The Original Ghostbusters Cast Will Return for New Movie

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,625
They originals are going to do a remake? Is the baby now going to be all grown up and a 5th member?
 

Monkey34

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
5,120
I think the reboot failed for multiple reasons. I think one of the biggest was the fact that practically no one wanted a reboot. I know I didn't. I wanted to see a continuation of the originals. Another reason is because the movie moved far away from what the original was. The original movie wasn't made as a comedy but a serious movie with a lot of comedic elements. The banter, conversations and situations they found themselves in were chances to get laughs and tell jokes while still taking the movie and the plot seriously. I didn't see any of that with the reboot.

Here's to hoping that the new movie follows the very successful formula of the first movie.
I'd agree. Jones' version was alright for what it was....I liked it, but didn't love it. The comedy and character interaction just didn't flow and nail it like the original.

Of course they were being held to an impossibly high standard from the get-go. I don't care if you called it a re-boot; whatever movie came out with the name Ghostbusters was going to be held against the original.
 

Monkey34

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
5,120
Here's hoping they can convince Moranis to come out of retirement for this film.
THIS. He's been sorely missed, but it seems he's starting to get back into the swing of things with some minor stuff.
 

percydaman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
294
Wait. Lemme get this straight. It's insulting and a dick move for them to do a remake with the original cast, but it's not the same when it's done by a new 'all female' cast? Which wasn't done in a vacuum. They specifically chose to do an all women cast ie not have any men. How is that not insulting and a dick move?
 

oROEchimaru

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
4,662
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.

for me it was odd how "clean the set was" maybe nyc is like that now a days but the originals captured a real city. this looked like a real stage set
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,120
for me it was odd how "clean the set was" maybe nyc is like that now a days but the originals captured a real city. this looked like a real stage set
The Robocop remake also suffered from that. One of the cleanest examples of a city in a movie, hardly has any actual crime portrayed in the movie(which is odd since the whole premise was crime being so bad they wanted drones, and there isn't even graffiti anywhere), and the end result was that it just looked fake.
 

gdonovan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
1,817
Wait. Lemme get this straight. It's insulting and a dick move for them to do a remake with the original cast, but it's not the same when it's done by a new 'all female' cast? Which wasn't done in a vacuum. They specifically chose to do an all women cast ie not have any men. How is that not insulting and a dick move?
The funniest thing? Chris Hemsworth was damn hilarious in the movie.

Someone once said women can't do comedy, there is some truth to that. It is a rare woman who can do it, none of them were in GB2016.

Lucille Ball, Carol Burnett, Betty White, Joan Rivers.

None of the 2016 cast are fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the greats listed above.
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,463
Perhaps we'll have a pattern similar to what happened with the Planet of the Apes franchise. The first ones are classics, Tim Burton's sucked, the trilogy (2011,2014,2017) was a big hit.
 

Smashing Young Man

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,568
The Robocop remake also suffered from that. One of the cleanest examples of a city in a movie, hardly has any actual crime portrayed in the movie(which is odd since the whole premise was crime being so bad they wanted drones, and there isn't even graffiti anywhere), and the end result was that it just looked fake.
Robocop ain't Robocrop without guts 'n' grime.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
526
THE ESSSSS JAAAAAY DOUBLE UUUUUUUS ARE WINNING. Some of you are still using gilette razors and shopping at Target and not saying the n/f/b/c words enough.
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,335
I think the reboot failed for multiple reasons. I think one of the biggest was the fact that practically no one wanted a reboot. I know I didn't. I wanted to see a continuation of the originals. Another reason is because the movie moved far away from what the original was. The original movie wasn't made as a comedy but a serious movie with a lot of comedic elements. The banter, conversations and situations they found themselves in were chances to get laughs and tell jokes while still taking the movie and the plot seriously. I didn't see any of that with the reboot.

Here's to hoping that the new movie follows the very successful formula of the first movie.
The biggest reason was that everyone in the reboot was the comic relief, that never works, comedy needs the straight men (women) to function.

GB 2016 tried to do everything in a mad bid to outdo the original, everyone was the comic relief, they turn the action up so much it became a neon rave party. This is endemic to the current wave of virtue signalling, the product is designed to force a certain group to center stage.
 

Kor

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,175
[QUOTE="Aireoth, post: 1044045677, member: 124891]"comedy needs the straight men (women) to function..[/QUOTE]

It's why Winston was probably one of the most important characters in the franchise, he's the audience surrogate that steps in during the second act one things start getting more off the wall.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,066
[QUOTE="Aireoth, post: 1044045677, member: 124891]"comedy needs the straight men (women) to function..
It's why Winston was probably one of the most important characters in the franchise, he's the audience surrogate that steps in during the second act one things start getting more off the wall.[/QUOTE]

He's probably my favorite character from the first movie and I think he had the best part. My only gripe about that was that I wish he'd entered the movie sooner. Originally it was Eddie Murphy who was supposed to have the role and he was supposed to be in it from the beginning. When he wouldn't take the part and they recast it, they changed the character and cut down the screen time. Personally, I think cutting down the screen time was a bad move but I'm glad they re-wrote the character since Eddie Murphy's part wasn't as the straight man and the movie wouldn't have been as good.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,436
I think the reboot failed for multiple reasons. I think one of the biggest was the fact that practically no one wanted a reboot. I know I didn't. I wanted to see a continuation of the originals. Another reason is because the movie moved far away from what the original was. The original movie wasn't made as a comedy but a serious movie with a lot of comedic elements. The banter, conversations and situations they found themselves in were chances to get laughs and tell jokes while still taking the movie and the plot seriously. I didn't see any of that with the reboot.

Here's to hoping that the new movie follows the very successful formula of the first movie.
Reboots aren't made because people want it, there isn't much demand for reboots. The problem here is not the fact that it was rebooted, but how it was rebooted: Badly. If a reboot turns out good people like it regardless of not wanting it beforehand.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,058
As I see it it's no more a dick move for the original cast (RIP Egon) to take back their franchise, than it was for the all female cast to steal it in 2016 to begin with.

The 2016 remake wasn't a terrible film. I mean, it was nowhere as good as the originals, but it was OK for an hour and a half of entertainment. In 2051 when the 2016 film is 35 years old, my guess is it will be all but forgotten, but we are still talking about the original 1984 film 35 years after its release today for a reason.

I wonder when Hollywood will learn their lesson and stop changing films with a cult following. They tried to blame the hate of the 2016 film on misogyny, when in reality fans just don't like seeing their favorite things messed with.

Writers, directors and artists need to stop seeing remakes of old cult favorites as an opportunity to "make the franchise their own". They need to color inside the damned lines and stay true to the originals and not change anything. Star Trek, Star Wars, Ghostbusters, you name it. When you mess with something old that people like, what they are doing is essentially what these idiots did when "restoring" these paintings:

View attachment 136397

View attachment 136316

Stop messing with old shit, and COLOR INSIDE THE DAMNED LINES!
I will agree with you on the reboots. I mean its getting old fast...next year they will probably reboot Lord of the Rings. Its just a way to sell us more shit without having to put any real effort in.

On the other hand I will disagree with you on the 2016 film. I purposefully ignored the press/reviews so I wouldnt be "tainted" when I saw it (got it on Netflix). When I finally started watching it...I nearly turned it off. It was utter garbage. They basically took all the old cast and tried to recast them as women (with a gender flip on the "secretary" position) and made a crap ton of really stupid jokes (worse than the lame jokes Murray makes). The whole gender flip on the secretary thing was just stupid - especially when they made him out to be a bumbling retard and just hired him for his looks. Frankly it was an insult to Annie Potts who was definitely not a bimbo.

If they wanted to have an all female lead cast on GB they shouldnt have tried to take the roles and just put women in them and made them act like men. My wife (who didnt see the originals until after this remake) said this "why are these women pretending to be men?"
 

gdonovan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
1,817
Reboots aren't made because people want it, there isn't much demand for reboots. The problem here is not the fact that it was rebooted, but how it was rebooted: Badly. If a reboot turns out good people like it regardless of not wanting it beforehand.
The idea behind a reboot is it is less risky than launching a new property, there is a built in fan base already.

There have been reboots that are different and sit along side the originals fairly well. The first 2-3 seasons of Battlestar Galactica come to mind. The 2008 Star Trek movie was entertaining as hell despite some grievous plot holes and weak writing.

Of course the other side of the coin is if you muck it up you have pissed off the fanbase, see Ghostbusters 2016 and Star Wars. Solo while not a great movie was a fairly innocuous popcorn flick which the fans brutally punished due to Disney's cockup The Last Jedi. Solo was the first Star Wars movie to lose money. Star Wars toy sales are massively down. Disney has since backed the clown car up, dropped almost all of its Star Wars projects and is trying to keep a low profile while hoping JJ Abrams pulls a rabbit out of his hat on the next movie.

The new teaser trailer for Ghostbusters has the GB fan base.. electrified. The tone is perfect. Sony has a rare opportunity to salvage the GB2016 trainwreck. They had big plans for a Ghostbusters connected universe with GB franchises in various cities (Ghost Corps) animated shows, new toys etc.

GB2016 might have sank that and took 70+ million of Sony's cash with it. Jones should shut her pie hole and try to avoid reminding people she was associated, indeed had a part in the fiasco in any shape, manner or form.
 

TheCommander

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
2,999
Ghostbusters 2016 was really bad- fart \ poop jokes, non-stop pointless talking, boring plot, etc... The male characters are all idiots as well. Typical dumb feminist movie. Hopefully the 2020 version is good but I don't have high hopes for any Hollywood movies these days.
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,335
It's why Winston was probably one of the most important characters in the franchise, he's the audience surrogate that steps in during the second act one things start getting more off the wall.

He's probably my favorite character from the first movie and I think he had the best part. My only gripe about that was that I wish he'd entered the movie sooner. Originally it was Eddie Murphy who was supposed to have the role and he was supposed to be in it from the beginning. When he wouldn't take the part and they recast it, they changed the character and cut down the screen time. Personally, I think cutting down the screen time was a bad move but I'm glad they re-wrote the character since Eddie Murphy's part wasn't as the straight man and the movie wouldn't have been as good.
Egon and Ray are generally straight men. The difference between them and Winston is they are true believers, where as Winston is the common man. Overall, Ghostbusters was just about the perfect comedic formula for cast archetypes.

Venkman is the comedic relief, and in the 2016 ghost busters every character was some kind of Venkman.
 

raz-0

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Messages
4,626
[QUOTE="Aireoth, post: 1044045677, member: 124891]"comedy needs the straight men (women) to function..
It's why Winston was probably one of the most important characters in the franchise, he's the audience surrogate that steps in during the second act one things start getting more off the wall.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you on that. Winston Was the "everyman" in the cast.

Which is something I find odd about the 2016 remake. the 1984 movie had a black man stand in for the audience as the everyman. The 2016 remake with modern sensiblities cast a black woman and half her jokes were just barely... barely short of having her bug out her eyes and start howling "feets dont fails me now!". So more or less pretending to be modern an enlightened, but really coming off as a bit more racist. At least to me.
 
D

Deleted member 126051

Guest
I'm just gonna ignore Leslie "Watch me do a stupid racial stereotype!" Jones.

The new movie is going to be set in the original continuity.
The Feig movie went out of it's way to create an alternate continuity.
So yeah, of course we aren't going to see them back in those roles!
Also, as to her comments on "sexism"?
Where has it been said WHAT the gender of the newcomers will be?
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,335
Which is something I find odd about the 2016 remake. the 1984 movie had a black man stand in for the audience as the everyman. The 2016 remake with modern sensiblities cast a black woman and half her jokes were just barely... barely short of having her bug out her eyes and start howling "feets dont fails me now!". So more or less pretending to be modern an enlightened, but really coming off as a bit more racist. At least to me.
Quote function seems busted.

What you find odd is because she is written like Venkman and acting like Leslie (imho).

Edit: You are right, modern sensibilities are dragging everyone backwards, Women need special protections to get jobs (Their own Ghostbusters movie as an example), merit comes second if it factors in at all.
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,536
Ghostbusters 2016 was really bad- fart \ poop jokes, non-stop pointless talking, boring plot, etc... The male characters are all idiots as well. Typical dumb feminist movie. Hopefully the 2020 version is good but I don't have high hopes for any Hollywood movies these days.
Plus the cameos were terrible. If only they somehow reprided their roles...
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
I think it is about time to get moving on a live action reboot of the filmation version.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,477
Leslie Jones should be more upset that she participated in a blatant attempt to make a movie that was all about female empowerment over males. That movie set the tone for what she is now upset about. What was the real point of taking an extremely popular movie franchise with a mostly all male leading cast and turning it into an all female leading cast? It flopped because it wasn't like the originals and the females in the cast dropped the ball as well. She only has herself to blame in participating in all this. The only reason the "males are better than females" narrative comes up is because of the BS all female remake. Much like Oceans 8, at least Oceans 8 had a slightly more compelling backstory for it.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,058
Plus the cameos were terrible. If only they somehow reprided their roles...
When I saw murray I expected him to reprise his original role and pass on the torch...not the bullshit they did. I mean it wouldve been fine to kill him but not with the idiocy that they did it with.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
4,995
When I saw murray I expected him to reprise his original role and pass on the torch...not the bullshit they did. I mean it wouldve been fine to kill him but not with the idiocy that they did it with.

The only reason Murray even appeared was Sony were considering pursuing litigation against him due to his "meh" attitude about being in a sequel. There was a series of leaked emails of all the behind the scenes stuff that went on and that was part of it.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,058
The only reason Murray even appeared was Sony were considering pursuing litigation against him due to his "meh" attitude about being in a sequel. There was a series of leaked emails of all the behind the scenes stuff that went on and that was part of it.
Thats fine but that doesnt preclude a better script.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
4,995
Thats fine but that doesnt preclude a better script.

Indeed but it shows how frustrated they seemingly were with him, supposedly script after script he rejected til Ramis died then he got dragged into that 2016 pile of shit.
 

Paladin21

Gawd
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
529
....so you make a movie that ignores the original movie, and that's great. But you make a continuation of the original movies which ignores the newer movie and that's somehow a "dick move." I'd say it's far worse to paint over the top of the franchise name you're stealing, but that's just me.
 
Top