Sign in to follow this  
GustavoLeao

GHOSTBUSTERS Bombs, Are you Surprised ?

Recommended Posts

Sorry, but it just comes off as pandering, and more than a little icky on its face.

But if you can tell me his family would be cool with it, fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a movie called GHOSTbusters, it would work very well. 

 

But only if they do a true sequel.

Yeah, I get it... ghosts. Yeah.  Sure.   Still a terrible (and insensitive) idea. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Ghostbusters' Likely to Cause $50 Million Loss for Sony

I always thought the way to go with a new GHOSTBUSTERS movie would have been kind of a STAR TREK GENERATIONS type of movie, with Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in pivotal roles as they passes the torch to a new team of Ghostbusters. That would really bring the fans of the original movies back, I think.

I think that Aykroyd even wrote a script years ago for a new sequel when Harold Ramis was still alive.

Gus

What's the reason they ended up going with the reboot route and not a passing the torch sequel anyways?

Maybe Dan Aykroyd idea didnt impress people at Sony, and reboots are a super duper successful and popular thing in Hollywood right now.

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Ghostbusters' Likely to Cause $50 Million Loss for Sony

I always thought the way to go with a new GHOSTBUSTERS movie would have been kind of a STAR TREK GENERATIONS type of movie, with Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in pivotal roles as they passes the torch to a new team of Ghostbusters. That would really bring the fans of the original movies back, I think.

I think that Aykroyd even wrote a script years ago for a new sequel when Harold Ramis was still alive.

Gus

What's the reason they ended up going with the reboot route and not a passing the torch sequel anyways?

Maybe Dan Aykroyd idea didnt impress people at Sony, and reboots are a super duper successful and popular thing in Hollywood right now.

Gus

Based on Blues Brothers 2000?  Even Ghostbusters 2?  Why would we all assume Aykroyd would have a good script? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2017 at 5:16 PM, prometheus59650 said:

Unless Feig wrote that mess, he's not to blame.

He is Co-to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kenman said:

He is Co-to blame.

Oh....well, then.

Yeah, his fault. :)

 

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2017 at 1:47 PM, GustavoLeao said:

Posted today at ComicBookMovie :

Dan Aykroyd Slams GHOSTBUSTERS Director Paul Feig; "He Will Not Be Back On The Sony Lot Any Time Soon"

Original Ghostbusters star and co-writer Dan Aykroyd has trashed the recent reboot's director Paul Feig by blaming him for the fact that the franchise is now essentially dead

ComicBookMovie and other sites have been running off about this, but it looks to be cobbled together from press releases prior to the air of the 2016 film. The video game also had similar quotes. It seems they've been taken out of context and cut and pasted all over the next over the past few days. I've seen the quotes before in different forms back in 2016. Sure they could do more films, but after the critical US failure of the reboot, it is not likely Sony will greenlight any more. Ivan can claim up and down there is another coming, but before 2016 he had been saying it for two decades.

One of them is from the videogame that came in as a tie in with the film. I consider it canon Ha.

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Founder said:

Why would anyone want another Ghostbusters with the original crew without Harold Ramis?

Because Dan Ackroyd wants money. He's been trying to franchise this thing since GBII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Aykroyd is less about money, and more that he genuinely believes in ghosts and thinks that the Ghostbusters are great big concept, that's bigger than the original movie or characters. It is not.  And Reitman is need of a hit.  He hasn't had a hit in a long while, and securing money for even people that used to make hits can be difficult, unless they are promising a return to the old favorites. Hence Reitman is like "sure Ghostbusters...a Twins sequel....just give me money so I can work!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks the original GB was just a nice, mildly funny-but-overlong SNL sketch? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Am I the only one that thinks the original GB was just a nice, mildly funny-but-overlong SNL sketch? 

No. (With our continually similar genetic makeup when it comes to "geek", I still suspect we are related :) )

At any, rate, even as a kid, no. I thought it was cute, but I don't remember laughing at it all that much. And I certainly never understood how or why the "comedy classic" mystique built up around it. It's not even anything close to Bill Murray's best stuff. Quick Change alone is a much better movie.

The only thing that had a lasting impact at the time was Sigourney Weaver vamping it up in the red dress. That scene still holds up. ;)

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

No. (With our continually similar genetic makeup when it comes to "geek", I still suspect we are related :) )

At any, rate, even as a kid, no. I thought it was cute, but I don't remember laughing at it all that much. And I certainly never understood how or why the "comedy classic" mystique built up around it. It's not even anything close to Bill Murray's best stuff. Quick Change alone is a much better movie.

The only thing that had a lasting impact at the time was Sigourney Weaver vamping it up in the red dress. That scene still holds up. ;)

Yeah, you can't go too wrong with Sigourney Weaver being seductive.  Especially for the high school-age boy that I was, circa 1984....:thumbup:

And yes, as for a suspected genetic relation?  I, for one, would be completely unsurprised... ;)

 

GB is a solid little movie, and it's a nice family favorite to whip out around Halloween, but I never quite got the cult that grew around it in the years since.  I saw it in theatrical release in high school and thought it was okay. I didn't exactly fall out of my seat laughing either but it was okay.  Nothing terribly special.  For odd reasons, everyone that I knew then (including my best friend who saw it with me) acted like it was the Second Coming.  I never really understood why.  I 'got' the movie and all of the jokes, but it just wasn't that funny to me.

And I remember seeing GB2 in Los Angeles at a wonderful theatre in Century City (a very posh part of town in those days) under the best possible circumstances...and I thought it sucked.   GB2 was essentially a remake of the first movie (Dana's in trouble, lots of possession, giant mobile icon at the end, etc) but with a cash register for a heart.   Oh, and a baby thrown in.  Cause..cute babies, right?

As for the cartoons?  I was a bit too old by that time to get into those (at least I felt too old then...I'd probably watch them entirely unselfconsciously now).  But I also had no interest either.  GB just didn't quite lure me enough to follow it the same way I followed all of the good, bad and ugly of Star Trek, Planet of the Apes and Star Wars (even I gave up on Star Wars with the '80s cartoons). 

 

So when news of the remake came out?  I just assumed the all-female casting was an attempt to "Bridesmaids"-it up (since Bridesmaids was an unexpected hit).  It even used some of the same cast (McCarthy, Wiig).

So the remake had a whiff of cynical cash crab about it that I smelled after I saw GB2. 

However, in light of our own Mr. Picard's defense of it?  I'm actually willing to give it a try someday...

Maybe I was wrong to prejudge the movie based on what appeared to be a cynical cash-grabby move on its part (?). I dunno.  Might have to give it a try this Halloween (October is my MONTH for horror or horror comedies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2017 at 11:38 AM, prometheus59650 said:

Because Dan Ackroyd wants money. He's been trying to franchise this thing since GBII.

Ackroyd, to me, is a wonderful actor from that era. Me and my dad love his old movies. But ... he really needs to let go with GB. Besides, I imagine the man has enough money ...

On 7/23/2017 at 8:53 AM, kenman said:

With Aykroyd is less about money, and more that he genuinely believes in ghosts and thinks that the Ghostbusters are great big concept, that's bigger than the original movie or characters.

....seriously?

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, The Founder said:

Ackroyd, to me, is a wonderful actor from that era. Me and my dad love his old movies. But ... he really needs to let go with GB. Besides, I imagine the man has enough money ...

....seriously?

Have you seen him in an interview? The studios want money, yea... no kidding...but it isn't like Aykroyd is the sole proprietor of the franchise or that he is milking it purely for money. He GENUINELY believes in all things paranormal. I've always seen his want to revisit and rehash the franchise because he has this notion that his initial idea was bigger and more brilliant than anyone else conceives. Maybe he is just out for money...but that doesn't really explain why he is essentially retired from acting and just going on paranormal documentaries and spouting kooky theories about aliens and ghosts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kenman said:

Have you seen him in an interview? The studios want money, yea... no kidding...but it isn't like Aykroyd is the sole proprietor of the franchise or that he is milking it purely for money. He GENUINELY believes in all things paranormal. I've always seen his want to revisit and rehash the franchise because he has this notion that his initial idea was bigger and more brilliant than anyone else conceives. Maybe he is just out for money...but that doesn't really explain why he is essentially retired from acting and just going on paranormal documentaries and spouting kooky theories about aliens and ghosts. 

I honestly had no idea he was doing stuff like that or truly believed in the paranormal. That's pretty interesting. It still won't bring back GB. Sorry, Mr. Akroyd. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Founder said:

I honestly had no idea he was doing stuff like that or truly believed in the paranormal. That's pretty interesting. It still won't bring back GB. Sorry, Mr. Akroyd. :P

Oh yeah. He shows up in UFO documentaries in like horrible skype interviews and he is big time into all this stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this