Oh actually, they did the bee appearance, and then two episodes as the Blues Brothers proper, all before they did the movie. They were also #1 on Billboard and did live concert appearances before the movie. They left SNL in part to do the movie and then didn’t come back (well John came back once by himself). That’s what I find so fascinating about the whole idea, the audience feel in love with the music first, and THEN got to know them as characters.
Oh and yes for your earlier question, I’m a New Yorker.
Oh yeah, definitely see it. It will blow your mind that Ray Stanz and Elwood Blues are played by the same guy, never mind written by the same guy. He doesn’t get enough credit for his range (looking at you, Collider).
I’ll go out on a limb here, Aykroyd is the only one who is remotely funny in 1941, and it’s because he’s doing his own SNL shtick rather than following the script, lol. It is really hard to believe that same team went on to do Back to the Future. :shock:
But yes, you can’t argue that 1941 didn’t go big!
From what I read, after it became apparent the studio interference had really screwed things up, Aykroyd told Landis to just make sure the music gets show cased well, because there were all these legendary Blues musicians. And indeed those are easily the best parts of the movie.
Well he did. Sony stupidly rejected it. We’ve been over this for a year now.
But then here came the “I don’t like the sound of his voice/not funny” and “I don’t need reviews to make up my own mind” retreads, so why not?
Why even come to this thread if you 1) know you aren’t going to agree with points made by the review no matter how reasoned and/or 2) can’t even be bothered to watch it in the first place?
You didn’t agree with me in saying “you can do better than that?” As far as participation and criticism goes?
Sorry you are just now getting the Shoji tape…sometimes it takes a while for these things to make it overseas.
I’m also sorry to inform you that Shoji retired a few years back, so if you were planning a trip to see him, you might put that on hold. Branson has lots of other shows…I peg your sense of humor as a Yakov guy, but sadly, he has retired too.
Nobody’s mad at you personally for posting Plinkett’s review. It’s just that he’s an acquired taste. Or I personally have found him funnier before. No big. Just a back and forth discussion.
I did not interpretat his remark as an slight, which is why I did not act of it. Does not mean it cannot be a slight, ofcourse.
Talk it out, instead of throwing fuel on the fire when something bothers you. We need to change and talk about that kind of behavior (on both sides) so we can understand each other, otherwise we are back to the US vs them mentality of a year ago.
Why do people who dislike GB:ATC, some of which did not even want to see it, come to part of the forum of GBFANS dedicated to GB:ATC?
I can answer both with: as long as they do it in a civil way, they should be allowed to discuss the pros and cons.
Would you be making nearly half the fuss and getting so bent out of shape with me not being interested in watching the rest of the video if it were predominately positive about the reboot? (Even if it were positive, I probably wouldn’t sit down to watch it as like my earlier remark, I prefer reviews to be short and to the point rather than getting lost in the reviewer’s essay of film dissection. In a timespan of 85 I’d rather get caught up with Voltron or Once Upon a Time).
I get that reviewers have to invent their own gimmicks in order to be unique against their peers, and to be honest the voice and his “murderer persona” are pretty stupid gimmicks if that’s really the best he can come up with. Earlier this year a British film critic/reviewer I greatly admired passed away, you’re probably not familiar with him (his name was Barry Norman, and used to work for the BBC), he didn’t need gimmicks to give thoughtful and fair reviews - a critic/reviewer worth their salt doesn’t need them.
I can’t speak for Alpha, I’m here because I still have to take a casual glance across new topics just to check on their content and make sure there isn’t any misbehaving going on, part and parcel with the Moderator title.
There was nothing wrong with anything Alph said…hence the “like” on his earlier posts on this topic.
Alph and I have gone rounds before. So have Juror and I (I don’t agree with his views on this particular thread, but I have respected it. Might just be my perception, but we got out of some heated discussions on our own and can still joke around.
Thanks for sharing your culture with us. I will Google him.
Well I’ll meet you halfway. It’s very possible I’m not finding this review as funny in part because I don’t hate ATC, the way I did, say, Avatar.
However, I will stand behind my earlier point that Abby is not the Ray of the group, nor is Erin the Venkman. Plinkett jumped to that conclusion because Erin is the first one we meet. But the parallels aren’t clean cut like that.
Say what? What did Sony reject? Are you talking about the GB: Hellbent script or something else?
Did Dan and Harold ever produce an actual GB3 draft together? I’ve said this before but there is an interesting book to be made about the development history on GB3. How many versions of various scripts were there? There’s a treasure trove of unread, unproduced Ghostbusters 3 scripts out there in the world. Has anyone heard of J.W Rinzler? He wrote the “Making of Star Wars” books that go in depth on the original trilogy. He did one for Indiana Jones too(though that was one book covering all 4 films. The SW books get a book per movie). Anyways, he’d make a great choice for author of a GB book.
I’d like for Dan to write more than just Ghostbusters stuff too. I guess he’s just happy resting on his laurels and vodka money.
Has anyone tried the Crystal Head Vodka? I’m not much of a drinker and even when I do Vodka isn’t my favourite but man does that Vodka go down easy. There’s no bite to it. Plus the empty bottle looks awesome and always generates interest from guests.
Careful when going out on a “limp” you may loose a limb
You’re right he really isn’t drawing good parallels between characters. It is a bit hard to figure out what he is saying for humor and what is general analysis. Erin and Venkman are very different characters. Erin seems to be person with a very low opinion of herself and desperate for approval. Venkman is Con Artist, bit of an ass, quick witted and doesn’t really seem to care what others thinks of him. With the exception of Dana of course. Erin does seem to be the central focus of the ensemble. That is about the closest thing I can see to drawing the Venkman comparison. Abby may be just as enthusiastic as Ray when it comes to wanting to explore the supernatural, but I don’t think she has nearly the encyclopedic knowledge of Lore as Ray does. For that matter I don’t think any of the ATC crew knows as much about supernatural lore as Ray does. At least their knowledge hasn’t been fully explored yet. Patty may be great at History which would help with a lot of cases, but I’m not sure how much she would know if they were dealing with an entity that was never alive like a Demon or something.
Sorry I went off on a tangent there. Your point stands though his comparisons are not very fair.
No I do mean the Hellbent script. As much as I liked the reboot, Sony was wrong not to use it at all. And yea a making of book would be fascinating at this point!
Well that Nothing But Trouble movie was treated so poorly, maybe it’s hard after that.
That’s a tough question to an answer. At least 5. Maybe up to 7 or 8. Ghostbusters II had something like at least 15 total so possibly, Ghostbusters III might have had anywhere from 5-8 from who knows how many more there could be.
We know for Hellbent, there’s at least one draft stamped March 10, 1999 done by Dan Aykroyd and Tom Davis.
We know for their collaboration with Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky, there were 3 drafts done over 4-5 years ( about June 2008 to some time in 2012). Aykroyd rewrote the second draft to add in a bigger role for Murray.
Then at least one draft with Etan Cohen from around July 2012 to 2014 but probably more.
Harold Ramis’ involvement. It’s clear Aykroyd, Ramis, and Reitman collaborated on at least one. This is one that Sony signed off on. It was mentioned by Aykroyd in “Time Is A But A Window: Ghostbusters II and Beyond” in the special features of the Ghostbusters I and II 2014 gift set. He said he had written two “really solid” third movie scripts and a third concept, that Sony signed off on, with the late Harold Ramis. Also, Reitman confirmed Ramis was involved in the Eisenberg-Supnitsky drafts. So Ramis was involved in 3-4 drafts at least.
Can I bring up something about the various pop culture references in ATC? I know when the movie came out people complained that the Ozzie thing was too dated because Ozzie and Sharon had broken up. Well, they just renewed their vows last May, so there. 8)
Found another (little) thing that’s not correct in the review: he states continuity is a problem because the Rockconcert is played during the daylight, when all the posters in the movie show it’s a 24 hour long rockshow (with ozzy as the big name).
