This may belong In The reboot section, but I don’t want to rain on their parade. Now that the movie has been through its theatrical release and nothing we say will affect its domestic gross or anything like that…
Who else thinks Sony screwed up big time with this reboot? Granted, the new movie did not erase GB and GB2 (though it did negate them), but it seems like a stain on the pages of cinematic history to me. Anybody agree? Or am I alone?
Disclaimer: I’ve felt this way for a long time, but Sony pissed me off with their new PS4 update, limiting the usefulness of the console.
It’s hard to take criticism of the reboot seriously when it resorts to remarks like the above.
Did it miss the mark? Absolutely. Did it get a lukewarm reaction from a lot of the fans? Definitely.
But a “stain on the pages of cinematic history”?
I’d agree with you if you’d used that to describe Battlefield: Earth, Plan 9 From Outer Space, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, Halle Berry’s Catwoman… but the reboot, for its failings, isn’t deserving of that remark.
We wore our classic gear out a few days ago and everyone who talked to us about the reboot said it should have been a sequel or tied to the original in some way. That ranges from the older people who loved it to the younger people that hated it.
I think in that respect, without going into criticism of the film and its marketing, Sony missed the mark. Even casual, non fanboys wanted a sequel and to see those characters again.
Sony totally messed up. The people working at Sony and with Sony were misguided and selfish in how they approached the franchise. One only has to take a look at how they’ve handled other franchises like Spider-Man to see Sony hasn’t been making good business decisions. The new movie is definitely a stain on the franchise but the old movies still exist as far as I’m concerned. To use baseball I hope the next movie is a home-run because the movie franchise doesn’t need another strike out.
Calling it a “stain on cinematic history” is a bit hyperbolic, theres been many worse remakes and this film will most likely fade away alongside the likes of Robocop (2014) and Total Recall (2012).
But did Sony screw up badly? Absolutely. There was more riding on a new GB movie than a simple cash grab like most other remakes, namely the relaunch of a franchise that had been mostly dormant for decades, and Sony could not have effed it up worse. For one thing, remakes of beloved films almost never successfully relaunch franchises. Too bad Sony didnt learn that from The Amazing Spider-Man. Either expand upon the existing universe, ie, The Force Awakens (preferable) or do a total reboot with an entirely fresh start, ie, Batman Begins.
I think to call it “a stain on the pages of cinematic history” is a little strong.
Did Sony screw up badly? Perhaps, but lets look at this way. What if, after watching the movie, someone decides to watch the original having realized GB 2016 was a remake and had never seen the original GB?
Sony screwed up financially. Had too much money invested in it. However the movie sparked interest and conversation and might have appealed to a different audience. You could argue it grew the fan base. Atc didn’t make people stop being Ghostbusters fans, just lost fans of sony. Id be ok with ATC if i knew they had other great Ghostbusters sequels lined up. The real screw up is sony spent too much money and killed any chance of us seeing another live action Ghostbusters anytime soon
The budget Sony spent on GB’16 should have been totally within reason for a franchise of Ghostbuster’s scale and was a lot smaller than a lot of other current big budget movies. The original had the second biggest film budget of 1984, bigger than the likes of Indiana Jones. The problem wasnt that Sony spent so much money, the problem was that they made a movie hardly anyone wanted to go see.
Thing is I am not at all convinced fans would have universally embraced a GB3. Not with the way they behaved this year. Fandoms are now defined by their sense of entitlement and their nitpicking. I’d almost be afraid to let a sequel anywhere near them. They certainly didn’t hesitate to attack the original cast over this movie. The comments left by “fans” on their social media were disgraceful (and of course, filled with entitlement). No sense of loyalty whatsoever. They talk about respect for the franchise…those types don’t know the meaning of the word.
I mean, what exactly is the lesson Sony is meant to take from all this? “Give us a sequel or we’ll harass a woman on Twitter for months on end”? Lovely…
There is a stain on the franchise, but it didn’t come from ATC…I watch movies to escape from the negativity of life. Why so many fans are determined to contribute to that negativity I’ll never know.
As far as ATC, it’s too early to predict the impact, as far as how the younger generation will remember it. At least they haven’t been corrupted by fandoms yet.
The budget was too high. The problem is this: the original Ghostbusters IS a special effects comedy, and those special effects contribute to the movie’s unique blend of visual wonder and very funny comedy. However, part of the magic of the original film is that it was made at a really special time and attracted all of those old Hollywood legends to it. Ghostbusters has a foot in the classic era as well as a foot in the 1980s. The effects ultimately do two things for the original: they make it a unique looking film compared not only to films of that era, but films of the genre, and they are so seamlessly integrated into the story that I bet half the viewers today don’t even think of the original Ghostbusters as particularly effects heavy. Slimer no longer registers as a bit of spectacle, he’s a character.
A great deal of the money spent on Ghostbusters 2016 no doubt went to the visual effects, and while I like Rowan smashing the city, the transformation of New York to a previous era is completely meaningless within the theatrical cut. In any case, the effects in this one mostly look like 2016 effects. I love the movie’s bold colors and the look of the ghosts, but there’s no way it has the unique flavor of the original. And this ties into the second mistake…
The marketing needed to have a clearer plan. After the box office results were basically in I started thinking about the money spent on visual effects here, and then I thought about the fact that the trailer was delayed to include them. My conclusion is that while there’s also the problem of weaker jokes being put in that first trailer, it’s also really the fact that I think those trailers are cut with a mind that the audience cares equally about the comedy and the special effects, and I don’t think that was actually true.
If the marketing campaign had really focused on the comedy first and foremost, and left the visuals to be discovered within the film, I think that would’ve boosted the box office results. Furthermore – and I expect this will be unpopular with some people – they really needed to embrace the fact that it was about women and more clearly explain to the viewer that this was a new iteration. With the NBA stuff and the delayed trailer and the teaser posters that are totally unlike the later posters and the subtitle and everything, it’s clear that Sony had no real vision in terms of selling the movie, and I believe that missing focus should’ve been “a new team”, and the comedy of that team.
commander jims right about the budget being acceptable for a Ghostbusters movie. However, the moment the cast and direction of the movie was announced I dont think any reasonably person thought the movie would have the mass appeal to gross $700 million . without going into they should have made a different movie, they should have picked an appropriate budget for the movie they did make. If bridesmaids cost $350 mill to produce and market it would have been a flop too.
JurorNo2 questions fans embracing a GB3. I think there would have been ■■■■■■ off gbfans no matter what they did. If george lucas can get back lash, there’s no way paul feig could have escaped the hate, but it should have been expected. You mess with a classic and you have no male ghostbusters in a fan base that’s majority men. The fans reaction was predictable. What i didn’t expect was how Sony, feig and media responded. I felt insulted as a fan and made me not want to give them my money for a movie ticket
Is that why you liked Ghostbusters? I liked the actors for their talent, not for something they just happened to be born with.
When I think of “messing with a classic,” I think of Star Wars: Special Edition. Ghostbusters I & II weren’t messed with in the slightest (despite fan obsession with fictional continuity). And I certainly don’t consider the mere presence of women to be “messing” with anything. If GB16’s evil agenda was Scientology or something, I might agree with you.
I’ll agree that the trailer wasn’t great, but the movie was. And at some point, fans need to let the trailer go (same goes for Suicide Squad fans, only for a different reason. ) It’s ridiculous how important trailers have become to fandoms, even to the point where they matter more than the movie in front of them.
I still dont know who Sony thought the audience was going to be with that director and cast doing a Ghostbusters movie. It obviously wasn’t a film for the existing fans, remakes are the last thing fans ever want, its not a cast and director that appeals to the superhero/summer blockbuster crowd that would have otherwise flocked to a GB movie nor a cast and director that would appeal to kids.
Just from my own personal experience, my Mom and girlfriend both love Feig’s other films with this cast and always go see them but neither saw GB, my Girlfriend because she has no interest in anything to do with GB or blockbuster type movies and my Mom who also loves the original GB films because, and I quote, “I love those women but I dont want to see them as the Ghostbusters”, then theres all my movie buff friends who usually do the midnight screening thing with everything even slightly hyped and none of them were interested in seeing it. And myself as the token GB fanatic, I really only went because it kind of felt obligatory. Even the marketers seemed really confused about who they were actually trying to sell the movie to.
Its really hard to understand the thinking that went into greenlighting it. I mean, it didnt even really have a lot of merchandise potential, not a lot of boys want Melissa McCarthy action figures. It just seems like it would have been such a safe bet to have just done a more traditional GB movie with the torch passing to a new team of younger actors with mainstream appeal and with a director like Jon Favreau, Shane Black or Joss Whedon or someone else good at ensemble action/comedy. I find it hard to believe that wouldnt have been a massive hit.
I’m not going to sit and here and cheer for “safe” and “mainstream.” GB16 hit a nerve with people precisely because it didn’t fit in with the other blockbuster clones. That’s not at all a bad thing. GB84 wasn’t like anything people had seen before either. GB has always been about supporting the underdog. Not fitting in with the popular kids.
There was nothing unique or edgy or special about GB’16, if anything it was the total opposite. Taking the GB franchise, which was pretty unique even today and distilling it into a generic modern comedy. It wasnt a brave decision by a risk taking studio, it was a bad decision by a very risk-averse studio who bet on current draw of Melissa McCarthy and Paul Feig over the popularity of the GB franchise, which they’ve undervalued for years. Hell, it took the 2009 game becoming a surprise hit for Sony to even bother considering looking at a GB movie.
An action movie where the women don’t exist to be eye candy, mopey warrior princesses, or love interests is indeed unique. The women were just treated like the comedians they are. Their characters were pretty much gender neutral, their dialogue could have been given to men or women. That is unique in Hollywood, whether we admit it or not. And it **is **the reason a lot of fans I talked to were uncomfortable with the movie.
That’s a matter of perspective. My Dad’s a Baby Boomer and has always been luke warm to the 70s SNL gang, and that includes any movies they made. To him, that was the mainstream, generic humor. I know more about his generation’s pop culture than he ever will, lol. (He does claim to like Blues Brothers, but I’ve never in my life seen him watch it, heh.)
Melissa McCarthy is an SNL alumnus who found success in film. She isn’t a stretch as far as the Ghostbusters legacy.
Because audiences griped too much over GB2, and went with a comic book movie instead (history repeats itself, ironically!). Studios don’t deprive us of things just to be big blue meanies. They’re going by our own reactions. And fan reactions made them cautious about attempting another sequel. Studios don’t always take complaints as “We have to do better.” Often they take them as, “We’re not gonna bother.” So yeah, I’d say it’s a lesson to fandoms in general who nitpick a sequel to death. Perfect is the enemy of good.
Agreed. Regardless of whatever background or status you come from (race, ethnicity, disability, etc.) there should be no limits when it comes to talent.
I, myself, liked Ghostbusters because of the unique interactions between the characters and how they relate to the ghostbusting business.
Studios don’t deprive us of things just to be big blue meanies. They’re going by our own reactions. And fan reactions made them cautious about attempting another sequel. Studios don’t always take complaints as “We have to do better.” Often they take them as, “We’re not gonna bother.” So yeah, I’d say it’s a lesson to fandoms in general who nitpick a sequel to death. Perfect is the enemy of good.