it for the cast, I've come across many, which is fine but it just tells me they were never really Ghostbusters fans. Again fine.

If "Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson: The Movie" is all some people were in it for...well ok but then I guess I didn't matter what kinda movie they made. O_o. Someone on imdb even said it was never about the ghost business...lol Ya tell that to Dan Aykroyd.

I know every thing has against-ers (not a word, someone used it here for TMNT '14). but this is the only franchise I've seen this happen to. To write off the movie itself and claim it was only good for its cast.

It's just bizarre. I've never seen this in any other franchise or fandom. I know it's just one side of it but it's still very strange. To then deem said-thing pointless but after the fact. I really wanna know what Dan thinks of this because he's known for being into the supernatural and stuff. His original script was apparently far more elaborate.

[Leo656]

Brother, I was a bigger mark for Ghostbusters than you'll ever know, so you ain't telling me anything I don't know. Doesn't change the fact that if they'd done the movie with John Candy instead of Dan Akroyd, nobody would be talking about it today. It was the actors' chemistry that made it work so well. People can argue that, but they're wrong. "Doughy nerds babbling about Ectoplasm and shooting laser beams at stuff that isn't there" is a concept with a very, VERY limited range of appeal and you need the right people to sell it.

And again, as the article mentioned and I quoted, no, it really didn't have to be about ghosts or anything. It was about those guys, in that time and place, being absolutely untouchable on screen. It could have been a movie about four guys and a dry cleaning business, or a fast food restaurant, and maybe it wouldn't have gotten its own cartoon show but people damn sure would have responded to it just as positively.

See, the only reason people are so hardcore for this franchise is that we were all kids when it came out and we actually took it seriously, most of us oblivious to the fact the entire thing was a gag. We didn't get it. Our parents sure did - "Oh, that rascal Bill Murray! He's just on ALL the cocaine! Just look at him ad-lib!" - but we thought it really WAS a movie about these four guys proving ghosts were real and saving the world, and not just an excuse to throw the three greatest comedic actors alive in 1984 into a situation where they could be goofy and do improv. You can't just say, "OK, so ghosts are real, and four goofy nerds are gonna save the world." Pretend the movie etc. never existed; that's one of the dumbest concepts anyone ever spoke out loud. You only care NOW because Murray, etc. made you care THEN. You can't just re-shoot it with different actors and different jokes and pretend it's the same thing. It's not.

Even beyond this franchise, I'm very concerned/disturbed lately with just how many people share this really strange obsession with seeing their childhood recycled, if that's even the right word for whatever you call, "They're doing that movie/cartoon/thing they did when I was a kid, but sh*tty." For one, you're not a kid anymore, and secondly, why not just be happy with what you had? People pretend its not about themselves - "I just want to see things get brought back so a new generation can enjoy them!" - while completely ignoring the fact that kids don't give a single s*** what their parents or older siblings liked when they were 5. They don't do these things for a "new generation", not at all, they do it for these people who are stuck in some kind of vortex where the air doesn't move and they're still little kids. Frankly, it's unhealthy.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Leo656

the only reason people are so hardcore for this franchise is...

I like how you're under the impression you can tell people why they care about something.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Doesn't change the fact that if they'd done the movie with John Candy instead of Dan Akroyd, nobody would be talking about it today.

Hey, don't be knockin' on Candy! Actually, had he been in it (instead of, say, Hudson) we'd then have had all FOUR of the comedy greats from that era. Now THAT would've been something!

Originally Posted by Peanut

I like how you're under the impression you can tell people why they care about something.

And yet, he's pretty much hit the nail on the head. Try to imagine the movie with anyone else in those roles from that time, and I'd bet even money you would've thought it sucked. The movie worked BECUASE of those guys, and because two of them were directly involved with the script. Without that synergy, it would've been a mere footnote in cinematic history, not one of the biggest hits of the day, and an iconic movie franchise. With its own comic, cartoon, and video game.

[ProactiveMan]

Wasn't John Candy going to play Louis Tully at one point? I think they talk about it on the commentary of the old DVD. He had some weird ideas about playing the part with a German accent and having huge dogs, which Reitman and Ramis did not agree with.

[Wildcat]

@leo656, Like I said tell Dan Aykroyd the ghost busting business was one the dumbest ideas ever.

And really out of all the different sci-fi/fantasy franchises and fandoms we have fighting the supernatural with special weapons is the one that's just too dumb to actually like or build on?

Liking the original cast is understandable and I'd love for them to reappear (as part of the old team, not new characters). However to now turn it around and be all...oh now that I'm grown up I realize how dumb that was but thankyou for making me think I actually liked what I was watching for awhile.

That's some pretty twisted logic right there.

I understand being against a reboot and with an all-girl team. I wanted a legitimate sequel. I wish they would change their minds here and somehow tie the new movies with the first two.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I like how you're under the impression you can tell people why they care about something.

True story? I generally am a very good judge of people and their motivations. I study them. Most people, by and large, don't know themselves at all, and don't even have any idea why they "like" or "dislike" anything they claim to, and when you actually engage them in conversation and pay close attention, it's easy enough to read between the lines and figure them out. It's not exactly an impossible skill to learn; therapists and the like do it all the time. All it takes is the ability to actually pay attention to what people are saying, not wait for one thing you can "call them" on.

Human beings are simple creatures, they're not at all complicated, and they like stupid things for stupider reasons. Doesn't take Freud to figure them out, just a keen sense of observation. In this case, especially. Not one person born after 1994 or so gives one sh*t if there's ever another Ghostbusters movie or who is in it. Hardly anything controversial in that statement, or the previous one that you seemed to take such offense to. True things don't stop being true just because you don't care for the person saying them or you think they're coming off as condescending. When you're right, you don't have to be nice about it or apologize for it. So, I'm not and I don't.

Originally Posted by Wildcat

@leo656, Like I said tell Dan Aykroyd the ghost busting business was one the dumbest ideas ever.

Look, I love the guy, and the franchise, but holy sh*t, in literally every other context it's ever been done in, the entire concept of "ghost busters/hunters/whatever" has been repeatedly dismissed as corny, from Storch and Tucker and their fake gorilla all the way down the line to whatever fake "reality" show that toys with it. I'm glad the fact HE thinks there are really ghosts gives the guy's life a purpose, and it's cute he's so committed, but be real, the only person who takes ANYthing Dan Akroyd says seriously is Akroyd. In fact, him being so gung-ho on a new GB franchise is a pretty big hint that it will be terrible. He was the one who insisted they do another Blues Brothers movie 20 years later and like 15 years or so after Belushi died. And it was dogsh*t. Starting to sound familiar? I love the guy, but seriously, he has imbibed HEAVILY on his own bullsh*t for the last few decades. Nothing he says means anything.

My point stands, the characters/actors/execution made the movie into so much more than what it was. Not the concept in and of itself.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Leo656

True story? I generally am a very good judge of people and their motivations. I study them. Most people, by and large, don't know themselves at all, and don't even have any idea why they "like" or "dislike" anything they claim to, and when you actually engage them in conversation and pay close attention, it's easy enough to read between the lines and figure them out. It's not exactly an impossible skill to learn; therapists and the like do it all the time. All it takes is the ability to actually pay attention to what people are saying, not wait for one thing you can "call them" on.

Wow, Ghostbusters aside that's one the most arrogant and condescending things I've ever read someone say.

It's a good thing your around to tell us who we actually are.

Thankyou poster on the internet.

[Leo656]

Look, it's not my f*cking fault people are simpletons, I just report on it.

Case in point: People making any argument whatsoever for these movies actually happening. Keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's hysterical.

[Candy Kappa]

I think the all-male movie is going to be a bad move, they already announced a all-female movie which already is a high risk-high reward project, case in point how the internet reacted. A all-male movie just looks like a cowardly backpedaling. Sure franchising fits in-universe, but they should focus on one movie at a time.

[Powder]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Wow, Ghostbusters aside that's one the most arrogant and condescending things I've ever read someone say.

It's a good thing your around to tell us who we actually are.

Thankyou poster on the internet.

He's kinda right, & it's "you're".

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Tell that to everyone who ever made a proton pack replica and/or customized a car to look like an Ecto 1.

There are people who only liked it for the cast, I've come across many, which is fine but it just tells me they were never really Ghostbusters fans. Again fine.

If "Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson: The Movie" is all some people were in it for...well ok but then I guess I didn't matter what kinda movie they made. O_o.

Well... it's not that fans only like the concept for the original cast, but I think it's fair to say that it was the original cast that made us care about it in the first place. The overall fandom is kind of an extension of that. I love the props and vehicles and sets a ton too, but without the magic of that original movie, built mostly on the cast, it wouldn't mean much.

The cartoon was great because it had really good writing (especially for an '80s kids cartoon), the game was fun and had the novelty of getting the original cast back together one more time, and the IDW comics had really good writing that captured the characters well. All of the most "successful" follow-ups knew they had to capture that feeling and chemistry the best they could. Because ultimately that's what makes the whole thing work.

That said - I think a Ghostbusters reboot could work, but only if they're able to make a movie that's as funny as the original, with a cast that has as much chemistry and improv skill, and deliver a story that manages to scratch that "nostalgia itch" but also do something surprising and interesting on its own merits. That's a damn tall order, though.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Look, it's not my f*cking fault people are simpletons, I just report on it.

Case in point: People making any argument whatsoever for these movies actually happening. Keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's hysterical.

Well...you know what the cure for hysteria is...