🐱 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.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Summer 2020?? No, aim for Halloween and bring back this salty motherfucker. He's already been known to face off against plucky youths!
View attachment 643306



Go on....




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.

One of the best damned Real Ghostbusters episodes was the one with Houdini's ghost. I couldn't stop laughing because they'd cram that fucker into a trap, and a minute later he'd pop right back out again!

IIRC, they figured out that Houdini was pissed because someone stole his notebooks, and when they gave him the books (and the thief) he dragged both into his trunk and vanished forever.

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

Originally Eddie Murphy was to be Winston and he was the one to be slimed.

I never knew that. I thought the only big casting change was John Belushi getting replaced by Bill Murray.

 

[Guts Gets Some]

black guy who is probably closer to modern diversity characters and was dull as dirt, with no real defining characters traits other than that he was really smart and wanted to punch nazis and racists.

Actually I really liked what they did with Roland. Roland is a stereotypical white nerd, but people he first meet usually don't know how to talk to him and assume he's 'standard black' and try to talk slang or loosely to him, to which he admits he has no idea what they're saying.
Not to mention he's so dorky, he comes across as if he has literal autism at times too.
It's a pretty genius portrayal of a black character, I think. Making fun of both sides, who would view him as token or would put him on a pedestal and think he deserves special treatment.

The Real Ghostbusters cartoon was infinitely better than Extreme

Going to have to disagree there. Real Ghostbusters was my absolute favorite cartoon as a child. I tried to revisit it about 10ish years ago and.... I was so bored by every single episode at best, and annoyed at worst. The earlier ones were the worst offenders.
I sat through 80+ (!) episodes just waiting for it to "get good like I remembered" and it literally never did. I had to give up when I realized I was just wasting my time and wasn't enjoying it. I only held on as long as I did for nostalgia.

The writing was just... lame. Obviously made for very young children.

I actually just finished Extreme again (like within the last few months) and it was far better than I remembered it; and I loved it when I was in middle school as well.

The original film still holds up for me too. Not much so the sequel, for the same reasons as the original cartoon though.

 

[ColorfulCassowary]

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.

Stop it with the spider-verse comparisons. How can you do a spider-verse with the Ghostbusters? Lessee, we got the original, 2016, extreme... and that's about it. Spider-Man has been around since the 60's and has been active, while ghostbusters is from the eighties and has been relatively dormant. Marvel Comics has a lot to work with, plus the nature of its medium meant it was natural for crossovers and shit. Ghostbusters has barely anything.

This one youtube channel, Midnight's Edge, revealed leaked emails way back when fembusters was happening revealing they were trying to turn Ghostbusters of all things into a cinematic universe, complete with Avengers styled events, ever since their all female Spider-Man events fell through (titled Glass Ceiling). It can't work. It won't work. Stop trying to get something like this to work.

 

[Guts Gets Some]

For me it was the opposite. Had fond memories of Extreme then when I rewatched it, it turned out to be terribly lackluster. Then when I rewatched Real Ghosbusters, the show proved better than I remember until they started putting more emphasis on Slimer in season 3 and worst when they completely revamped the show after GBII which was completely mediocre. The final seasons titled "Slimer and the Real Ghostbusters" were utter dogshit.

The themesong is pretty cool, but that's really the only part of Real that holds up even a little bit to me.

But I like Extreme's opening too (apart from the Ecto-1 not having the right siren), so eh.

All I gotta say about Extreme is in the episode about a wish-granter who distorts wishes, Eduardo ended up in Kylie's cat by lamenting "She treats the cat better than me."

When the gang finds out about it, Garrett makes a snide remake "I'd hate to think what he wished for...."

Get it?

 

[CatParty]

 

[Poiseon]

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 only character in the new trilogy I like is Fin. He's a former Stormtrooper, not 100% in on the rebellion until the end of The Last Jedi, saw the horror of war and the killing along with it and showed genuine terror and disgust. Fin, to me, is very interesting. He has character, and is likeable. There is so much potential in a character like his.

Ray is fucking boring. With the sole exception of Luke talking shit to her, I remember nothing of what she actually did. (The Last Jedi Throne room fight was extremely well choreographed and just fucking awesome, but this has nothing to do with her character, just a memorable scene.) She's just so meh. If you want a cool, likeable and well-written female characters in Star Wars, just use Asoka. I mean, come on.

The new Sith is a pussy (Though the stormtroopers turning away and calmly walking away during his tantrum was funny.) he got his ass handed to him by a girl with no training whatsoever, and how he fits that nose in that helmet is a fucking paradox to me. Hurts my brain. The Last Jedi gave him a backstory, but it's like a DeviantArt OC backstory. It's just meh. Want a good possible villain character? Maybe make a fucking STARKILLER MOVIE.

Attributing failure to racism and sexism in lieu of shitty writing is arrogant, and autistic all-in-one. And it is a prime example of why the 2016 Ghostbusters is a piece of shit. The writing.

 

[CatParty]

 

[Stoneheart]

View attachment 643899

Somebody at Sony has to make a statement. Blacklist that bitch, she lost the companys alot of money and she will not shut up about her failure.

 

[Pargon]

View attachment 643899

Chimp sets fire to own career, news at eleven.

Funny. I thought Jones was one of the few good things about that movie. Turns out she's just another entitled brat.

 

[TaInTeDtAcO]

Make a Ghostbusters movie where Samhain is the villain and I'll watch it.

 

[Judge Dredd]

If that bit about them casting teenagers for (what I assume will be) the leading roles is true, then I get the feeling that they're going to go for a Stranger Things vibe. Shit, that was probably the elevator pitch that got this greenlit in the first place.

"It'll be Ghostbusters mixed with Stranger Things! Because that was a show that people talked about a lot two years ago!"

According to the Midnights Edge videos about the reboot, Ghostbusters 3 was originally going to be a "passing the torch movie" where the original ghost busters recruit a new team and retire. Then they tried to "freeze out" Reitman to make the feminist version. Reitman held on until Harold Ramis died, at which point he let it go.

With the attempts to make a Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe, I'm guessing they are going to do something like Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Unfortunately Shia LeBeouf decided to play capture the flag with 4chan instead so we never got those sequels.

 

[Basic Bleach]

Unfortunately

Respectfully disagree, he was terrible in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

Just give the female ghostbusters a short cameo somewhere so that way everybody gets to be pissed off and I get to enjoy nonsensical reeing from everybody

 

[Clem Fandango]

"We dint count" lmao jesus fucking christ. No, go away. We're all just trying to move on and forget that turd of a movie you were in.

 

[SuperSheep]

Summer 2020?? No, aim for Halloween and bring back this salty motherfucker. He's already been known to face off against plucky youths!
View attachment 643306

Make a Ghostbusters movie where Samhain is the villain and I'll watch it.

That or Cthulhu.

 

[Jaimas]

This is a beautiful controversy because no matter what happens, it generates content for us:

* If the film succeeds on its own merits, the usual suspects will shit their pants and chimp out about how everyone is sexist and proceed to launch into hilariously entitled sperg-rage. Lolcow threads will swell and the usual suspects will bloviate about how this is an offense to all that lives while we all have a good laugh and fire up the milking machines.

* If the movie bombs (and odds are damn good against this happening), then the more odious cows will emerge to gravedance and take wild swings about how smart and talented they are, opening themselves up for further ridicule. A few cows from the extreme opposite end will also chimp out, giving us more to cover from that direction.

* If the film does satisfactory and no better, the above two crowds will target one another and go into full autism war mode while we lurk the streets and collect the lulz from both sides.

In the end, all roads end in Autism, and ergo, content for us to laugh at.

 

[TaInTeDtAcO]

That or Cthulhu.

Or this guy. This nigga scared the daylights out of me when I was little.

 

[TowinKarz]

Chimp sets fire to own career, news at eleven.

Funny. I thought Jones was one of the few good things about that movie. Turns out she's just another entitled brat.

How DID she become a thing? Empirical evidence suggests she can't even form coherent thoughts. Granted, that's not unusual in Hollywood, but still.

 

[Pargon]

How DID she become a thing? Empirical evidence suggests she can't even form coherent thoughts. Granted, that's not unusual in Hollywood, but still.

I have no idea. Her Wikipedia article suggests she sucked hard at standup comedy to the point that she was booed offstage opening for Jamie Foxx and then sometime later she was what basically amounted to a diversity hire for SNL. I have no doubt that allowed her to network given how there were other SNL alums in GB2K16. So, typical Hollywood patronage, to answer your question.

I liked her in that movie because despite being a caricature like everyone else she at least responded like a human being to the events happening around her.