🐱 People are mad about ‘Ghostbusters’ again

https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/new-ghostbusters-sequel-backlash/

Director Jason Reitman revealed on Tuesday that he was called to direct and co-write an upcoming new Ghostbusters movie that follows the original 1984 film directed by his own father, Ivan Reitman, Entertainment Weekly reports. “Finally got the keys to the car,” Jason tweeted.

But before you can say “who ya gonna call?” the backlash percolated online.

In a few months, Sony Pictures plans to begin shooting the film slated for a summer 2020 release, with the older Reitman as producer this time.

“This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ‘80s happened in the ‘80s, and this is set in the present day,” Jason told EW. “We have a lot of wonderful surprises and new characters for the audience to meet,” he continued.

It’s too early to tell who’s part of the cast, who will be the new characters, and what the plot will be about. However, it’s also highly unlikely the original actors like Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson will star.

Meanwhile, Jason has reportedly “begun testing teenagers for four mystery roles,” according to sources, says Variety. Sources cited by the Hollywood Reporter even went so far as to say he’s looking to cast two boys and two girls. The project was supposedly so covert, the studio even used fake title “Rust City” to “keep the news under wraps until plans were ready to be unveiled,” Varietyadds.

One thing’s for sure, according to EW: It won’t be related to Sony Pictures’ 2016 all-female Ghostbusters reboot directed by Paul Feig, and which starred Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Kristen Wiig, and Melissa McCarthy.

Even with very little information about the new installment in the famous franchise, already, Tuesday’s announcement of a Ghostbusters “sequel” did not sit well with users on Twitter for different reasons.

For starters, a lot of people are disappointed the all-female reboot is not slated for a sequel.

What upsets some is how it appears that Ghostbusters’ producers are pandering to people (read: sexist males and other haters) who didn’t want the all-female reboot in the first place, and who will then consider this “winning”:

As to be expected, a lot are calling this reboot unnecessary, and even self-proclaimed fans of the entire Ghostbustersfranchise are among them. As @gracerandolph tweets, “So what if it’s in the same ‘universe’?! If new #Ghostbusters doesn’t star #BillMurray #DanAkroyd #ErnieHudson #SigourneyWeaver … nobody cares.”
The only apparent good news this time around: At least the backlash to the latest installment isn’t as sexist.

As a Ghostbusters fan since childhood, I’ll leave this here: “The Ghostbusters universe is big enough to hold a lot of different stories,” Reitman told EW. I daresay truly devoted fans will watch any iteration of this classic.

 

[Count groudon]

People seriously want a sequel to that dumpster fire? Taking out all of the sexism and political bullshit, what more does that movie have to offer? You have to be brain damaged or mentally handicapped to want more of the 2016 reboot. It's a cinematic disaster that should be mocked by everyone.

I'm not even particularly excited for yet another Ghostbusters movie, but if they can somehow make it as good as the original, then I don't mind. The strange thing about this announcement is that it's only been around 3 years since the 2016 reboot released. Was there a huge demand for more Ghostbusters? Why are people so complacent with rehashing the same intellectual property over and over and over again? How many Godzilla and King Kong movies can people handle before realizing that these movies have been recreated for nearly half a century?

They can say it's not a reboot all they want, but the bottom line is that it's deriving from extant source material. You'd think that entertainment would strive for creativity and innovation, but it's obvious that movies nowadays are blatant cash grabs. Don't even get me started on the oversaturation of superhero movies.



This quote really stuck out to me. I'm sure that there's plenty of new stories you can tell within the universe that are interesting. However, why not take a risk and think of something new? Just because you can make more stories in the Ghostbusters universe doesn't mean that you should depend on the source material for new ideas. Only make a story if you feel like it deserves to be told.

Look at Star Wars. You can create an infinite amount of stories in that universe, but that doesn't mean that these stories will be good. The Last Jedi is proof of that. Why do movies insist on spelling out everything to the audience and leaving little room for interpretation? Let the audience enjoy the universe and exercise their imagination.

The original Ghostbusters was enough for me, and I'm disappointed to see such a stagnate environment in American entertainment.

Actually yeah, now that the 80’s have made something of a comeback a lot of the old classics from that decade are starting to come back into the limelight. As atrocious as the 2016 ghostbusters was, it actually did revive the brand and the merch they made for the old series as a sort of tribute sold very well and thanks to the encouragement of nostalgic parents the originals have become pretty popular with kids. I’m not gonna say I’m excited about the new movie because they’ve said that their doubtful that they could get the old cast together and instead are planning to hire teenaged actors, but it’s something I’m gonna be looking out for. With the state it’s in, this new movie is either gonna be the thing that buries the franchise for good, or totally saves it.

 

[PoisonedBun]

I think eventually people will burn out on seeing their favorite franchises/recognizable names being ruined, considering the first Ghostbusters underperformed already and consumer trust has been broken with general movie going audiences. The pendelum will swing back around eventually as they run out of beloved properties to destroy, I think.

 

[ColorfulCassowary]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...tar-wars-halloween-jurassic-world-box-office/

View attachment 641878

Jason Reitman, son of Ivan Reitman, will be directing and co-writing yet another Ghostbusters movie (and there's already an announcement teaser). Unlike the Paul Feig-directed reboot from 2016 (which ignited a firestorm of online controversy for... uh... starring four women as Ghostbusters), this will be set in the same world as the first two Ghostbusters movies, essentially acting as a long-threatened Ghostbusters 3. The goal is to shoot the as-of-yet-uncasted movie this summer and make it Sony's big summer 2020 offering. Little is known about the film's plot (or who among the original cast will return), but an educated guess would presume another legacy sequel which combines new, young heroes with the original cast acting as mentors or elder statesmen. So, yeah, Ghostbusters is going the route of Creed ($173 million on a $35m budget), The Force Awakens ($2 billion worldwide) and Halloween ($250m/$10m).

To say that I have mixed feelings about this is an understatement. On one hand, you're rewarding a white male director whose last five movies bombed (and of those, only the two starring Charlize Theron and penned by Diablo Cody received positive reviews) the keys to a hugely valuable franchise mostly because he's the son of the guy who directed those first two Ghostbusters movies. And yes, unintentional or not, you're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all-female sci-fi comedy. And yet, we have only ourselves to blame. Studios aren't charities and they tend to want movies that attract moviegoers and make money.

Reitman's previous five movies (Young Adult, Labor Day, Men, Women and Children, Tully and The Front Runner) bombed at least partially because the folks who complain that Hollywood doesn't make original or non-IP movies for adults didn't see those in theaters in the first place. When you ignore (deep breath) Money Monster, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, Life, Only the Brave, Roman Israel, Esq. and All the Money in the World and only flock to Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle ($962 million) and Venom ($855m), well, here you go. When you don't show up for Tomorrowland ($209m on a $190m budget) and Queen of Katwe, you can't blame Walt Disney for overdosing on nostalgia-driven IP fare. As much as I might roll my eyes at the concept, a legacy sequel to Ghostbusters makes sense in 2019.

The old-school reboot is essentially dead. Most of them didn't really spawn successful franchises. Even Star Trek, Amazing Spider-Man and Man of Steel were... at best, short-lived successes. Moreover, the new-wave legacy sequel has mostly been financial (and critical) gold. The likes of Jurassic World ($1.6 billion), Creed ($173 million), Mad Max: Fury Road ($370m), Halloween ($250m) and The Force Awakens ($2b) have earned mostly positive reviews, general fan approval and relatively successful box office results. Sure, there's also failed revamps like Independence Day: Resurgence and Terminator Gensisys, but the full-on reboot route has yielded far more failures along the lines of Robin Hood, Robocop, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Total Recall. Kids don't care that a reboot is newbie-friendly while their parents want to see new movies set in the old continuity.

Considering how many right choices, in terms of casting, concept and execution, that Sony made with Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, and considering how halfway decent Men in Black International looks, it stands to reason that Sony is at least going to try to fashion a movie that doesn't entirely depend on moviegoers caring about Ghostbusters as an IP. Jumanji 2 ($404 million domestic/$962m worldwide) had a fun cast (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Kevin Hart and Jack Black), a strong hook (four kids get zapped into a video game and get turned into exaggerated video game avatars) and worked as its own stand-alone adventure comedy. It was also a straight sequel so folks weren't obsessing over whether it lived up to the 1995 Robin Williams movie.

Jason Reitman and co-writer Gil Kenan (Monster House) will have to look at the IP not as a crutch but as an obstacle to overcome. If they can offer a splashy cast (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), at least some of the main cast returning to play (The Force Awakens) and an interesting hook (Jurassic World) that sounds interesting even to folks who don't necessarily need a Ghostbusters 3, then Sony might have an easy lay-up on their hands. That's also assuming that they don't repeat Paul Feig's mistake of spending $144 million on a reboot with little overseas value and (as it turned out) no playdate in China (Sony was unable to get around China's issues with movies featuring the paranormal), but I'm presuming that this will cost closer to Venom, Pixels and Jumanji ($90m-$110m) than Independence Day: Resurgence.

Yes, if Bill Murray doesn't return, we could end up with another Independence Day: Resurgence situation (where everyone came back except the big star), but that's where the budget comes in. Independence Day: Resurgence made $370 million worldwide, which was terrible for a $165m-budgeted sequel to a movie that earned $821m back in 1996, but would have been just fine for a $90m sci-fi comedy. Say what you will about the Melissa McCarthy/Kristen Wiig/Leslie Jones/Kate McKinnon reboot (and I think the extended cut is about as good as the 1984 original and certainly better than the merely-okay Ghostbusters II), but the film's $126m domestic/$229m worldwide cume would have been okay and sequel-worthy on a frugal $90m budget. Don't make the Star Trek mistake of requiring MCU-worthy results.

The notion of Jason Reitman following up five straight adult-skewing flops with a sequel to his dad's classic 1980s comedy is every bit as "failing upward" cynical as it sounds. And the idea of giving the most disrespectful Ghostbusters fanboys, like the ones who temporarily drove Leslie Jones off of Twitter, even a little of what they want is (unintentionally?) odious. But Sony is making a smart play, especially if they keep the budget in check. A legacy sequel/passing-the-torch installment to Ghostbusters has the potential to break out like (relatively speaking) Jurassic World, Creed, The Force Awakens and Halloween. And Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (as well as, presumably, Men in Black International) shows that Sony may know how to juice their old IP in a way that appeals to the agnostic.

Jason Reitman's Ghostbusters 3 (or whatever it ends up being called) will aim for a summer 2020 release date. I hate that this is happening. I hate that the misogynistic Ghostbusters trolls (and if that's not you, then this isn't about you) are getting what they want. I hate that audiences are punishing Hollywood for still trying to release movies like Only the Brave and Tully even as they complain that Hollywood is nothing but sequels and reboots. But I won't pretend that Reitman isn't a talented filmmaker who makes more good movies than bad ones and that Sony hasn't shown an understanding of how to revive a property like this in the recent past. It worked with Halloween, it worked with Star Wars, and it may work with Ghostbusters.

He actually did a decent job keeping his salt together, all things considered, tho he did throw in a few passive aggressive jabs. He completely fell apart at the end tho.

 

[Francis E. Dec Esc.]

Bill Murray only appeared in the original Ghostbusters as a favor to Columbia and Dan Akroyd for getting his remake of The Razor's Edge made, which flopped at the box office.

 

[Poiseon]

Here's the thing: Nobody liked the ghostbusters reboot. It was like daily show comedy. People acted like they liked it to pwn the sexists, or liked it because their ideology demanded it.

In reality, it was... just a boring typical hollywood no substance movie, with a few funny parts but mostly forgettable. Of course they're not going to make a sequel to that.

My sole enjoyment from the 2016 Ghostbusters is remembering how the fat chick throat punched the faggot in Identity Thief. Make of that what you will.

 

[CatParty]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...tbusters-3-ignoring-all-female-reboot-1177318


'Ghostbusters': Why Ignore the All-Female Reboot?

Less than three years after Sony's Ghostbusters reboot battled online trolls and fizzled at the box office, Tuesday's news that the property is coming back quickly sparked conversations among fans about nostalgia, toxic fandom and legacy.
Jason Reitman, son of original Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman, will helm a continuation of the series that ignores Paul Feig's female-led reboot, which starred Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon. The new film, sources say, will focus on four teens — two boys and two girls — and continue the story of 1984's Ghostbusters and the 1989 sequel.
Ignoring the 2016 film is a missed opportunity, Hannah Woodhead argues in a piece she wrote for the London-based film magazine Little White Lies titled "An Open Letter to Jason Reitman." She writes that while 2016'sGhostbusters wasn't an original idea, the all-female team pushed the franchise forward in an important way that may be lost in the new version.
“I think we suffer from this collective sense of nostalgia in film, where we're always looking to the past rather than the future,” she tells The Hollywood Reporter. “The past is safe. The past is easy.”
1984's Ghostbusters is widely considered a classic, and while the 1989 follow-up was less well-received, it does have its fans. Decades later, Feig's all-female 2016 Ghostbustersreceived a fresh 74 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, higher than Ghostbusters II. In addition to misogynistic trolling online, Jones faced racist attacks that caused her to leave Twitter for a period of time.
"I think it's a really entertaining movie that was doomed simply because it wasn't the film a certain very loud percentage of the audience wanted,” says Drew McWeeny, co-creator of the 80s All Over podcast and longtime film critic.
McWeeny understands criticisms of Reitman taking the reins for the new installment, but believes he is well-suited for the director's chair.
“While I get why some people might be annoyed, I met Jason Reitman for the first time in 1990, when he was still ‘just Ivan's kid,’ and at that point, he was movie-crazy and also knew his dad's work intimately," says McWeeny. "It makes sense that he'd want to do that, and I suspect he'll do a good job with it.”
Cracked contributor Chris Sutcliffe was a fan of Feig’s film and grew up with Ghostbusters. He's more concerned about the direction of the new film under Reitman.
“What frustrates me about this new film, and I'm very aware that we've had very little news, is how keen they are to distance themselves from the 2016 film," says Sutcliffe. "Not only will it feel like a victory to all the wrong people, but it just feels like a creative step backwards.”
After the announcement, Sutcliffe took to Twitter to pose that this new Ghostbusters is missing an opportunity to converge universes a la Sony's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, which combined multiple spider-people into one story.
“[Spider-Verse] tells a new story with a diverse cast while still acknowledging the past,” Sutcliffe says. “You could easily take the ball from Feig's story to explore generation gaps, or fatherhood, or the cyclical nature of disasters. You could have four of the funniest actresses right now working with the retired originals. There are a hundred stories you could tell that wouldn't send the message to the little girls that liked the 2016 version that they've had their turn.”
Sutcliffe does acknowledge the possibilities of the new film, which as of yet does not have original stars such as Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd confirmed to return, though it's a possibility.
“There is every chance that we're going to still get a great film,” says Sutcliffe. “Maybe it will further open up the franchise. Maybe they've been lying and I'll get the big crossover event all along.”
McWeeny is hopeful the new film is not actually writing off the 2016 reboot. He wonders if there’s a possibility that something larger is going on that could involve the leading ladies of Feig's film. “The first thing I heard when they set up shop to get this go-round of ghostbustin' off the ground, before Feig came onboard even, was that they had a master plan.”
He cites the comic book runs of Ghostbusters at IDW Publishing and how those “lean heavily on the idea that all of the Ghostbusters iterations are pocket universes, something that they came up with before Spider-Verse hit theaters.”
As Woodhead points out, an animated Ghostbusters movie Sony is developing separately could be that franchise's answer to Spider-Verse.
The trolling the Ghostbusters reboot film encountered continued something seen before, such as when actor John Boyega was the target of racist comments following the Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer in 2014. And it would be seen again when Star Wars: The Last Jedi's Kelly Marie Tran felt forced to leave social media.
Woodhead thinks that the new Stars Wars films prove that movies like Ghostbusters can succeed, as long as they manage to blend nostalgia and newness in a smart way. And without acknowledging the 2016 movie, you're ignoring some of that nostalgia.
“The reason the new Star Wars films have worked is because they retained the spirit of the original films while really pushing forward, and found the right cast for the job,” Woodhead says. “Even then, we see the same misogyny and racism directed at the cast of those films as we saw directed at Feig's Ghostbusters. There's an element of gatekeeperism where fans of the original want things to be how they were in the good old days, which ties into this nostalgia, but it's 2019, and we're too far gone to make the same films over and over.”
Reitman's new Ghostbusters movie is expected for summer 2020.

 

[Clem Fandango]

>Why Ignore the All-Female Reboot?

Because it fucking sucked

 

[Pargon]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...tbusters-3-ignoring-all-female-reboot-1177318


'Ghostbusters': Why Ignore the All-Female Reboot?

Less than three years after Sony's Ghostbusters reboot battled online trolls and fizzled at the box office, Tuesday's news that the property is coming back quickly sparked conversations among fans about nostalgia, toxic fandom and legacy.
Jason Reitman, son of original Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman, will helm a continuation of the series that ignores Paul Feig's female-led reboot, which starred Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon. The new film, sources say, will focus on four teens — two boys and two girls — and continue the story of 1984's Ghostbusters and the 1989 sequel.
Ignoring the 2016 film is a missed opportunity, Hannah Woodhead argues in a piece she wrote for the London-based film magazine Little White Lies titled "An Open Letter to Jason Reitman." She writes that while 2016'sGhostbusters wasn't an original idea, the all-female team pushed the franchise forward in an important way that may be lost in the new version.
“I think we suffer from this collective sense of nostalgia in film, where we're always looking to the past rather than the future,” she tells The Hollywood Reporter. “The past is safe. The past is easy.”
1984's Ghostbusters is widely considered a classic, and while the 1989 follow-up was less well-received, it does have its fans. Decades later, Feig's all-female 2016 Ghostbustersreceived a fresh 74 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, higher than Ghostbusters II. In addition to misogynistic trolling online, Jones faced racist attacks that caused her to leave Twitter for a period of time.
"I think it's a really entertaining movie that was doomed simply because it wasn't the film a certain very loud percentage of the audience wanted,” says Drew McWeeny, co-creator of the 80s All Over podcast and longtime film critic.
McWeeny understands criticisms of Reitman taking the reins for the new installment, but believes he is well-suited for the director's chair.
“While I get why some people might be annoyed, I met Jason Reitman for the first time in 1990, when he was still ‘just Ivan's kid,’ and at that point, he was movie-crazy and also knew his dad's work intimately," says McWeeny. "It makes sense that he'd want to do that, and I suspect he'll do a good job with it.”
Cracked contributor Chris Sutcliffe was a fan of Feig’s film and grew up with Ghostbusters. He's more concerned about the direction of the new film under Reitman.
“What frustrates me about this new film, and I'm very aware that we've had very little news, is how keen they are to distance themselves from the 2016 film," says Sutcliffe. "Not only will it feel like a victory to all the wrong people, but it just feels like a creative step backwards.”
After the announcement, Sutcliffe took to Twitter to pose that this new Ghostbusters is missing an opportunity to converge universes a la Sony's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, which combined multiple spider-people into one story.
“[Spider-Verse] tells a new story with a diverse cast while still acknowledging the past,” Sutcliffe says. “You could easily take the ball from Feig's story to explore generation gaps, or fatherhood, or the cyclical nature of disasters. You could have four of the funniest actresses right now working with the retired originals. There are a hundred stories you could tell that wouldn't send the message to the little girls that liked the 2016 version that they've had their turn.”
Sutcliffe does acknowledge the possibilities of the new film, which as of yet does not have original stars such as Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd confirmed to return, though it's a possibility.
“There is every chance that we're going to still get a great film,” says Sutcliffe. “Maybe it will further open up the franchise. Maybe they've been lying and I'll get the big crossover event all along.”
McWeeny is hopeful the new film is not actually writing off the 2016 reboot. He wonders if there’s a possibility that something larger is going on that could involve the leading ladies of Feig's film. “The first thing I heard when they set up shop to get this go-round of ghostbustin' off the ground, before Feig came onboard even, was that they had a master plan.”
He cites the comic book runs of Ghostbusters at IDW Publishing and how those “lean heavily on the idea that all of the Ghostbusters iterations are pocket universes, something that they came up with before Spider-Verse hit theaters.”
As Woodhead points out, an animated Ghostbusters movie Sony is developing separately could be that franchise's answer to Spider-Verse.
The trolling the Ghostbusters reboot film encountered continued something seen before, such as when actor John Boyega was the target of racist comments following the Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer in 2014. And it would be seen again when Star Wars: The Last Jedi's Kelly Marie Tran felt forced to leave social media.
Woodhead thinks that the new Stars Wars films prove that movies like Ghostbusters can succeed, as long as they manage to blend nostalgia and newness in a smart way. And without acknowledging the 2016 movie, you're ignoring some of that nostalgia.
“The reason the new Star Wars films have worked is because they retained the spirit of the original films while really pushing forward, and found the right cast for the job,” Woodhead says. “Even then, we see the same misogyny and racism directed at the cast of those films as we saw directed at Feig's Ghostbusters. There's an element of gatekeeperism where fans of the original want things to be how they were in the good old days, which ties into this nostalgia, but it's 2019, and we're too far gone to make the same films over and over.”
Reitman's new Ghostbusters movie is expected for summer 2020.

I like it when puff articles answer their own insipid questions before the first sentence is done.

>WHY IGNORE???
>"fizzled at the box office"

Fun toys are fun.

 

[Gar For Archer]

It’s funny they use new Star Wars as an example of a success when Disney is backpedaling in their “movie a year” deal due to lackluster reception to the last two films, with a big drop in merch sales.
https://cosmicbook.news/star-wars-marvel-sales-drop-disney

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

It's like they decided movies as entertainment in 2 hour capsules was the "old" way to do it, the 21st Century modern way was movies-as-subscriptions to certain fan demographics. You picked a franchise and stayed with it for 'new' material every x months.....

I can't be the only one who's noticed this, but there seems to be an increasing convergence between film and television as we move further and further into the age of online streaming. As television shows are becoming increasingly cinematic: with better cinematography, special effects, and wider aspect ratios; movies are becoming increasingly televisual: with the old 3-act structure and standalone viewing experience slowly giving way to the episodic format endemic to the soap opera.

That's all most of these big franchises are in my opinion: expensive soap operas. None of the films exist on their own merits, they exist merely as one episode of a larger franchise.

 

[Dysnomia]

Bill Murray only appeared in the original Ghostbusters as a favor to Columbia and Dan Akroyd for getting his remake of The Razor's Edge made, which flopped at the box office.

I found a 40s edition of that book in the closet along with a bunch of other 40s novels. I want to read it.

Anyway, the article says they are casting four teens. This will not appeal to old school fans if the teens are the stars. I'm hoping this isn't a summer teen flick meant for the same crowd that watches Disney trash. Trying to appeal solely to a new audience (despite claims) sure worked out for 2016 Ghostbusters.

And also sucked.

Trying to make Ghostbusters sequels was always trying to catch lightning in a bottle. It's even obvious in II that Bill Murray didn't want to be there. The whole film was also watered down to appeal to kids so they could sell toys and the then-imminent cartoon.

I liked it. I remember people saying they didn't like Vigo as a villain. But a haunted painting is pretty standard horror fair. I think people give the sequel the business because it's cool to do so. I'll admit I liked it more than the original because I was a little older when it came out and the NES Advantage being used to control the Statue of Liberty and all that other weird stuff going on really appealed to me at the time. I also liked the Bobby Brown song. Of course that was before the Bobby/Whitney trainwreck was so huge in the media and you just sat there watching the speeding train unable to look away.

But I can see why a lot of people didn't like it as much. It really was kiddie. But I saw it as a kid. Same thing with House 2. It was a lot less dark than the first film. I recently saw it again on Youtube and while I still love it the movie is a total kiddie flick with cute friendly monster animatronics and cool zombie grandpa. In fact, I didn't even see the first film until I was about 12 and was disappointed that it was not a "fun" to me so to speak. I still liked it though. But I like William Katt and I think he added to the appeal for me.

If you remember Robocop 2 poked fun at the fact that parents were upset that the first film was so popular with kids despite being extremely violent. They made Murphy into a pacifist more concerned with water conservation and the dangers of smoking than shooting a rapist's balls off through his victim's open legs. As a result the kids in the movie now hated Robocop and thought he was lame. The big scene where he gives that lame-o speech to the little league team that robbed an electronics store was the straw that broke the camel's back. He became a joke because OCP reprogrammed him to be more family friendly and as a result he was no longer appealing to the kids.

Maybe they carried the thing a little too far to stick it to parents groups. Too much of the film is a running joke about that. But hey, at least it's not Robocop 3.

Yes.

They became really risk-adverse at the turn of the millennium. I don't know why, but, they started just issuing sequels to threadbare IPs exclusively at that point. Creativity and new ideas were tossed out as they didn't fit the financial model of quicker, cheaper, bigger. It's like they decided movies as entertainment in 2 hour capsules was the "old" way to do it, the 21st Century modern way was movies-as-subscriptions to certain fan demographics. You picked a franchise and stayed with it for 'new' material every x months.....

Entrenched laziness and creative bankruptcy were inevitable at that point.

And now they're even in more trouble because the source material on those IPs has been declared problematic by the woke crowd in CURRENT YEAR, so they have to "reimagine" and "reboot" them with dangerhair and shattering the patricarchy, which only makes them rot harder.

Reimaginings are just official fanfiction. I can reimagine The A Team as a group of woke feminist dangerhairs of color traveling around taking on missions to free women from the patriarchy. And if it's good enough some company dying for sweet woke points might pick it up. But it would be garbage. But it's woke garbage. See, that's important.

When I see the word "Reimagine" I just think of ff.net and AO3 quality headcanoning. Sometimes somebody writes a decent new slant on an old fandom. But it's never something you'd want to see on film. If you have a good story why not attach it to a new property? It's not just Ghostbusters that can hunt ghosts. You can make a new ghost hunting franchise. hey should have done this during the whole Ghost Hunters and its clones craze a few years back. I think it could have worked then. But they went with "OMG this is so real" junk like Paranormal Activity instead of trying to craft an actual story and characters that were fun.

I think they should leave Ghostbusters alone. Thank the gods that Zemeckis won't be allowing any sort of Back To the Future remake/reboot/bad sequel while he's still of this Earth. Because we would have likely seen woke female Doc and Marty already. I think the only thing that might work at this point is doing something with Jules and Verne traveling time on the flying locomotive. But those are boys. And white boys too. That ain't woke enough for the current year.

People didn't hate Ghostbusters 2016 because womens. They hated it because it was crap. Funny how no female penned criticisms made it into the endless barrage of tweets and Youtube comments that the media outlets used as cannon fodder against all criticism. If you were female and didn't like the film your voice would not be heard. Because that would shake the "muh misogyny" narrative that the media was spinning out.

I don't mind female films. I liked Steel Magnolias. But that film was very appealing in both cast and story. I didn't see the all black remake. But I'm not sure why they just didn't do something similar with a black cast. It's not like Steel Magnolias owns stories centered around the friendships of women. They didn't invent the genre

Ghostbusters 2016 was made purely to be woke and when it didn't work it was all the fault of sexist white dudebros. And social media just bought that and ran with it.

 

[That fucking snake robot]

I have some hope, if it's extreme ghost busters styled it could actually turn out ok but if they fail to have decent writing it's going to be worse than the reboot.

 

[GrungyLawnChlorinate]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...tbusters-3-ignoring-all-female-reboot-1177318


'Ghostbusters': Why Ignore the All-Female Reboot?

Less than three years after Sony's Ghostbusters reboot battled online trolls and fizzled at the box office, Tuesday's news that the property is coming back quickly sparked conversations among fans about nostalgia, toxic fandom and legacy.
Jason Reitman, son of original Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman, will helm a continuation of the series that ignores Paul Feig's female-led reboot, which starred Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon. The new film, sources say, will focus on four teens — two boys and two girls — and continue the story of 1984's Ghostbusters and the 1989 sequel.
Ignoring the 2016 film is a missed opportunity, Hannah Woodhead argues in a piece she wrote for the London-based film magazine Little White Lies titled "An Open Letter to Jason Reitman." She writes that while 2016'sGhostbusters wasn't an original idea, the all-female team pushed the franchise forward in an important way that may be lost in the new version.
“I think we suffer from this collective sense of nostalgia in film, where we're always looking to the past rather than the future,” she tells The Hollywood Reporter. “The past is safe. The past is easy.”
1984's Ghostbusters is widely considered a classic, and while the 1989 follow-up was less well-received, it does have its fans. Decades later, Feig's all-female 2016 Ghostbustersreceived a fresh 74 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, higher than Ghostbusters II. In addition to misogynistic trolling online, Jones faced racist attacks that caused her to leave Twitter for a period of time.
"I think it's a really entertaining movie that was doomed simply because it wasn't the film a certain very loud percentage of the audience wanted,” says Drew McWeeny, co-creator of the 80s All Over podcast and longtime film critic.
McWeeny understands criticisms of Reitman taking the reins for the new installment, but believes he is well-suited for the director's chair.
“While I get why some people might be annoyed, I met Jason Reitman for the first time in 1990, when he was still ‘just Ivan's kid,’ and at that point, he was movie-crazy and also knew his dad's work intimately," says McWeeny. "It makes sense that he'd want to do that, and I suspect he'll do a good job with it.”
Cracked contributor Chris Sutcliffe was a fan of Feig’s film and grew up with Ghostbusters. He's more concerned about the direction of the new film under Reitman.
“What frustrates me about this new film, and I'm very aware that we've had very little news, is how keen they are to distance themselves from the 2016 film," says Sutcliffe. "Not only will it feel like a victory to all the wrong people, but it just feels like a creative step backwards.”
After the announcement, Sutcliffe took to Twitter to pose that this new Ghostbusters is missing an opportunity to converge universes a la Sony's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, which combined multiple spider-people into one story.
“[Spider-Verse] tells a new story with a diverse cast while still acknowledging the past,” Sutcliffe says. “You could easily take the ball from Feig's story to explore generation gaps, or fatherhood, or the cyclical nature of disasters. You could have four of the funniest actresses right now working with the retired originals. There are a hundred stories you could tell that wouldn't send the message to the little girls that liked the 2016 version that they've had their turn.”
Sutcliffe does acknowledge the possibilities of the new film, which as of yet does not have original stars such as Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd confirmed to return, though it's a possibility.
“There is every chance that we're going to still get a great film,” says Sutcliffe. “Maybe it will further open up the franchise. Maybe they've been lying and I'll get the big crossover event all along.”
McWeeny is hopeful the new film is not actually writing off the 2016 reboot. He wonders if there’s a possibility that something larger is going on that could involve the leading ladies of Feig's film. “The first thing I heard when they set up shop to get this go-round of ghostbustin' off the ground, before Feig came onboard even, was that they had a master plan.”
He cites the comic book runs of Ghostbusters at IDW Publishing and how those “lean heavily on the idea that all of the Ghostbusters iterations are pocket universes, something that they came up with before Spider-Verse hit theaters.”
As Woodhead points out, an animated Ghostbusters movie Sony is developing separately could be that franchise's answer to Spider-Verse.
The trolling the Ghostbusters reboot film encountered continued something seen before, such as when actor John Boyega was the target of racist comments following the Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer in 2014. And it would be seen again when Star Wars: The Last Jedi's Kelly Marie Tran felt forced to leave social media.
Woodhead thinks that the new Stars Wars films prove that movies like Ghostbusters can succeed, as long as they manage to blend nostalgia and newness in a smart way. And without acknowledging the 2016 movie, you're ignoring some of that nostalgia.
“The reason the new Star Wars films have worked is because they retained the spirit of the original films while really pushing forward, and found the right cast for the job,” Woodhead says. “Even then, we see the same misogyny and racism directed at the cast of those films as we saw directed at Feig's Ghostbusters. There's an element of gatekeeperism where fans of the original want things to be how they were in the good old days, which ties into this nostalgia, but it's 2019, and we're too far gone to make the same films over and over.”
Reitman's new Ghostbusters movie is expected for summer 2020.

The transparent Hollywood propaganda is all so tiresome. Most everyone hates this shit, only a small cadre of vapid virtue-signalers and children cared about it. The new Star Wars movies were garbage; the new Star Trek everything has been garbage; Black Panther was garbage; Netflix is garbage -- most everything is garbage, and it seems like for all of the same reasons.

"gatekeeperism where fans of the original want things to be how they were in the good old days"

You made shit and crowed about how lovely the aroma from every news outlet, attacking anyone who didn't give it a lick as being shitphobic. Do they really believe their own hype? Pathetic.

 

[Sissy Galvez]

Ghostbusters 2016 bombed because anyone who criticized it or was expecting a sequel to Ghostbusters II was labeled a misogynist bigoted MRA incel. Learn not to antagonize your fanbase or treat them hostile which is exactly what Paul Feig & Rian Johnson did along with the SJW media.

I can’t believe some whiny woman wrote an open letter to Reitman in favor of not disregarding ghostbusters 2016. Goddamn that’s pathetic.

 

[Wesley Willis]

In 2020 every film will be a reboot and every studio will have their own streaming service, and all the content will be so bad or so overpriced that people will suddenly start going outside. And that's how America's obesity crisis came to end.

Or maybe we'll just get hit with a fucking asteroid.

 

[ZehnBoat]

Actually yeah, now that the 80’s have made something of a comeback

the 80s have been making comebacks since the 90s

it's time to let that decade die

 

[Basic Bleach]

Summer 2020?? No, aim for Halloween and bring back this salty motherfucker. He's already been known to face off against plucky youths!

Jason Reitman and co-writer Gil Kenan (Monster House)

Go on....

I don't mind female films. I liked Steel Magnolias. But that film was very appealing in both cast and story.

Steel Magnolias and other girl-gang tales of its era had relatable characters, that's the key. Somewhere along the line women went from being sassy but ultimately real to being snarky, bitter bitches you can't really relate to. They're less people and more the embodiment of random tweets.



I'm going to stay cautiously optimistic for now. At the very least, maybe they won't have Lobotomized Thor in this one.

 

[Ineedahero]

I like Jason Reitman movies generally, they are almost always gay in the same direction I am.

 

[Slap47]

The director said this movie was like being handed the keys to a new car...

That's one hell of a fixer-upper he's getting. OG fans are disheartened and the insane sjws are enraged. He's pretty fucked unless he pulls out a masterpiece.

 

[Pargon]

The director said this movie was like being handed the keys to a new car...

That's one hell of a fixer-upper he's getting. OG fans are disheartened and the insane sjws are enraged. He's pretty fucked unless he pulls out a masterpiece.

I definitely wouldn't say it's out of the question. The new standard of the last few years seems to be "please for the love of God give this franchise to someone who knows what they're doing" and I think it's because despite what entertainment writers are bloviating the people paying for these films actually are trying to court the established fanbase without alienating new viewers. If it's a love letter to what made the original good (not references I'm saying here, but including stylistic elements that made the first film what it was), then it could be great.

But if that's what they want to do then they need to seriously rethink casting kids. An actor who can nail a joke is rare enough. A kid actor who can do the same is a needle in a stack of needles.