Lofarl Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted January 16, 2019 Author Share Posted January 16, 2019 Totally ignores that god awful one with the women and is set in the original timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raidernation Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Oh. Thank. God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ah-dee Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 yass! ive been wanting this film made for years now. im not going to get too excited as ive been hurt before! i was devastated when i found out their plans for the reboot. havent even been able to watch that monstrosity past the forst half hour.i really hope they keep the special effects to a minimum so it has that 80s low quality look to it, does that make sense? personally id prefer that classic look to the comedy over loads of cgi.also thinking there about Splengers character and whether they will replace him or not. im such a kid at heart and Ghostbusters were my favourites back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YER SISTERS YER MAW Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 I think they should make Rick Moranis ( can't remember his characters name from 1st two) the 4th Ghostbuster to replace Egon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ah-dee Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 I think they should make Rick Moranis ( can't remember his characters name from 1st two) the 4th Ghostbuster to replace Egon. louis could see him being the 4th but i think they will bring in someone much younger to add a range of ages. bill murray and dan akroyd are well into their 60s now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Totally ignores that god awful one with the women and is set in the original timeline.Never even gave the female one the time of day, can only imagine it was as bad as it looked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meanmistermustard Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 9 hours ago, Dons_1988 said: Never even gave the female one the time of day, can only imagine it was as bad as it looked I saw about three minutes of it when Channel 4 showed it recently, it was dreadful. The kind of film where you know after about 30 seconds it's going to be utter shit and staying in there to see if your wrong simply isn't possible after another couple of minutes. Will be looking forward to 3 as 1 and 2 are both brilliant films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Never even gave the female one the time of day, can only imagine it was as bad as it looked It was nowhere as bad as the angry gammons made out. It wasn’t good, but it passed the time. Put it this way, the Indiana Jones rehash was far, far worse.A 5/10 movie, basically. Which is about what Ghostbusters 2 feels like now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 Not sure why anyone's terribly excited about this. Sony are obviously desperate to turn Ghostbusters into a cash cow, so they're just having another stab at it. Dan Aykroyd's been desperate to get something made for years, Bill Murray's never wanted anything to do with it as quality wasn't much of a concern. I can't imagine any point to a Ghostbusters film without Egon, and Rick Moranis has been out of the industry for decades. Putting Ivan Reitman's son in charge just seems like the equivalent of stunt casting to try and get fans of the original on board. Plus, everything I've read points to the film being an attempt to transfer over to a new crew of teenagers for future films. Why anybody would've been pissed about the 2016 reboot and excited for this is beyond me. It's the same thing in different clothes. It might turn out well, but that's not the primary concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I don't understand why film studios can't just leave things alone, this need to drag up carcasses from the ground is pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said: I don't understand why film studios can't just leave things alone, this need to drag up carcasses from the ground is pathetic. The answer is always money. There was a fortune to be made there in selling toys and shit , but I think they'd missed their chance by the Nineties. Everybody's too old or dead now. The gamble is that the new cast can connect with youngsters in the same way Bill Murray et al did with youngsters in the Eighties. And it's so much easier, and less of a gamble, than trying to come up with something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 There’s less risk in putting out a remake, adaptation or sequel as there’s already an audience for it. Even if the film is an absolute howler there’s a good chance it’ll make money. Look at the D.C. films, they are generally recognised as poor films but have all made huge profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 12 minutes ago, MixuFixit said: The one with the female cast was good, I enjoyed it. I don't know what the fuss was about. Unpopular opinions thread for this pish I know. Yeah, same here. Didn't hold a candle to the original, obviously, but it was a bit of daft fun and I'd have been interested to see what they did with a sequel. Also, Holtzmann was a quality character. And it's better than Ghostbusters 2. Folk pining for another direct sequel to the original might want to bear in mind how quickly the quality dropped off there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 55 minutes ago, ICTChris said: There’s less risk in putting out a remake, adaptation or sequel as there’s already an audience for it. Even if the film is an absolute howler there’s a good chance it’ll make money. Look at the D.C. films, they are generally recognised as poor films but have all made huge profits. Apparently there's a philosophy in Hollywood that, once you've spent a certain amount on a film, it's impossible to lose money. We're talking big bucks, like $200 million or more. It then becomes an 'event' that people will go to see, even if it's a piece of shit, and will turn a profit once all the grosses are in worldwide. I think John Carter came closest to breaking the rule but it looks like, even just taking into account the US box office, it still turned a small profit. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 No mention of Winston here. You're all quite clearly massive racists and have been reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 2 hours ago, DA Baracus said: No mention of Winston here. You're all quite clearly massive racists and have been reported. I like Ernie Hudson, but naebdy gives a f**k about Winston. Would've been different if Eddie Murphy had taken the part, no doubt, although you can see why he refused considering how underwritten the character is. Only thing I remember him doing is the "WIIIIIIISTOOOOOON!!!!!" scene in #2, which was admittedly class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 Nah Winston was class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 15 hours ago, BigFatTabbyDave said: Apparently there's a philosophy in Hollywood that, once you've spent a certain amount on a film, it's impossible to lose money. We're talking big bucks, like $200 million or more. It then becomes an 'event' that people will go to see, even if it's a piece of shit, and will turn a profit once all the grosses are in worldwide. I think John Carter came closest to breaking the rule but it looks like, even just taking into account the US box office, it still turned a small profit. Go figure. I'm sure Kermode did a blog on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-most-american-movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.