Ghostbusters — OFFICIAL THREAD

[EricJ]

Gremlins...count me in as a bigger fan of the second film too. Just like Batman Returns, it's one of those times when a director didn't really want to make the film but got control and just ran wild.

Ted Turner jokes are STILL funnier to those who remember what they were about.
And the running joke of Phoebe Cates saying "I remember Lincoln's Birthday..." made it clear that nobody in the audience missed young Chris Columbus on the script again. It was so rewarding to hear cathartic revenge coming from its own director.

But again, "Small Soldiers" was the dividing point at which we pretty much officially gave up on Dante as too goofy and and disorganized to handle his own neato-geek urges in the manner in which they deserved. (Looney Tunes:BIA has already been discussed, and we'll save "Explorers" for another time.)
The fact that the title characters were marketed to kids and then played as disturbing villains in the movie confused the audience, and the whole Phil Hartman subplot was distracting when weren't in on the real-life joke, and creepy to watch when we did know.

[Foxtale]

The new ghost buster in 3D? Interesting. I haven't been keeping up on it but do they plan on using the original cast and having it be a continuation of the story, or something completely different (or is there no news yet?)?

[Ben]

Basically, as mentioned above a few times, everyone is back. The rumor is that Bill Murray is killed somehow and becomes a ghost himself. The expectation is that it will be a continuation with the old cast that also sets up some new blood to continue the series if it is a success.

[GeorgeC]

3-D =>

Same crummy stuff as before, same unnecessary expense and gimmick trickery that won't bring more people to the movies or sell more TV sets come later this year.

At least the new 3-D sets might push prices of the older HD models lower.

(I know I'd appreciate that!)

As for making films better... When has newer technology ever made films better? It's a nice diversion from bad scripts, storytelling, and acting, but that's all it is. Don't mistake it for art... Eespecially a process that still requires you to wear dumb glasses that break and get scratched -- not to mention all the people who still get headaches from 3-D?

If people think Blu ray is selling bad -- and it really isn't -- wait until they see how 3-D DOESN'T take off at home. Until holography gets practical and you don't have to wear stupid glasses, I don't think 3-D is going to stick no matter how the tech and media companies try to sell this. It's NOT needed, period... (AND FYI, I hate how the media and magazines like Wired tell you that you have to buy a product to enjoy life. Who sez???) it's also not any better than it has been since it was introduced in the early 1950s! The only difference is the digital aspect otherwise it's the same plane technology (think a bad version of multiplane technology with characters that pop out like bubbles) that drives a lot of people nuts. Good gimmick for amusement parks, not so great for home video.


Avatar and its success aside -- which I don't think is a very good movie or a model to follow in all honesty --, I seriously hope the infatuation with 3-D ends soon. Goodness knows the studios seem to love to throw good money after bad! 3-D's just being used to push the digital conversion faster and resuscitate old film series and push out older films onto screens again. Can we just get traditional re-releases of GOOD films without raising ticket prices again, guys?

*************

Passing on GB3 and the new Gremlins if it ever gets made. Star Trek was the pleasant surprise of last year all ship design issues aside...

[Ben]

I'm kind of the opinion that the movies houses should be where the 3D is at. They should offer films in three dimensions and offer them flat as well, in service to those that just want to watch a film without added complications of the specs or headaches.

Home video, although it will adopt the process JUST to sell us copies of the same films again, should remain flat, since HD already brings a good deal of depth to an image, and it you would have thought it would be nice to retain SOME kind of specialness about the communal theatrical experience. With screens getting bigger in the home, and 3D coming, what's the point of going out to see a movie again?

[Foxtale]

Basically, as mentioned above a few times, everyone is back. The rumor is that Bill Murray is killed somehow and becomes a ghost himself. The expectation is that it will be a continuation with the old cast that also sets up some new blood to continue the series if it is a success.

Sorry I must have skimmed over the plot multiple times.

From the sounds of it, it's like what they were trying to do something similar to the new Indiana Jones movie.

I'm afraid the "new blood" will be made more prominent and try to steal the show. >.< Still, if it has the original cast as well (no matter how old they are) I will definately see it.

[GeorgeC]

I'm kind of the opinion that the movies houses should be where the 3D is at. They should offer films in three dimensions and offer them flat as well, in service to those that just want to watch a film without added complications of the specs or headaches.

Home video, although it will adopt the process JUST to sell us copies of the same films again, should remain flat, since HD already brings a good deal of depth to an image, and it you would have thought it would be nice to retain SOME kind of specialness about the communal theatrical experience. With screens getting bigger in the home, and 3D coming, what's the point of going out to see a movie again?

To some point, I agree with this.

However, 3-D doesn't begin to address the problem with content and is once again another special effect that really isn't that special (see the problems a lot of us have with CG) and obfuscates the issue of the quality of entertainment we get for our money.

I'd just rather that I got value for my dollars instead of more gimmicks.

I already feel that at least 95% of the theatrical films out there are not for me. That percentage is somewhat better (ie, more available for me) on home video as opposed to going to theater. Granted, I WILL pay more to own something on home video but funny thing is I don't feel the rip-off that I do paying nearly half that amount to go to the theater.

I'm not someone who's crazy about 3-D or Imax. I just have not seen the so-called "improvements" in any movie with those processes built-in.

There have to be newer things done and newer topics/characters/situations explored instead of recycling old TV shows and classic movies all the time. That's self-cannabilization -- eating your own foot (to survive) can get overweighed by both blood loss and loss of movement... Better to search out new food than resort to drastic limb amputation!

This is why a lot of people my age are sick of "new" movies; there are only so many teenagers and overly supportive film critics (who have been bought or seem to have no standards of judgment) out there.

[eddievalient]

I already feel that at least 95% of the theatrical films out there are not for me. That percentage is somewhat better (ie, more available for me) on home video as opposed to going to theater.

I don't have that problem. Going to a movie theater is one of my favorite things to do and I try to go at least once a month (more often if there's a lot of good movies out, especially during the summer). in the next couple of months there's The Wolfman, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, Clash of the Titans and Kick Ass, all of which I'm excited to see. If you open your mind, you can almost always find something worth seeing on the big screen.

[OriginalGagBonkers]

I thought they had given up on doing a 3rd ghostbusters film, but I guess I was wrong. Now I think this wouldve been better if it was done in the 90's because it was at the right time, but now I think its a bit too late for it. And I hear that a new story of GB3 is in planning stages, I personally dont want it to be like indy 4. {A reboot of something that we like, but doesn't "feel" like the film we know and like.

I think that Ghostbusters Hellbent story made it into the video game...

[Ben]

NONE of these belated films feel like the threequels or fourquels they should have been. I'm actually trying to rack my brain and come up with a belated follow-up that has actually remained true to the original series' that "inspired" them...and can't come up with a title!

I have strangely good hopes for Tron, since it seems it's being made for different reasons (even if money is the underlying one) and by a unique team that want to succeed in bringing something new to the Tron universe while making use of the time that has passed between each movie.

But the problem seems to be when they make a new Die Hard/Indy/Superman etc and try and match them up with what came before, as if nary a week has gone past since they made those movies. They can say what they like about age and work in "old man" lines into the script, but really those movies should stay what they were and the new ones be something else.

[eddievalient]

Well, to be fair, the newest Indy Jones seemed to be setting up Mutt as a new character to continue the series. Let's hope they do just that.

[Ben]

Er...okay...

[GeorgeC]

Well, to be fair, the newest Indy Jones seemed to be setting up Mutt as a new character to continue the series. Let's hope they do just that.

Ben's too nice to say this...

BUT, to quote Luke after learning Vader was his father --

"NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

[Ben]

Dan Aykroyd confirms the "next generation" script and says it may shoot with or without Bill Murray:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... lls-228014

[gaastra]

The orginal ghostbusters returns to the big-screen world wide for halloween!

It's been 25 years folks!

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/ghostbu ... -halloween