Not to mention a 12 ft. deep River of Slime. At least. 
To whoever said that women cannot handle a job that a man can do. Think again. I have seen female taxi drivers, truck drivers, construction, police, fire, emt, so on and so on. Wadda think women are breed to stay home and raise the kids? or do light duty work such as office work where they sit there looking pretty? lets not be sexist here. I bet there were some women wrestlers, and no i am not talking about WWE or so forth. Or women as football playerss but they didnt make it to NFL. Women can do anything. I wasnt aware of GhostBros or other things like that.
Yeah women did try out for Nascar. and there is one racing for Stewart-Haas. may I say more?
So back on topic.
Now that I am here. I decide to post the email I sent Paul. Keep in mind that I never said to him that his remake is just as screwed up as one can say. But I just dont have the heart to do that. Instead I said he did a good job. BUT. I felt he could do better. I am just staying with the storyline. These remakes or reboots just screw everything up as we all know it. Well we can name a few movies that can use a remake. such as Masters of the Universe.
So I have copy my email to Paul and I am posting it here. No I didnt get his response. If I did I would have posted it here. So here it is…
From Sharky:
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 12:43:42 PM
Subject: Ghostbusters 2016 movie.
Hi Paul.
First I wanted to let you know what I am a huge Ghostbusters fan. I loved the movies so much. reguardless if the cast is different from the Ghostbusters 1984 and Ghostbusters 1989 films I havent seen the latest one. as I am waiting for it to go on DVD so I can watch it with closed captioning.
While I have read about the movie online and seen some youtube videos. I ignore the negative reviews. Because I would love this movie like I did with the first 2. I cant wait to get my copy of the DVD or Blu-Ray copies so I can enjoy.
In my option. the movie doesnt have to be a remake. It could still fit for a Ghostbusters 3. I mean. It has been 27 years since the events of Ghostbusters 2 took place. Ghostbusters 2 was set 5 years after Ghostbusters.
It would make perfect sense if all female scientists came up on their own. got into their own business and went on catching ghosts on their own. Without Ray Stantz, Peter Venkman, Winston Zeddemore, and Egon Spengler.
I used to follow up with the Ghostbusters 3. reading it all in Wikipedia. Dan and Harold were working on that for a long time. Bill wasn’t interested in the 3rd movie. But has been flirting with the fact he should do it. Dan even said that they would go without Bill. When Harold passed away, I thought it was all gone. until you came along.
Dan used to say that his character Ray is blind in one eye and had a bad knee, Harold’s character was too large to fit in the harness of the pack. Bill’s character would have been writen off to say, well he went with Dana. maybe they married and moved out of New York?
Rick Moranis who played Louis Tully has stated he retired long ago so maybe he moved out of NY in his returement home somewhere.
Ecto-1A which was actually a upgrade verison of Ecto-1 may have been sold off when the Ghostbusters went out of business sometime after Ghostbusters 2. just like the fire station which is in active use for the New York Hook & Ladder #8. The Ghostbusting gadgets must have been sold at an aution or distoried.
The new Ghostbusters vehicle which was like a different car I could have called it Ecto-1C. while the Ecto-1B was in the 2009 video game. And if the headquarters was on a Chinese Restaurant. that could be why they couldnt use the firehouse because New York bought it and used it for their Fire Department.
As for the Containment Unit which was in the basment of the old Ghostbusters Headquarters, it could have been tampered with if the new headquarters has their own containment unit. Maybe it was moved? and some of the old ghost escaped which could explain why the new team has to deal with them. I think I see you made new ghosts. which would have been awesome to see.
So maybe when you could get some of the people that used to be in the first 2 movies to show up on this movie or the next you could have them hold their roles. Say like Ray would have retired and was a taxi driver or something. Janine Melnitz could be a secretary in a law firm or something like that, Winston could be either retired or doing something else in New York, Peter and Dana, got married. We should see what Oscar would have been now. I think, according to Ghostbusters 2 Louis Tully and Janine had a love interest. Maybe it was just a lust for each other? Don’t think they got married so maybe they were just on their seperate ways.
This idea may not be possible to have these other guys show up on the movie again. Not that they should play in it. but more like they retired from the Ghostbusters and let the new team do the work as they seem to do just fine on this one already made.
But you and other people can call it a remake. I thought it would be in between a remake and a 3rd film. The way I came up with this idea may have been because I loved the movies and cartoons so much.
I really can’t wait to see the movie. I also have been looking at buying the 1:64 diecast of Ecto 1, Ecto 1A. the newer Ecto 1 and the motorcycle Ecto 2. This will be fun.
I would love the movie no matter the people that act in it. There are new ghosts. I don’t think the guys came accross the ghost in the library again. on the reviews it looks as if the ghostbusters got slimmed by that ghost. Very interesting.
I hope this email goes though and that I let you know you did a good job with what you did. Hopefully I will hear from you sometime.
Take care.
Sharky
I only changed my name to protect myself here. Yes this is the email address I used for Paul. I googled it and found it as Paul himself was replying to someone from Sony. His point of view is that he wanted to tell the story that was never told before. Didnt think it worked didnt it?
I remember reading somethere that when the studio asked Dan how much would it cost to make the 3rd film. He gave them like say $100 million? Even with CGI. which would make it cheaper? Well the studio balked on that. Strange. when Ghostbusters 2016 was out it was worth more. Probably $150 million? I could be wrong about the numbers though. But. I did know the 2016 cost more. if they canceled it I bet they would do the 3rd film. Well anyways. Its all on the net.
I will stop here.
Yeah, the problem here is not people are not allowed to dislike the movie. Now that’s it’s out you can form the best opinion of it and it still has a positive reviews dispite of a lot of people giving it a 0,5 on principle before it even was out.
What some people are doing now however, is condemning the movie altogether, as if it already clear it won’t have a following or a follow up, and that’s what Juror is pointing out here.
It seems people are very hasty to jump to conclusions that fit their world of view just because the movie did not do a home run.
I can only go off my own social connections, work, family, friends, social media etc which I know isn’t representative of the wider world, but I never once spoke to anyone who had anything good to say about it. This board is probably the only place I’ve seen anyone say anything positive about it and it’s not exactly an impartial place for discussion on GB movie.
I just don’t see it being anything more than an awkward footnote in GB history in a few years, like the Rococop or Total Recall remakes. And thats the issue really, that it was just a remake. If it was an original story it’d have a better chance of getting a following but remakes always tend to vanish pretty quickly from the scene. Especially one like this one its it’s constant references to the original film every five seconds. That’s not going to help it stand on its own.
I have the exact opposite experience when I talk to people who have seen it, but that’s normal as our social bubbles attract likeminded people. Though I have seen plenty of people on other sites giving the movie a positive review, and I heard proton charging is very positive about it as well? I have not visited that site yet.
At least we can both say a bunch of people went to check it out, or are you just getting opinions from people who watched the trailer and such?
I’ve had the same experience as Alphagaia tbh. Everyone I’ve been to see it with or know personally who have seen it has really enjoyed it - yeah not the greatest film but a lot of fun. The 3 times I watched it at the cinema the audience seemed to really enjoy it as well, with a lot of laughs and good comments from people as they left (Yeah I like to listen to what others say at the end of movies :P).
There was a lot about the movie I didn’t like, ranging from an eyeroll and a groan to full on wish it hadn’t been there. Personally whilst it was my kind of humour, a good deal of the jokes were either dragged out or overplayed which was a shame but not a movie breaker for me. The extended Murray cameo felt a bit pointless and overly reckless and bore no relevance to the story, so I get the impression it was stitched in later for Bill to have more screen time. The Ozzy cameo should never have been included and I have no idea what the point of it was at all (I’m actually kind of getting sick of the same Ozzy ‘flashback’ joke being played out in general).
Overall I really liked the film, even with its flaws. I’ve seen much MUCH worse movies than this so I don’t think it’s earnt the repuration it seems to have gotten, but then everyone will have different preferences. I’ve been a female nerd my whole life and had to accept very very early on that very few people are going to like what I like so being in the minority for me is nothing new. The film helped me learn new things about the fanbase and discover a whole new community I had no idea existed. It has given me the oppurtunity to cosplay as a character I acutally like, rather than having to chose someone I’m not really keen on simply because of their gender. It’s also meant that my friends an I can all cosplay together as actual characters :love:
I respect that this is not the film most people wanted, and it’s a genuine shame that the controvosy that has surrounded it has meant that fans have been lumped into set groups based soley on if they liked or disliked it regardless of their reasons why.
I’ve said this on other threads but what really bothered me about the movie was the lack of top tier talent involved behind the scenes. Both previous GB movies had some of the best people available working behind the scene. Everything about GB 2016 was generic. The cinematography, set design, CGI and music were all bland and forgetable. Where were the today’s equivalent of Elmer Bernstein, Michael Chapman, Bo Welch, John De Cuir, Dennis Murren, Lazlo Kovac? Those guys are the best of the best! Academy Award winners, all them. Imagine a Michael Giachinno score or Howard Shore? Some Rick Carter or Richard Heinrich production design? Some Roger Deakins, Robert Richardson or Dariuz Wolski cinematography? Any of those names behind the scenes and we’d be looking at one beautiful Ghostbusters film. The first two DO look beautiful. Especially when you consider the schedule they were made on. It’s insane. I don’t think Paul Feig is a very competent director. He’s very basic and has framing/shot composition problems. Now he hasn’t worked on this type of film before but I would have LOVED someone like Gore Verbinksi(who Seth Rogen recommended to Amy Pascal in the Sony email leaks as a possible GB director candidate. Good call Seth!) or even Edgar Wright.
To those like me who didn’t like the movie, will you be giving the Extended Cut a chance? I will. You never know, right? Perhaps I’ll see the movie in a new light. HA! It’s more likely Sony will apologize for this mess of a film than my opinion changing. I’ll still buy the extended cut. It’s my duty as a fan to support the franchise, even though I hated the movie. Part of the problem with the reboots failure is that Sony might think Ghostbusters isn’t a viable franchise, when in reality they just made the wrong choices for that particular film. I bought a copy of the 2009 video game for every console even though I don’t own an Xbox. Yep. That’s me. I thought the cartoony Wii version was the best version, granted I’m not much of a gamer. Only reason I own a PS3 is for the Blu Ray. But I digress…
I’ve been worried about this too. I guess I’d rather support a bad movie that allows for future growth of the franchise than watch it get kicked to the curb 
I guess it’s all about finding the right level of balance right? Show enough support to show there is still a market for more GB stuff, but also convey that there needs to be some changes to get it right.
The Ozzy Osbourne cameo was indeed cringe-worthy and has the smell of studio execs all over it.
Now This. THIS is cringe.
1 Like
The only issue with that is that Sony doesn’t get the right context. They think if everyone rushes out to by the bluray in hopes of supporting the franchise that ATC was better than it was, that you’re supporting it and continue down the same path. Because to them it shows that the GB fandom will buy anything with a No Ghost or the word Ghostbusters on it. Those of you worried of the franchise disappearing, no offense, haven’t been around long enough to realize that while it may not be mainstream the fandom lives on sure there may not be a wealth of media and new products but the classics still have resonance. that’s why about 90% of the new merchandise coming out is based on the originals. I started in this fandom nearly 12 years ago when there wasn’t anything mainstream. We had builds and costumed appearances and an occasional new piece of merchandise. But we kept it going.
As for my thoughts on the new film. I was against it whole heartedly from the onset. Decided to suck it up and saw it twice. Still hate most of it. I enjoyed the new tech, the soundtrack is pretty good and McKinnon was fun in small doses when she wasn’t Doc Brown impersonating Ace Ventura. I truly believe that this was a misfire created from desperation on Sony’s part and it’s kinda blew up in their faces. They’re aware of the fan presence now. Reitman and Ghost Corps are too. I’m not 100% sure the extended cut will right any wrongs especially if things like the dance sequence is reinserted. But I digress. If any one needs me, I’ll be building equipment like I’ve been doing for 11 years.
This thread was worth it for this post alone!
I used to worry about this too, but have come to realize that studio execs may be greedy, but they’re not stupid. They can and do look at audience reception with a degree of nuance. Using that Star Trek example again, they knew The Motion Picture made money, but they also knew audiences generally found it unbearably dull. They also knew they’d spent far too much money on FX. So yeah, they made a sequel, but they kicked out the team behind TMP, and made sure Wrath of Khan bore no resemblance to it whatsoever. In fact, they went out of their way to find a producer and director who understood where TMP went wrong and how to fix it. And they found ways to cut corners and still deliver a captivating story. The point is, studios do listen. And for the millionth time, ** not just to wallets.**
THIS!
This was my problem with the ‘remake’ from the getgo. Everything just felt way too synthetic and processed. The film’s upbringing and production didn’t have an organic feel. Where was the silver lining the best of the best? the originals had Richard Edlund, Steve Johnson (rookie at the time, but still) , ILM, Bo Weclh, etc.
Different strokes to move the world i geuss. Different times different measures, i suppose.
The movie was flat out terrible. I can’t really understand why some people are reaching to defend it. When i think back to it all i see is that floating cartoon-RGB logo in a live action film, and that sums it up for me. It’s Kazaam and Inspector Gadget bad for my taste.
The tone was weird and unfocused while leaning on juvenile over-the-topness. The ‘joke’ of Ghostbusters is that all the weirdness/camp is played straight and its the characters reactions to those situations that makes it funny. The remake is just a pun and bit fueled oddity.
As far as plot…I think too much time is spent ‘developing the equipment’, while it’s a neat idea that the original never really covered, it doesn’t lead up to anything other than ‘look at this cool toy!’ instead of focusing on the progression of the story and themes. Maybe if it was a Wile E Coyote short, this attempt would’ve worked.
Also in terms of story, too much time is also spent trying to play hooky and fan service the original’s fans. Every other beat, was a reference to the original(s). If you want to remake/reboot a film, why do you have to keep reminding us the original(s) existed?
The cameos are very cringeworthy, and poorly written. Bill Murray pretty much sat in a chair and ran through his lines as if they were waiving the paycheck from off screen, only to have him jump up from the chair and ■■■■■■ it on his way out once cameras stopped rolling. Now…being a Ghostbusters fan, im automatically a Murray fanboy, and pretty much love everything he’s done (other than maybe Garfield and Larger than Life), but how exactly, do you take one of the funniest people in the world and make them not funny? Was it his choise to give a bland performance because he didn’t care? Or was the material really that stale? It is a sad day indeed, when Bill Murray isn’t funny (especially in a comedy ).
The characters…don’t even work well with one another. All the actresses are trying too hard to one up each other, rather than work together, ( the ‘hearse’ scene comes to mind, where they just ramble on for 2 minutes about bodies in the trunk) . None of them seem to be ‘believable’ in their scientific roles, the techno-paranormal jargon is the for the most part, very awkwardly muttered as if it were cue-carded or forgotten. They all speak in puns, quips, and movie references (was the Patrick Swayze bit really worth another 2 minutes of dialog? ) none of the dialogue feels organic or natural. They’re so constantly chatty so much so that it ruins any tension that the film wants to build for itself, there’s barely any quiet character moments.
The supernatural elements and special effects don’t even play as a balance to the…erm..””humor”””. Rather than being used for spectacle or suspense, those elements just simply exist on the screen acting as objects for more forced puns and quips. Yes, the original’s use for special effects and supernatural elements did lead to a lot of the funny moments, but the ghosts and monsters in the original still maintained a balance of being equally frightening and having a sense of danger (even if they were the in the form of a giant demonic marshmallow, but its that sense of camp and style that made it work.) This point is further put into the ground by the movie’s main villain, who maybe has 2-3 scenes of character development before the climax takes place, a very underwritten ‘vengeful nerd’ stereotype, while the original’s villians weren’t ‘complex’ to say the least, they were at least interesting and were derived from actual paranormal mythology and folklore, which opened up possibilities for them to be mysterious and scary. Rowan is a bland character, who in the film’s climax, casually speaks to the girls while in spirit form, and turns into an 2D animated ghost logo, no set up, no sense of suspense or build up, it just kind of happens rather quickly.. because its in the script.
There’s a certain amount of inconsistency when during the final battle, all the Ghostbusters suddenly have martial artist skills and are able to do cartwheels and matrix dives, i thought these people were bookworms and scientists?
Overall, this film is a big dud. It covers so much common ground, one wonders why you would not just watch the original two films instead. It’s the first two remixed together and given a modern look with a toothpick and glue job. It essentially takes every beat from the first two and spins them in a more “hip” and modern unfunny way.
Am I biased? Maybe. But, if I take away the “Ghostbusters-lore” comparisons, it is still a bad movie even by general stanards. It just wasn’t funny or interesting…or even well put together for that matter.
But other that…it was good!
Ugh, I have a medical condition, I can’t watch Inspector Gadget without losing my sanity for at least three months. If GB16 were anything like that, I’d be the first to admit it.
It’s a different type of humor. Doesn’t mean it’s bad. I wouldn’t want them to try and fail to copy something that already exists.
Because if they don’t, the fans would whine that the originals were being “erased.”
Murray’s was clunky, but the rest of the cameos were great, IMO. Hudson’s especially, he fit naturally into the scene without announcing “Look, here I am!”
First off, the lines didn’t feel like Murray lines. Second, it didn’t feel like he made them his own. I’m not going to make assumptions about motivations because I wasn’t there.
See I thought that was a good example of them differentiating the characters.
I didn’t hear any awkward muttering. As for being believable, well, there’s only one Dan Aykroyd. 
There we will agree, but I won’t pick on this movie in particular for that. Hollywood hasn’t done quiet moments well since the early 80s, IMO. And while that’s annoying, I won’t say it ruined anything for me.
Just to let you know, I’m not picking on your post or anything, just contributing to the debate. 
I don’t think I’ve ever gathered my thoughts for a full review so here I go:
Is Ghostbusters (2016) an adequate substitute for a sequel, passing the torch or spiritual successor?
Nope. As a fan I am disappointed they didn’t go for a sequel rather than a reboot. Tonally, the humour in 2016 is very different. I think the best course of action for Sony to please fans would’ve been a soft reboot, TFA and JW style, with a mixed team. Bring in Kylie from the cartoon series, have her working in Ray’s shop. Borrow from the IDW universe, have some RGB ghost cameos. Second thing, is I would pick actors closer in tone to the original, but I could’ve seen the following working: Adam Devine, Aubrey Plaza, Aziz Ansari, Bill Hader, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Garfunkel and Oates, Anthony Jeselnik. And try to keep the humour grounded. Crucially, forget Bill Murray. He’s not necessary. Ray is the heart and soul of Ghostbusters.
Anyway, we got Ghostbusters 2016. So how should we react to that? Not like a bunch of abusive ■■■■■■■■ for a start. What is my assessment?
I’m glad it exists. It’s fun. It brought a smile to my face comedically and nostalgically. But first let me list all the shit that doesn’t work.
-
There’s no chemistry between the team. None.
-
Melissa McCarthy tones her schtick down to the point where she may as well have cast someone else. And she didn’t bring in her usual audience. So she was a mistake.
-
Lots of people loved Kate McKinnon. I found her performance cringeworthy. Hated how hammy she was.
-
Tonally, it was more like an extended cartoon episode intercut with a Feig comedy. Now I like both of those things separately, so there’s absolutely no reason to hate the film, but it isn’t quite what I wanted.
-
Not scary. GB had some menace but Rowan was paperthin and campy.
-
Chris Hemsworth’s character is trash-tier. A reversal of a supposed gender stereotype cranked up to 11. Didn’t work at all for me.
-
Bill Murray’s cameo. Just stop.
However, there was still plenty to love.
-
The new car and outfits are awesome. Really pleased with the update they received. Just as good as the original designs.
-
Rowan’s ghost form was pretty cool.
-
The 3D ghost effects were incredible in IMAX. Film looked high quality.
-
It was funny enough. I had a few laugh out loud moments. It could have been a lot funnier however.
-
In principle, the female team was a cool, progressive idea. It was just executed by the wrong creative team.
-
Dan Aykroyd’s cameo. Superb.
Overall - GB2016 was alright. It didn’t continue the legacy of old Ghostbusters, but it sits alongside the many spin-offs as a worthy addition to the franchise, based on the visual design aspects if nothing else. It also exposed some really unpleasant corners of the fanbase, internet and manhood in general - and disappointed at the box office partly due to this backlash, but also because Sony misjudged the audience and strength of cast.
GB2016 will always be more interesting for the political controversy surrounding it than for the quality of the film. But it deserved to do much better than Suicide Squad, and given time maybe those bitter fans will come round to realise the film did a lot of cool stuff.
As for the future, I’d love to see an Aykroyd script as an animated movie and I still have hopes for the series. But I’d be mostly interested in them doing another soft reboot, keep McKinnon perhaps, but draft in some better comedians, a mixed gender team, and a slightly scarier tone, less expensive effects. Sadly, I fear the live action universe is beyond salvage - the perception of GB in the mainstream has been damaged, not by the quality of the film, but by the backlash to it. The GB fanbase is seen from the outside as a group of emotionally-stunted, adolescent thirty-something men who hate women and black people. GB is seen as a property which doesn’t have legs as a franchise. These are people who will watch every Marvel flick or Transformers, and they’re denying GB the chance to be a franchise, and members of the GB community, GB Reddit, have supported this notion that GB is done.
Whatever happens to Ghost Corps, GB2016 isn’t quite over. We still have the extended cut to come…
My wife and I both watched Ghostbusters 2016 the other week and we both enjoyed it. I heard some negative reviews from the critics and that made me want to see the movie. I’m glad I read the reviews here AFTER I saw the movie or I would have had a critical eye when I watched the movie.
I knew there would be a bust of Harold Ramis and I was looking for it. I thought it was a nice touch. Bill Murray’s performance was very dry and not humorous at all. Dan Akroyd’s appearance was funny and we thought he did a fine job. Ernie did a good job too. I LIKED the Ozzy Osbourne cameo and thought it was funny. It fit for that heavy metal concert scene. Annie Potts who played the secretary in the original Ghostbusters movie also was in there and she was a desk clerk.
But no one mentioned the cameo with Sigourney Weaver. I thought she was the best of all the cameo appearances! She was the safety inspector examining Jillian Holtzmann’s containment, commenting how the entire apparatus could blow up at any time…
What, you MISSED Sigourney Weaver? Well, SHAME ON YOU! Because she only appeared AFTER the credits started rolling across the screen! 
Serves you right for missing it!
Oh, and after the last screen showing the copyright information and the screen goes black, THEN another scene with ALL FOUR GHOSTBUSTERS in their Chinese office with Patty Tolan listening to the tape recorder with headphones on. Then she says Whoa! And they all ask “What did you hear?” and she asks “Who is Zuul”? So they’ve already set it up for a sequel so you fanboys can complain some more! :lol:
Anyway, we walked into the movie with no expectations and we walked out entertained and amused. Yes, there are better movies but it’s hard to do a remake on a classic anyway.
Oh, I DID like the new proton packs and some of the other toys! They seemed like they were cobbled together using what was on hand and more realistic in terms of what some amateurs turned Ghostbusters could do in a lab…
My two cents…
May the FORCE be with you and have a magical day!
MagicBill
If Ozzy was in it, was the band Black Sabbath? I love their first album.
Sigourney Weaver wasn’t a safety inspector, she was Holtzmann’s mentor. And that scene takes place at the Original Firehouse, not the Chinese place.