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.

Well, it is.

Watched a ‘10 things you didn’t know’ about the originals. And the initial plan is that Ghostbusters was an international affair.

Clearly, that was scaled down to an ‘origins’ story. But it still allows for scaling back up. As a concept, it’s got legs. The trick is to keep the ‘buddy movie’ ensemble feel, even if it’s about the GB branching out and that.

It's like they said in the first movie: "The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams.". So there's always been the possibility of seeing other Ghostbusters in other locations.

 Manchu wrote:
Making such a film this soon after the previous disaster shows that someone really believes this IP is very valuable, which honestly seems pretty questionable. Maybe the issues is, if the don’t make a likeable film now then they will have missed the boat forever because the demographic likely to care will have aged out.

Eh. I think it's mostly just Aykroyd's passion for the subject matter, and the Reitmans jumping in on it. (Or the other way around? I've seen stories saying both Aykroyd and Jason Reitman (son of the original director) wrote scripts). And casting stories that talk about the original cast and/or four (as yet uncast) teenagers.

But the value of an IP can be tricky. Since its real world with pseudo-supernatural name drops, there isn't much work required (they don't really need to build a complex world or backstory), and Sony presumably owns enough of the rights to Ghostbusters Trademark that they don't have to shell out much.

But whether it will really pull in audiences at this point...? Some, obviously, as there are always, always nostalgia sales in the current movie market (I'd even argue there is little but nostalgia, remakes and format migrations [book/comic to film] at this point). I'm just not sure what kind of real pull it will have after the 2016 film.


Speaking personally... I'm curious if it will have a compelling story attached, or just devolve into a meaningless CGI-fest and mindless appeals to getting the band back together to do... whatever.

I was super excited by the news of an upcoming GB movie and the notion of an all-female cast didn’t phase me at all. I was even excited to hear Kristen Wig would be the lead. The. the trailer dropped ... and even then I was thinking, OK well maybe it could be alright. But on each re-watch of the trailer, anticipation turned to disappointment.

Naturally, I am excited again now. But I’m also feeling cautious.

I don't think it will be good. I have never been a fan of Ghostbusters in general. The three other movies in the franchise were ok, the first one was clearly the best in my opinion and this sequel to the first two that ignores the remake is probably going to be meh. Plus, it will suffer from the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia and from high expectation from hardcore fans (a bit like starwars).

Leslie Jones is now chiming in. Apparently making a sequel about the original movie instead of the reboot is "sexist". The Mary Sue has stated the same.

I can understand being bitter. But filter that sentiment through a reality check before sounding off. The last one was a loser for Sony. Why throw good money after bad especially since the obvious goal is to salvage the value of the IP before the current fanbase ages out.

Once you assert such a strong position and double-down on it, you don't really have any choice but to follow it to its logical conclusion. If she didn't raise the argument now, it would be inconsistent.

 Formosa wrote:
Don't forget those same idiots chased scarlet Johansson away from a role as a trans person because she wasn't trans,

and yet, when Eddy Redmayne plays a trans woman, nothing but crickets ...

 Manchu wrote:
I can understand being bitter. But filter that sentiment through a reality check before sounding off. The last one was a loser for Sony. Why throw good money after bad especially since the obvious goal is to salvage the value of the IP before the current fanbase ages out.

Yeah.. I can't remember how many years a company has before the licence reverts back to original owner. But we are seeing Disney do the all live action stuff to keep copyright on things just to get a movie out.

All I can say... I never watched the 2016 because I had no interest in it. But I know Paul Feg had a long history of improvisational movies in the past and never cared for that type movies. Meaning little to no script.

I am hopeful but sad they waited until Harold Ramis had already passed.

 chromedog wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Don't forget those same idiots chased scarlet Johansson away from a role as a trans person because she wasn't trans,

and yet, when Eddy Redmayne plays a trans woman, nothing but crickets ...

The Danish girl was at the start of the "culture" war, so they didnt give a virtue signal back then if they made that movie in the year of our lord 2019 you can bet your bum that the twitter mob would drop from on high in fake outrage.

they have already begun to whine about GB2020

 Formosa wrote:
they have already begun to whine about GB2020

Things not present in this thread: A sense of self awareness.

 Ouze wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
they have already begun to whine about GB2020

Things not present in this thread: A sense of self awareness.

nobody has whined in this thread as you are well aware, stop trying to troll Quze.

 Genoside07 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I can understand being bitter. But filter that sentiment through a reality check before sounding off. The last one was a loser for Sony. Why throw good money after bad especially since the obvious goal is to salvage the value of the IP before the current fanbase ages out.

Yeah.. I can't remember how many years a company has before the licence reverts back to original owner. But we are seeing Disney do the all live action stuff to keep copyright on things just to get a movie out.

All I can say... I never watched the 2016 because I had no interest in it. But I know Paul Feg had a long history of improvisational movies in the past and never cared for that type movies. Meaning little to no script.

I am hopeful but sad they waited until Harold Ramis had already passed.

The Disney stuff sells, too. My daughter was mad for live action Sleeping Beauty and she was 17 at the time. I enjoyed it myself, for that matter.

 Manchu wrote:
I was super excited by the news of an upcoming GB movie and the notion of an all-female cast didn’t phase me at all. I was even excited to hear Kristen Wig would be the lead. The. the trailer dropped ... and even then I was thinking, OK well maybe it could be alright. But on each re-watch of the trailer, anticipation turned to disappointment.

Naturally, I am excited again now. But I’m also feeling cautious.

I was very excited to hear that Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (I've loved both their previous efforts both together and separate) were going to be in it and thought that an all female reboot would be an interesting twist. I didn't hear about it for a while until the first trailer dropped and I didn't laugh a single time during that trailer for a comedy and I also thought the special effects looked like a badly done greenscreen mess. What sealed the deal for me was looking online to see if I was the only one unhappy with it and seeing that the cast and crew were actively insulting fans of the IP because they didn't like it. Sure... some of the complaints were unreasonable and sexist but those involved were responding in kind and tarring everyone with the same brush despite being the supposed "professionals" in that scenario. If you want my small contribution to the pot, don't insult me as a customer; that used to be a simple rule in business but no more apparently. Now Leslie Jones is pissed off that the reboot of the previously successful movie franchise she starred in that flopped is being brought back to the original timeline. Yes, she is insulted that her movie that ignored the previous two (something she was totally fine with) is now being ignored itself for the next. Ughh....

I have only one question.

Why?

Why are they bothering to do a sequel to an otherwise boring-as-bat-crap ghost hunting movie.

YES, I mean GB2. It alone should never have been made, the franchise should have died alone, forgotten and unmourned back in the 80s.

Because it's Hollywood and it's what they do.

 Elbows wrote:
Because it's Hollywood and it's what they do.

That's the unfortunate truth. It's really kind of sad when it doesn't really take that much to tell a good story, even if every story has the same basic structural components. It's like, the groundwork has been laid out for thousands of years, so why would you try to reinvent the wheel in storytelling off the back of a popular film that itself was simply a well-applied effort in conventional narrative structure? All it would take to launch the next big franchise is to take the Hero's Journey and drape it in some imaginative world-building.

Because Hollywood is a business. Most businesses are risk averse, and established franchises are generally less risky than unknowns. You have some built in audience for the IP, and from nostalgia alone. Some of these movies are very popular overseas even if they "flop" in the US.

"Why do you guys keep using this same boring, lucrative formula?" is essentially what you are asking.

That chart tells a really weird story though, as that monetary performance is from essentially the other 7.2 billion people on the planet.

It really means things like Cars3 and War for the PotA bombed even harder outside the US.

Well, that chart was for a story going at it from a different angle.

My thrust was that pretty much every movie on that chart was a sequel or a remake, and the reason they keep doing is is that they are generally successful, with less work and risk. If people stopped buying movie tickets to sequels and remakes, they would stop making them.

 Ouze wrote:
Because Hollywood is a business. Most businesses are risk averse, and established franchises are generally less risky than unknowns. You have some built in audience for the IP, and from nostalgia alone. Some of these movies are very popular overseas even if they "flop" in the US.

"Why do you guys keep using this same boring, lucrative formula?" is essentially what you are asking.

Of course. I'm not even saying they shouldn't use a formula, I'm just saying you'd think that they'd eventually try going back to the basics to recreate the initial success of beloved franchises rather than burning out all of their good will for diminishing returns.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, that chart was for a story going at it from a different angle.

My thrust was that pretty much every movie on that chart was a sequel or a remake, and the reason they keep doing is is that they are generally successful, with less work and risk. If people stopped buying movie tickets to sequels and remakes, they would stop making them.

Yeah, it's easy and lazy, that's self evident.

But the chart mostly says that foreign films shouldn't bother wasting money trying to get in the US market at all, and the film industry really needs to develop bigger audiences in other countries (because that's still a pathetically small slice of 7 billion person market, no matter what you're trying to use that chart for), and really, they need to differentiate between different markets. EU, China and 'Other' at the very least, because there are obviously major differences between them.

Sequel or first in a series doesn't really have a noticeable trend in any way at all, as you can see several of both at near 50/50, 40/60 AND 30/70. Origin and intended audience matter a lot more, especially for the Chinese audience (at least according to the article).

 Ouze wrote:
Well, that chart was for a story going at it from a different angle.

My thrust was that pretty much every movie on that chart was a sequel or a remake, and the reason they keep doing is is that they are generally successful, with less work and risk. If people stopped buying movie tickets to sequels and remakes, they would stop making them.

Reading from this and thinking back to the Great Wall;

Its less-than-stellar reception in both the US and worldwide, particularly in China, may show that co-producing a big-budget blockbuster isn’t necessarily the key to success in all markets.

Or you know, maybe just don't make future productions so god awful?

While the Great Wall was legit a terrible movie, it sure was beautiful visually!

 warboss wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I was super excited by the news of an upcoming GB movie and the notion of an all-female cast didn’t phase me at all. I was even excited to hear Kristen Wig would be the lead. The. the trailer dropped ... and even then I was thinking, OK well maybe it could be alright. But on each re-watch of the trailer, anticipation turned to disappointment.

Naturally, I am excited again now. But I’m also feeling cautious.

I was very excited to hear that Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (I've loved both their previous efforts both together and separate) were going to be in it and thought that an all female reboot would be an interesting twist. I didn't hear about it for a while until the first trailer dropped and I didn't laugh a single time during that trailer for a comedy and I also thought the special effects looked like a badly done greenscreen mess. What sealed the deal for me was looking online to see if I was the only one unhappy with it and seeing that the cast and crew were actively insulting fans of the IP because they didn't like it. Sure... some of the complaints were unreasonable and sexist but those involved were responding in kind and tarring everyone with the same brush despite being the supposed "professionals" in that scenario. If you want my small contribution to the pot, don't insult me as a customer; that used to be a simple rule in business but no more apparently. Now Leslie Jones is pissed off that the reboot of the previously successful movie franchise she starred in that flopped is being brought back to the original timeline. Yes, she is insulted that her movie that ignored the previous two (something she was totally fine with) is now being ignored itself for the next. Ughh....

I think you would be hard pressed to say Leslie Jones was treated fairly during the whole thing. So her still being angry about it is no surprise to me. If people hacked my phone and released nude photos of me on the inrternet, I'd be pissed for a long time too.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I was super excited by the news of an upcoming GB movie and the notion of an all-female cast didn’t phase me at all. I was even excited to hear Kristen Wig would be the lead. The. the trailer dropped ... and even then I was thinking, OK well maybe it could be alright. But on each re-watch of the trailer, anticipation turned to disappointment.

Naturally, I am excited again now. But I’m also feeling cautious.

I was very excited to hear that Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (I've loved both their previous efforts both together and separate) were going to be in it and thought that an all female reboot would be an interesting twist. I didn't hear about it for a while until the first trailer dropped and I didn't laugh a single time during that trailer for a comedy and I also thought the special effects looked like a badly done greenscreen mess. What sealed the deal for me was looking online to see if I was the only one unhappy with it and seeing that the cast and crew were actively insulting fans of the IP because they didn't like it. Sure... some of the complaints were unreasonable and sexist but those involved were responding in kind and tarring everyone with the same brush despite being the supposed "professionals" in that scenario. If you want my small contribution to the pot, don't insult me as a customer; that used to be a simple rule in business but no more apparently. Now Leslie Jones is pissed off that the reboot of the previously successful movie franchise she starred in that flopped is being brought back to the original timeline. Yes, she is insulted that her movie that ignored the previous two (something she was totally fine with) is now being ignored itself for the next. Ughh....

I think you would be hard pressed to say Leslie Jones was treated fairly during the whole thing. So her still being angry about it is no surprise to me. If people hacked my phone and released nude photos of me on the inrternet, I'd be pissed for a long time too.

Hell, I'm petty enough that I still hold one or two grudges from high school. Thing is, I hold them against the people I consider wronged me, not every student that ever attended a school, every person that knows someone who ever attended a school, and every person who's ever publicly agreed with a position taken by a person who attended a school, and I don't use them as an excuse to gak on other people's stuff.

I mean seriously, the "logic" that's used to excuse their behaviour is literally "Hitler was a vegetarian you know..." tier nonsense.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

I think you would be hard pressed to say Leslie Jones was treated fairly during the whole thing. So her still being angry about it is no surprise to me. If people hacked my phone and released nude photos of me on the inrternet, I'd be pissed for a long time too.

I heard about that but can you link the proof where it was related in any way to the stupidity permeating the Ghostbusters 2016 debacle? Regardless, her being the subject of sexist twitter trolls doesn't excuse her own sexist twitter trolling. Two wrongs don't make a right nor should you get a pass for bad behavior just because you're part of a traditionally marginalized group(s).

What sexist twitter trolling did she engage in specifically? Can you link to it here?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's like they said in the first movie: "The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams.". So there's always been the possibility of seeing other Ghostbusters in other locations.

IIRC that was also the idea behind the old rpg from back in the day


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_(role-playing_game)

https://ghostbustersinc.wordpress.com/media/ghostbusters-the-roleplaying-game/