Re: Ghostbusters 3

43
It boils down to one problem: It doesn't look funny. It comes across as lazy, obvious, pandering-to-the-lowest denominator crap.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

44
O-dot wrote:It boils down to one problem: It doesn't look funny. It comes across as lazy, obvious, pandering-to-the-lowest denominator crap.
yes but the problem is any criticism gets you branded a sexist. same shit that's going on with race these days.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

45
TC wrote:
O-dot wrote:It boils down to one problem: It doesn't look funny. It comes across as lazy, obvious, pandering-to-the-lowest denominator crap.
yes but the problem is any criticism gets you branded a sexist. same shit that's going on with race these days.
I'd expect a racist to say that. ;)

But yeah, what O-dot said.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Ghostbusters 3

46
[youtube][/youtube]

I think I can tell you exactly what this movie will consist of: McCarthy will fart and fall down a lot, McKinnon will do a Harold Ramis impression, Leslie Jones will crack jokes about those crazy white people, Wiig will be as unfunny as she always is and Chris Hemsworth will just stand around being the eye candy. There will be nothing new or novel, it'll just be a dumbed down re-hash of the original with "but look, they're women now!" being relied upon for the reason for this film's existence.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Ghostbusters 3

47
I get the impression Hemsworth is going to end up being the bad guy. Rejected by the main team as not being useful enough, he concocts a supernatural amplifier (mentioned in the trailer), we see him surveying such a creation in full on hands-clasped-behind-his-back villain style here too. Yawn.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Ghostbusters 3

48
The previous trailer showed the ghosts inhabiting other members of the team, so I think the Hemsworth thing will be temporary at best.

Oh yeah, and I forgot, there will be lots of people getting slimed. Got to pander to the kids to get them to buy the merch (to be fair GB2 did this a lot too).
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Ghostbusters 3

50
Not that anyone cares, but based on seeing the trailer a few times at other movies recently this is the one left (aside from Suicide Squad) that my oldest kids are most looking forward to. Which means you'll probably get feedback from me before anyone else on how it is.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Ghostbusters 3

52
For sure, although this is why you need to introduce them to Ghibli and Chaplin at an early age and then persuade them of the virtues of the original trilogy over the prequels as they grow (no small task - kids seem drawn to George's clutter of CGI, and don't get me started on the fucking Clone Wars).

Re: Ghostbusters 3

54
Alexhead wrote:Which means you'll probably get feedback from me before anyone else on how it is.
First! Oh wait, this isn't youtube. I see your having kids and raise you one "I didn't feel like going home yet and there was nothing else interesting playing at the theater." Is this an awful film? No. Is it a good film? No. It's mostly a pointless exercise in nostalgia, even more so than Force Awakens. It's very telling that the things that got the most audience reaction were all the original cast cameos and callbacks to the original like Slimer and the StayPuft Marshmallow Man. Even the original logo got cheers. Hell, even the after credits sequence is a callback to the original film. The rest of the film - some chuckles here and there. It thankfully wasn't nearly as slapstick or lowbrow as the trailer made it seem, though there's certainly still some of that. It has none of the wit or sarcasm of the original. It actually wasn't that funny and a lot of the time I had to remind myself I was supposedly watching a comedy. Even poor Bill Murray, who's part was slightly bigger than a cameo, they managed to suck the Billy Murrayness out of and make him just sort of there. They could have put an extra in his place. I guess it was worth seeing once just to get a chuckle at seeing the old cast (minus Moranis) spout some classic lines. But if you take those parts away and forced the film to stand on it's own, pretending there was no Ghostbusters before it, all you're left with is a forgettable cgi-fest excuse to sell toys like a lots of other summer action films. It certainly would never become the classic the original did.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Ghostbusters 3

55
I saw it last night, and I agree with everything you said. My wife enjoyed the movie though, so I'm glad she had a good time. And it took over an hour to get our food at the Alamo, and they ended up comping our food and giving us two free passes, so the whole thing was free - not bad!

Re: Ghostbusters 3

56
As I said elsewhere on teh interwebz, I thought it was fine. I laughed, and that's about the highest standard I hold most comedies to. McCarthy wasn't half as annoying as I expected her to be, and I can always watch Kristen Wiig.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Ghostbusters 3

57
Looks like the franchise is dead once again, untill the next dickless person shuts off the containment unit to release it anew. I like the spin Sony is giving that it doesn't matter if anyone actually went to see the film because they sold a bunch of toys and people are buying copies of the original film. Guys, we know merchandising is where the real money is made, but you're not actually supposed to admit it publicly.
Hollywood Reporter wrote:Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely

Confronted by tepid box office for the reboot, the studio will instead focus on animated spinoffs.
Immediately upon the opening of Ghostbusters in mid-July, top Sony executives boldly declared a sequel to Paul Feig's all-female reboot of Ivan Reitman's 1984 classic was a given. "While nothing has been officially announced yet, there's no doubt in my mind it will happen," said Rory Bruer, president of worldwide distribution at Sony.

That was the studio's last public mention of a sequel. As of Aug. 7, Ghostbusters had earned just under $180 million at the global box office, including $117 million domestic. The film still hasn't opened in a few markets, including France, Japan and Mexico, but box-office experts say it will have trouble getting to $225 million despite a hefty net production budget of $144 million plus a big marketing spend. The studio has said break-even would be $300 million.

Sony hardly is alone in suffering from audience rejection of sequels this summer. But film chief Tom Rothman and his team, along with partner Village Roadshow, had high hopes for launching a live-action Ghostbusters "universe." Now they are preparing for steep losses (think $70 million-plus) and an uncertain future for the franchise.

Sony won't comment on whether it has banished a sequel to the netherworld, but perhaps tellingly, a rep says the studio actively is pursuing an animated Ghostbusters feature that could hit theaters in 2019 and an animated TV series, Ghostbusters: Ecto Force, which is eyeing an early 2018 bow. Both are being guided by Reitman, who firmly is back in charge of the Ghostbusters empire via Ghost Corps., a subsidiary with a mandate to expand the brand across platforms. (It was former Sony film chief Amy Pascal who first embraced Feig's vision for the live-action reboot, not Reitman or Rothman.)

We're very proud of the bold movie Paul Feig made, which critics and audiences loved," a studio rep tells THR. "It has enlivened a 30-year-old brand and put it into the modern zeitgeist. As a result, we have many ideas in the works to further exploit the Ghostbusters universe."

Feig hasn't said whether he'll return. Stars Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon are said to be signed for two potential sequels, and initially they said they were game. But now? "Ghostbusters is on ice until further notice," says box-office analyst Jeff Bock. "I just can't fathom the creative talents behind it — Feig, McCarthy, Wiig, etc. — slogging out another one when the reception to the first one was so mediocre."

Sony disputes the amount of the potential loss, insisting that revenue streams from merchandising and such attractions as a new Ghostbusters exhibit at Madame Tussauds and a theme park ride in Dubai will help defray any deficit. The studio also notes that the number of people renting the 1984 film has soared over the summer.

"This loss calculation is way off," says the Sony rep. "With multiple revenue streams, including consumer products, gaming, location-based entertainment, continued international rollout, and huge third-party promotional partnerships that mitigated costs, the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not remotely close to that number."
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Ghostbusters 3

58
"further exploit the Ghostbusters universe." Hey, they were nice and honest there too.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Ghostbusters 3

59
I just watched the extended cut of this thing. If there ever was a film that didn't need extra footage, it was this one. Nothing added to the story. No new funny. Just more minutes of your life you'll never get back.
Just cut them up like regular chickens