The Original Ghostbusters Cast Will Return for New Movie

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,128
So Leslie is butthurt because her movie bombed, the reboot no one asked for, with writing that wasn't even remotely close to the style of the first two or even the damn cartoon and we're supposed to care? Seriously, the writing of the cartoon was more consistent with the two movies than that stupid reboot.
 

Shoganai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,438
So Leslie is butthurt because her movie bombed, the reboot no one asked for, with writing that wasn't even remotely close to the style of the first two or even the damn cartoon and we're supposed to care? Seriously, the writing of the cartoon was more consistent with the two movies than that stupid reboot.
The fact that she’s bothered about most of the original cast coming back means she can fuck right off. :)
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,805
So Leslie is butthurt because her movie bombed, the reboot no one asked for, with writing that wasn't even remotely close to the style of the first two or even the damn cartoon and we're supposed to care? Seriously, the writing of the cartoon was more consistent with the two movies than that stupid reboot.

I used to watch the Cartoon when I was a kid, that Boogyman episode still haunts me to this day.
 

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
I used to watch the Cartoon when I was a kid, that Boogyman episode still haunts me to this day.

Got the whole series still on DVD and I too remember coming home from school and watching. So many episodes that could've easily been made into movies and yeah, their boogeyman was cool! Such great writers back then. Amazes me when people state they don't understand when the movies could go.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,805
Got the whole series still on DVD and I too remember coming home from school and watching. So many episodes that could've easily been made into movies and yeah, their boogeyman was cool! Such great writers back then. Amazes me when people state they don't understand when the movies could go.

I just went back and watched the "Standing Room only" episode with Mee-Krah, was a good one! :D That one would have made a great movie also!
 

xorbe

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
6,029
Leslie Jones has called the sequel “insulting” and “a dick move.”

Hah, the vag-hurt is real. You got to earn that respect and stop acting entitled.
 

seanreisk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,711
I used to watch the Cartoon when I was a kid, that Boogyman episode still haunts me to this day.

Interesting history about the cartoon Ghostbusters, there were two shows with the same name - one, called 'GhostBusters' and the other, called 'The Real GhostBusters'. The first is based on the live-action Saturday morning program 'The Ghost Busters', the 1975 show that might have inspired Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd's movie script. 'Inspired' might be too strong a word, since the movie and the TV show have nothing in common, but Columbia did have to pay the TV studio to use the Ghostbuster name.

And while Bill Murray is inseparable from the original Ghostbusters movie, Dan Aykroyd originally wrote the part for John Belushi.
 

viivo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
1,695
I want to have hope. I want to believe Aykroyd can avoid the pitfalls of writing something like this. But I can already see the age jokes: proton packs slow to start/trickling/drooping beam, jokes consisting entirely of "running is hard now," Slimer using a walker. It'll be Crystal Skull all over again.
 

gxp500

Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2015
Messages
865
So Leslie is butthurt because her movie bombed, the reboot no one asked for, with writing that wasn't even remotely close to the style of the first two or even the damn cartoon and we're supposed to care? Seriously, the writing of the cartoon was more consistent with the two movies than that stupid reboot.
I agree the script was horrible in the remake, the jokes were dumbed so a 10 year old can understand them. Unfortunately 10 year olds have no idea who the ghostbusters are so the movie tanked.
I had no issues with the all female cast since i watch snl and like all of them, the script ruined the movie not the cast.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,501
I agree the script was horrible in the remake, the jokes were dumbed so a 10 year old can understand them. Unfortunately 10 year olds have no idea who the ghostbusters are so the movie tanked.
I had no issues with the all female cast since i watch snl and like all of them, the script ruined the movie not the cast.

Depends on what you mean by tanked.

It pulled in $229.1 million off of a budget of $144 million, so at least it made money.

I've also seen a lot of comments about it having bombed and lost money, but the figures above don't seem to support that.

Critical response pretty much lines up with my feelings about the film. An enjoyable distraction that can't help but pale in comparison to the originals. Just try to not hold it to the same standards as the original, and it's a fun throwaway summer flick.
 

MookeMan

n00b
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
12
The reboot was just your typical Melissa McCarthy movie in the trappings of a hallowed franchise. Dumb humor, over the top physical comedy, and bad writing. If Jones wants to be mad at someone, be mad at the Director for recycling his old movies.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,980
Depends on what you mean by tanked.

It pulled in $229.1 million off of a budget of $144 million, so at least it made money.

I've also seen a lot of comments about it having bombed and lost money, but the figures above don't seem to support that.

Critical response pretty much lines up with my feelings about the film. An enjoyable distraction that can't help but pale in comparison to the originals. Just try to not hold it to the same standards as the original, and it's a fun throwaway summer flick.

Break even point of the movie was somewhere around $300m. While not always 100% accurate the easiest way to figure out a movie's break even point is to double the production budget. Doing so will take into account marketing costs in several different countries, distribution costs in different countries, and account for the fact the studios tend to get a lot less per ticket in the international market. With the growing reliance on countries like China movies actually need to make even more to pull in a profit because studios really get very little money off of each ticket in those countries. For Ghostbusters 2016 it is estimated that Sony lost somewhere in the range of $70 million after all was said and done. Given how fast prices bottomed out on both streaming and blu-ray it is highly unlikely home releases made much of a dent in that loss.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,128
Depends on what you mean by tanked.

It pulled in $229.1 million off of a budget of $144 million, so at least it made money.

I've also seen a lot of comments about it having bombed and lost money, but the figures above don't seem to support that.

Critical response pretty much lines up with my feelings about the film. An enjoyable distraction that can't help but pale in comparison to the originals. Just try to not hold it to the same standards as the original, and it's a fun throwaway summer flick.

That's 229 million gross, not net. Even if we assume the studio managed to get back 80% of that revenue from ticket sales(I've seen numbers that it's closer to 50% and worse in some markets like China being as low as 25%), that's only 183 million. The production budget is what the studio is willing to admit to and as Derangel pointed out does not include marketing costs which can easily run that number up to a double of 288 million.

You can't use boxofficemojo by itself and then question why a studio can consider movies that even "made" 300 million to be a bomb not worth continuing. The simple fact is that Sony reported GB2016 as a 70 million dollar loss is just based off of the numbers they were willing to publish(again, marketing costs a lot and even in the production budget reshoots and other issues may not be included in the total figure). Generally a movie needs to earn back 2.5x or so in gross ticket sales to break even.

Look at Star Trek Beyond. That movie had a production budget of $185M, grossed $343M worldwide, and is still considered to have been a massive flop prompting loss of investments in Paramount(at least one company pulled out of a billion dollar deal), licensing issues, pay disputes for any sequels, etc.

GB2016 was a shitty movie(audience reviews), that did absolutely poorly(terrible ticket sales resulting in a massive loss) outside of an agenda driven campaign(positive professional critic reviews that all seemed to share a coincidentally common trend) that the general public reacted to even more poorly(the backlash against all of the excuses about why it did so badly), that resulted in some decent actresses getting their importance in that shitty movie way overblown. If Leslie Jones thought GB was going to be her big ticket to hollywood stardom, apparently Paul Feig and the rest did an amazing job on selling her all of the bullshit surrounding it because anyone with a brain could see plain as day that the movie didn't even have the same tone as the first two(which is why people STILL like them).

edit: Hell, also look at Solo. Pulled in 392 million worldwide gross, with production estimates running 250 million or more due to the production hell the movie had, tons of reshoots, a change of director 90% of the way through it, and still has to account for a massive marketing campaign, with the end result being Disney hitting the panic button and halting most of their SW projects(there's an entirely separate discussion to be had about that).
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,980
From the current KINGS of modern satirist commentary as far as misguided Hollyweird efforts go:

Red Letter Media


I prefer their Half in the Bag episode on it. I've never liked the Plinkett stuff very much. That style of humor is just not my cup of tea.
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
3,149
I prefer their Half in the Bag episode on it. I've never liked the Plinkett stuff very much. That style of humor is just not my cup of tea.
To each their own. I like most all of their stuff. Plinkett Star Wars Ep. 1-3 is legendary. Plinkett narrative isn't everyone's cup of comedic tea, but the breakdown commentary is SO GOOD!
 

collegeboy69us

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
5,256
she was ok but hot as AF?

She was a 6/10 if that.

I would really love to see what you consider a 9/10 lol.

You have to think of the hotness scale while taking into account it was 1989 (for number 2) she was 80's hot for sure, a quick google image search show's some headshots and stuff of her younger years when she was gorgeous. Even some of the women considered to be the most beautiful in the world back in the 80's will look "meh" to many people today since style and what's considered ultra-hot have changed over the decades.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,584
Heck yeah!
Can't wait to see Ernie Hudson in action again; Winston Zeddemore was always my favorite character! :cool:

Also, to keep everyone occupied until Ghostbusters 3 is released, here is the 2009 Ghostbusters game in movie format which takes place in 1991 - a direct canonical sequel to Ghostbusters 2!

 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,980
To each their own. I like most all of their stuff. Plinkett Star Wars Ep. 1-3 is legendary. Plinkett narrative isn't everyone's cup of comedic tea, but the breakdown commentary is SO GOOD!

I'll give you the breakdowns. The parts of those reviews that breakdown and riff on whatever movie is the focus tends to be very well written and make good points.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,980
Bill Murray will probably look miserable the whole movie.

If Murray agreed to do it by his own choice and not by Sony threatening to the sue him (like with 2016) then I think he'll actually be into it and care about his role. Murray can still put on a good performance, when he's into it. He was brilliant in Zombieland, for example, because he was having fun and actually giving a crap.
 

Shoganai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,438
Here's hoping they can convince Moranis to come out of retirement for this film.
That would be incredibly awesome. After his wife died, he wanted to focus on being a stay at home dad, which is why he originally retired. Obviously his kids are very much adults now, but I’ve always hoped he might find his way back someday. Even if he just comes back as a one-time cameo, that’d be pretty cool. Just the fact that this movie is happening at all is great, though. This probably wouldn’t even be happening if it wasn’t for the crapfest that was the 2016 movie.
 

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
WTF are you talking about? All female Ghostbusters never happened. Unless you're talking about Futura from Let's Go Ghostbusters, but she was just one female.



I remember that show too. They had actually sued, with some success, regarding the name. Evidently they'd copyrighted the name right before the cartoons for the movie started hence why 'real' was added in the title.
 

Lunas

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
10,018
I'm sorry if Leslie Jones doesn't like it, but the fact of the matter is that their movie just wasn't good. It had nothing to do with the fact that it was a group of women, at least not to me. It just wasn't good as are most remakes/sequels/prequels, etc. I really had hoped it would have been better.

That said, I am excited to see this cast reunite but am worried it'll be not great as well. I guess we'll see.
The problem was not with the actresses it was with the script that was written more to cater to them and the types of talents they were. If the 2016 script had been a Ghostbusters Miami or LA group with references to the new York founders it would have been better received. Instead we got 4 female standup comedians with jokes and lines setup like they were doing a comedy routine that was supposed to replace the original gb
 

Stimpy88

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,271
The fact that she’s bothered about most of the original cast coming back means she can fuck right off. :)

It's funny, but anyway, the last I heard was about 2 months ago, the studio was talking to them about a sequel to their awful 2016 movie, so maybe she got bent out of shape because this is how she found out she had lost a paycheck? lol

I feel sorry for this racist, sexist woman... Nah, not really!
 

The Mad Atheist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
1,435
I used to watch the Cartoon when I was a kid, that Boogyman episode still haunts me to this day.
Nothing haunts you more than being 6yo watching Poltergeist and still hate walking down dark hallways....
Well, at least my sister had the dead and rotting tree outside her window in the courtyard!
Common, Ghostbusters 2 wasn't bad at all. No reason to ignore it. Also it was released in 1989.
Meh, it was bad. Only good parts were Potts, the court ghosts, and the dancing toster.
Let's hope she won't be cameltoe-ing it either.
I'm going to have trauma if I Goggle that, right?

Anyway, maybe they can do a crossover.
49948990_2279733092070565_2081175176925413376_n.jpg
 
Top