Director Wants Sequel for Mediocre Reboot (Ghostbusters)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

The film itself was a bust, and it became the second Ghostbusters sequel that was crappy and forgettable. I think we should all just recognise that sometimes really good movies happen in spite of stupid premises not because of them, like the first Ghostbusters, and stop trying to strike lightning a second time.

On the other hand, gender flipping an 80s classic... holy crap that was a media goldmine. In this day and age where Hollywood will pay anything to get a movie noticed in a crowded market, that kind of internet furore seems a really solid way to break through. Maybe the strategy should be to flip the gender in more classics, to mine that angry internet misogynist mine for all it's worth. You could even stick to Bill Murray classics, and gender flip Stripes, Caddyshack and Groundhog Day.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
Without getting into the culture war stuff, the movie looked like a bad scooby doo live action flick, and I passed on it. Given that it doesnt seem to have recouped its costs, its hard to see where a sequel is warranted.

Yeah, getting a return of $220 million on an action comedy film seems a pretty strong result, especially when the film was pretty meh. The mistake seems to been thinking the concept needed a $140 million dollar budget to make it work in the first place.

**Ahtman**

sebster wrote:
You could even stick to Bill Murray classics, and gender flip Stripes, Caddyshack and Groundhog Day.

You stop it. You stop it right now.

**-Loki-**

Jacksmiles wrote:
I never saw the movie, probably never will unless someone just turns it on and I'm there to watch. Everything about it seemed "Look lady ghostbusters!!" as opposed to "Ghostbusters reboot!!" and that made all the difference to me. I didn't care that the characters were all women, I cared that the whole point seemed to be that the characters were women.

This is a difference between the marketing and the film. I stopped paying attention to the marketing when they were overly focusing on the fact they were all women. I stopped paying attention to the film at all when the director and one of two of the actors started calling people misogynists for complaining about what was shown.

However, the film never felt like they were focusing on the fact that they were women. I don't recall their gender being brought up much, if at all. My main issue is that is just wasn't funny. And it's not like I haven't laughed at movies made by these people. Bridesmaids had its moments. Spy was great. But when they've got a comedy film with 4 actual comedians front and center and the funniest person was the Australian being a daggy Australian, you know you've got serious problems.

**jmurph**

Elemental wrote:
I liked the film in itself (probably helped by avoiding all the culture war dumbness online), and I'd like to see a sequel.

Agree. Net drama is dumb. I guess people forget how bad the GB sequels were...

It was a fun CGI fest with a familiar theme that brought in some nice cameos. They just spent way too much on it- it's really just another ensemble ad lib comedy with a franchise slapped on. (Adam Sandler spits these out on fraction of the budget for big bucks, and the younger guys like Zac Effron are getting in on the gig, too.)

If you can't appreciate Chris Hemsworth poking fun at himself (and "beautiful people), and can only rarararmensrightsrararar you need to grow a sense of humor. (Dude's also apparently a champ dancer, which I'm sure doesn't hurt his image with the ladies in any way!).

**Jacksmiles**

-Loki- wrote:
Jacksmiles wrote:
I never saw the movie, probably never will unless someone just turns it on and I'm there to watch. Everything about it seemed "Look lady ghostbusters!!" as opposed to "Ghostbusters reboot!!" and that made all the difference to me. I didn't care that the characters were all women, I cared that the whole point seemed to be that the characters were women.

This is a difference between the marketing and the film. I stopped paying attention to the marketing when they were overly focusing on the fact they were all women. I stopped paying attention to the film at all when the director and one of two of the actors started calling people misogynists for complaining about what was shown.

However, the film never felt like they were focusing on the fact that they were women. I don't recall their gender being brought up much, if at all. My main issue is that is just wasn't funny. And it's not like I haven't laughed at movies made by these people. Bridesmaids had its moments. Spy was great. But when they've got a comedy film with 4 actual comedians front and center and the funniest person was the Australian being a daggy Australian, you know you've got serious problems.

I totally understand that. I wouldn't have expected the film to have moments where they just stop what they're doing and go "And isn't it cool that us as women are doing this?!" That said, though, marketing is where you draw people in. Because of how it was marketed, I had 0 interest in seeing this film. Because of how people acted regarding it, I had 0 interest in seeing this film. Because all anyone talked about leading up to it was that it was Ghostbusters with a twist (and the twist is that they're WOMEN OMG), I said to myself, "You know what, Jack, I don't think this movie is worth seeing to me."

And after it came out and I was seeing a lot of people say it wasn't funny or it was mediocre, etc., I figured the reason the marketing focused on them being women was because that was all it really had going for it. A sequel is not needed for a film that was made "because let's take this breakout hit movie premise and just make the characters women."

**jreilly89**

While this year's Ghostbusters reboot made nearly $230 million at the worldwide box office, the film's high production budget and promotional costs means that it was not the hit that Sony expected it to be. A sequel was originally planned, but now director Paul Feig has admitted that it is unlikely to happen.

Speaking to Den of Geek, Feig was realistic about the chances of a second Ghostbusters. "If the studio was knocking on the door to do another one, I'd have to think about it," he said. "We had so much fun, and I'd love to work with that team again. But I would be very surprised."

Earlier this month Feig did seem to hold out some hope that it might happen, telling the Daily Beast that "it would be great if we could see them bust more ghosts, kick more ass, and be awesome again." However, these latest comments are the first time that anyone connected with the movie has admitted that a sequel probably won't be made.

In August, The Hollywood Reporter estimated that Ghostbusters would need to make more than $300 million to break even, $70 million more than it has ultimately earned. At the time, Sony distribution boss Rory Bruer stated that he was sure a sequel would happen. However, this was immediately after the movie's solid opening weekend, and no further comments have been made on the subject from either the studio or the film's cast and crew until now.

THR's sources stated that Sony are now actively pursuing an animated feature as the next big screen release from the franchise, in addition to an animated show called Ghostbusters: Ecto Force which is due in 2018.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ghostbusters-sequel-is-unlikely-to-happen-director/1100-6445688/

Rather happy that the sequel got canned, but now an animated feature and animated show are in the works? Wonder if they'll fare just as bad.

**oldravenman3025**

sebster wrote:
The film itself was a bust, and it became the second Ghostbusters sequel that was crappy and forgettable. I think we should all just recognise that sometimes really good movies happen in spite of stupid premises not because of them, like the first Ghostbusters, and stop trying to strike lightning a second time.

On the other hand, gender flipping an 80s classic... holy crap that was a media goldmine. In this day and age where Hollywood will pay anything to get a movie noticed in a crowded market, that kind of internet furore seems a really solid way to break through. Maybe the strategy should be to flip the gender in more classics, to mine that angry internet misogynist mine for all it's worth. You could even stick to Bill Murray classics, and gender flip Stripes, Caddyshack and Groundhog Day.

They've done it before and they'll do it again. There is talk with a "Lost in Space" reboot, and they've already tapped a female to play Dr. Smith. I guess that's another reboot I won't watch.

As for the Ghostbusters "reboot", it was crap. It was a parody of an 80's comedy classic. Just as it was with modern film adaptations of 60's and 70's television shows in the past, Hollyweird feels the need to make them incredibly stupid parodies.