Reichu wrote:Ben-Hur from 1959 was a remake, just FYI......

I know that, but there's a valid reason for that remake because the original was from the silent era of film, as well as being in black and white. MGM had an opportunity to capitalize on many innovations in the film industry such as Technicolor, sound, and anamorphic lenses that produced widescreen images. The only major film advancement that the 2016 remake will have is shit-ass CGI. The '59 remake is one of the most highly regarded films of all time, sharing the record for most Oscars ever won by a single film.

The central question here is:

Why remake a film that has reached iconic status when it is virtually impossible that the remake will live up to the original?

The only films that should be remade are films that had interesting ideas, but were poorly executed. But, since executives only care about exploiting and retaining licenses for their IPs, it's purely an exercise in cynicism.

just when you think things can't get any worse.

Leslie Jones was recently the victim of a hacking, social media trolls posted Photoshop nude pics of her on her homepage.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... bpxQvHVFag

well I don't think the majority of the people who hated the Ghostbusters reboot are vicious right wing nut trolls, this has gone way too far. But in this particular case I think it's definitely a political extremist.

What I really hate those how the news is spinning this to try and prove themselves and their agenda right.

"See! Everyone who hated this movie is an abusive racist Trump supporter!"

The movie flopped. Can we all just move on with our lives?

Midnights Edge covers the story

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... ihzuZzqqfw

EDIT: For those of you critical, midnights edge cites the majority of their sources and make no claims to be a legit news source. They just state the facts, compile them, and let the audience decide for themselves. If you feel the need to call them 'a joke' says more about you than it does about them.

Guy Nacks wrote:I know that, but there's a valid reason for that remake because the original was from the silent era of film, as well as being in black and white. MGM had an opportunity to capitalize on many innovations in the film industry such as Technicolor, sound, and anamorphic lenses that produced widescreen images. The only major film advancement that the 2016 remake will have is shit-ass CGI. The '59 remake is one of the most highly regarded films of all time, sharing the record for most Oscars ever won by a single film.

The central question here is:

Why remake a film that has reached iconic status when it is virtually impossible that the remake will live up to the original?

The only films that should be remade are films that had interesting ideas, but were poorly executed. But, since executives only care about exploiting and retaining licenses for their IPs, it's purely an exercise in cynicism.

Lots of good movies are remakes or re-adaptations but what makes them good is that they are their own thing.

Compare The Thing from Another World and The Thing. Completely different, adapted from the same story (which is itself different from both).

Ghostbusters (2016)'s greatest failing is that it stands in the middle of being a kind of reproduction of the first movie and being its own thing. It's too close yet too far and touches on the original too much. I still liked it but it could have been better by being more of its own thing.

"the movie flopped. Cn we all just move on with our lives?"

Clearly the racist, basement dwelling, self-hating Alt-Right* fuckers who get off on racist, sexist & genuinely awful acts like the cyber-attack on Leslie Jones did not move on with their lives. Another victim & all people care about is how their opinion will be presented in popular news. Nice.
And no one except nobodies on Twitter are saying "Everyone who hates Ghostbusters is a racist Trump supporter."

Also if these so-called "film fans" really wanted to get outraged about a recent remake that was a true flop they'd turn their attention to BEN-HUR 2016 which is the second remake of the story.

*Alt-Right: Translation - bigots & racists.

Midnight's Edge...what a joke account. But they're uninformed, gleamed from legitimate news sources & regurgitating in poorly made videos gets "the clicks" so good for them.

I think I saw a Midnight's Edge video once around the time Fant4stic was released. All it contained was a series of unsupported speculations and round-table-esque dialogue about them. I felt like I was watching TMZ or something like that.

Gendo'sPapa wrote:"the movie flopped. Cn we all just move on with our lives?"

Clearly the racist, basement dwelling, self-hating Alt-Right* fuckers who get off on racist, sexist & genuinely awful acts like the cyber-attack on Leslie Jones did not move on with their lives.

Neither did anyone else, which I assume is the whole point of Ray's post. Regardless of whether you wanted it to fail or not, the movie did not start the extended universe cash cow Sony thought it would and will probably end its campaign with its DVD/BD sales. So the whole point of continuing to follow the events of a movie that will be in the bookstore bargain-bin within a few years seems like a wasted effort. You're only making yourself angry by following up on the events and only giving more jollies to the trolls.

Who the hell would look up Jones' nudes in the first place? Also, reminder that you shouldn't post sensitive material like nudes,sex tapes on the internet it's never really safe. Send the interested person Polaroids instead.

Again, the controversy lives way longer then the shitty movie gotta make those virtue signal bucks.

"Photoshopped nude pics".

I.e., nude pics of someone else with Ms. Jones' face 'shopped on top.

BTW, Polaroids can be scanned.

Reichu wrote:"Photoshopped nude pics".

I.e., nude pics of someone else with Ms. Jones' face 'shopped on top.

BTW, Polaroids can be scanned.

How do we know whether or not the images are photoshopped?

bobbyfischer's ghost wrote:Who the hell would look up Jones' nudes in the first place? Also, reminder that you shouldn't post sensitive material like nudes,sex tapes on the internet it's never really safe.

They were taken from her iCloud. A lot of phones upload images to the cloud automatically without prompting from the user.

A person would look up those pics to humiliate and laugh at her. That's the long and short of it.

Part of me wants to watch this movie to see how bad it really is, but I'll only do so if I can pirate it as I outright refuse to pay as much as a penny towards it. So let's focus on what can be gathered from the movie without actually having to watch the bloody thing.

First of all...why? Why did we need a new Ghostbusters at all? The first one was superb, the second one was nowhere near as good but still not without its good bits, the cartoon was a lot of fun, and IIRC the game was really good, and widely praised as the Ghostbusters 3 we never got. The franchise didn't NEED rebooting. It was fine as is. It should have been left to rest. The only reason it was resurrected at all was because Sony thought they could tap into the nostalgia market and suck the cash from moviegoers' wallets.

Which brings me onto the second point: The marketing for this film was awful. Quite frankly the film could have been the End of Evangelion of comedies and I'd have boycotted it with how shittily it was marketed. Let's recap; we have a franchise that hasn't been relevant for years and whose main appeal will be nostalgia. So what do they do? Market it as a generic "progressive" "quirky" comedy that replaces all the Ghostbusters with literally who's for...reasons, and then accuse everyone who so much as lifts a finger in protest of being a "muhsojinist" and THEN claim that the original movie wasn't that good anyway and people who came to see Ghostbusters to see more, uh, Ghostbusters, are "stuck in the past" and "need to accept that Ghostbusters has been reclaimed from the dudebro genre".

OK, let's stop right there Mary Sue, Huffington Post and whatever other useless rags were paid off to shill this movie. Firstly, if you're going to make a movie whose primary selling point is nostalgia, it helps not to insult the original source material and those who liked it- ESPECIALLY not when the source material is as undeniably good as it is. Secondly, "dudebro" is not a movie genre. Thirdly, how in the flying fuck do you manage to perceive GHOSTBUSTERS as a "dudebro" movie!?!?!?!? It's about a bunch of dorky down-on-their-luck guys in need of a job, who set up their own business using their nerdiness to their advantage. And finally, even if it WERE a "dudebro" movie (whatever the fuck that is)...so what? Who gives a shit? Is a movie that appeals to young men (or in the case of Ghostbusters, people who grew up in the 80s/have good taste in movies) some kind of threat to society? Why does it need "reclaiming"? It's not like it was ever "stolen" in the first place! If you want a quirky progressive all-female supernatural comedy then why not do something original and make your own movie rather than trying to piggyback off the success of a movie you clearly don't like anyway? And I'm not even going to touch on the responses to people who dared to openly criticize the movie without the blessed shield of anonymity, for the sake of avoiding a massive flamewar.

Now, let's look at the elements of the film that were known to many before the movie was even out. We had an all-new, all-female cast, with the original surviving Ghostbusters reduced to mere cameos. We're not off to a good start at all, are we? Now I'm no director, but I would have thought it would have made more sense to have one of the original Ghostbusters in the team as a mentor figure, with 3 newbies- 1, maybe 2 of which should have been female. I don't object to female Ghostbusters on principle, but making them all female just screamed "progressive-bait gimmick". Heck, there was a female Ghostbuster in the cartoon, why not introduce her? Or have Janine Potts the snarky secretary take up the proton pack as a badass old girl? Then there's the matter of the effects. They're all (from what I've seen) pretty shitty CGI. Now personally I'd have preferred it if they'd used the stop-motion puppets transplanted into the film ala the originals, but I can understand that that takes time. What is unforgivable is that the main bad ghost is...the Ghostbusters logo. Come on Paul. And to make matters worse? Rather than the epic showdown we got in the original movie, he's defeated...by a shot to the crotch. Because grrrrrrl power apparently.

So we have questionable motives for rebooting the franchise in the first place, abysmal marketing, stupid creative decisions, comically missing the point of how they were supposed to make money in the first place, and a complete disregard for the people they were supposed to be selling the film to. There's enough here to dismiss it as a trainwreck right off the bat. And this is before I've even seen the film. Oh dear.

Oh, and on top of all that? It committed the cardinal sin of reboots- it's just called "Ghostbusters". Not "Ghostbusters 3" or Ghostbusters Resurrection" or whatever. Just "Ghostbusters". STOP DOING THIS.

I will get round to watching this disaster eventually, and when I do I'll report back with my feelings. But I have to say, I'm not optimistic.

Squigsquasher wrote:First of all...why? Why did we need a new Ghostbusters at all? The first one was superb, the second one was nowhere near as good but still not without its good bits, the cartoon was a lot of fun, and IIRC the game was really good, and widely praised as the Ghostbusters 3 we never got. The franchise didn't NEED rebooting. It was fine as is. It should have been left to rest. The only reason it was resurrected at all was because Sony thought they could tap into the nostalgia market and suck the cash from moviegoers' wallets.

We're in the era of reboots. The era before this one was the era of book-adapting, and we still haven't stopped with the "X Movie Part 1" and "X Movie Part 2" milking bullshit. This is hardly a surprise, even the most niche and cult followings of movies is getting reboots, like the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I'm pretty we'll get a reboot of Wizards before we get a sequel to the original. And I fear for Heavy metal. This should hardly be a surprise to anyone when we've rebooted Mad Max and Robocop.

I am surprised that Sony rebooted Ghostbusters, but not for the same reasons everyone else is.

Let's be real for a moment, Ghostbusters wouldn't have been that successful today. Not even the original. If the original had its premiere in 2016 instead of 1984, it was have performed just as poorly as the 2016 film, if not worse. Part of the reason for that is that comedies, even romantic comedies, were the highest grossing films of their respective years in the 80's. Sure, we all say that comedy was highly subjective today, but in the 80's Hollywood was successfully tapping into that subjectivity with almost every comedy movie they made. Comedies even beat out the sci-fi action film Predator in the box office for the entire year. It would be unheard of for a comedy to do that today.

In that time of box office comedy giants, a studio could risk some high-dollar special effects in their comedy and reasonably expect that money made back in ticket sales. More people were watching comedies more than any other genre of film in the 80's, so why wouldn't they expect that financial return? That's partially what made the original Ghostbusters movie so successful.

Fast forward to 2016, and comedies bring up the tail end of ticket sales with many of their directors being considered B or D list filmmakers. (I'm looking at you, Adam Sandler, but making an exception for you, Edgar Wright.) So it's no surprise that a low-profiting genre, like comedies, was given to a low-budget director, like Paul Fieg, was given big budget special effects, and still only made back about as little money as you would expect from a typical Paul Fieg comedy. Add to that the fact that the source material changed too much to really use pure nostalgia properly as a marketing gimmick (surviving main cast is reduced to cameos in a film that isn't a sequel updating us on the status of their original characters), and you have a film that sinks like a rock in the 2016 film business.

Ghostbusters: Box Office Fallout, The Impact of Merchandise, & Franchise Prospects

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN8-f_2iTdw

In this video, they discuss why Sony’s “Ghostbusters: Answer the Call” didn’t make enough money to break even. what kind of an impact the sales of merchandise had on the movie overall, what Sony may still be able to do with the franchise going forward, how the fallout will affect the careers of those involved.

For those who don't watch it. Apparently, the sales of the merchandise may be enough for Sony to justify going forward with their 'Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe'.

EDIT:
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK

https://www.bustle.com/articles/189427- ... -paul-feig

DVD sales may make it so a sequel could happen . . . FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK.

Oh dear. Let's hope Sony learns its lesson and either cans the sequel, or if it insists on making it, tries to make a movie people actually want to see.

It's Sony though so my hopes aren't high.

This has a Planet of the Apes vibe to it when it comes to production desicions. Each of the original Apes films had a lower and lower budget with each new installment until the franchise was nothing but a TV cartoon and some lunch boxes. GB sounds like it's taking the same route.

or if it insists on making it, tries to make a movie people actually want to see.

They tried that with Ninja Turtles Out Of The Shadows. That didn't turn a profit, because it was a sequel to a terrible film, and a sequel to a film nobody liked means the sequel is a film nobody wants to see.

edit:

As if to add insult to injury.

Hollywood Reporter wrote:Sony Pictures Entertainment remained mum on losses from this summer's Ghostbusters in its earnings call on Tuesday, but sources tell The Hollywood Reporter the considerable financial pain inflicted on the studio by the July reboot was magnified by the fact that key financing partner LSC Film Corp. pulled its backing about a month before the film went into production

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/s ... xit-943529

EDIT 2:

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK AGAIN.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/10/31/pa ... ers-sequel

Paul Feig still wants to make a Ghostbusters sequel

Having finally gotten a chance to see the reboot, I have to say it's a shame we won't be getting more since it's a really fun movie. The cast synergy was comparable to the original, and despite reports to the contrary the cameos didn't weigh it down at all. On top of that the constantly evolving equipment was pretty wild and woolly, which made for some really crazy scenes. It basically amounted to a heartfelt homage to the original from one generation of SNL to another, and it's sad that pathetic nerds on the internet wrecked that for everyone.

None of that's stopping us from getting the BD release and enjoying it for ourselves, though, which is exactly what I intend to do.

I actually thought Bill Murray was in it too much. I liked the talk show thing because it was a nice meta reference to Ghostbusters II.

Chuckman wrote:I actually thought Bill Murray was in it too much. I liked the talk show thing because it was a nice meta reference to Ghostbusters II.

Yeah, but when he met up with the team they got some good bits out of it so I didn't mind it.