Ghostbusters 2016 Reboot discussion

[LEGODalekbuster523]

Because it's a film/ franchise that is important to me. Its something that I have valued my whole life (I'm 34) essentially.

Why can't new Ghostbusters become important for a new generation though?

Overall in so sick of Hollywood recycling the ideas of yesterday just make a buck (which is exactly why this movie even exists).

Hollywood are only doing it because people want films from old franchises and original films tend to be less popular.

[Captain Pirate Man]

Why can't new Ghostbusters become important for a new generation though?

It can, go watch the old movies. Im not against that what do ever. But again, a reboot is the same as a NEW Beatles. Why can't new generations enjoy the Beatles? They can, go and listen to the music. But a new band calling themselves the Beatles would be considered blasphemy, how are reboot films ANY different?

Besides at what point do you move on from existing franchises? If the younger generations whats new things, then they need to support ORIGINAL ideas, not recycled things from the 80s and 90s.

Hollywood are only doing it because people want films from old franchises and original films tend to be less popular.

That's a cop out though. I understand WHY Hollywood is doing it, but that's no excuse. So you are ok with them milking things from yesterday as opposed to making NEW movies with new ideas. Films are literally the ONLY media that is allowed to get away with this practice, and I don't understand why? Sure musicians do cover versions of some songs, but they don't do a whole catalogue or a whole album. Its like an unwritten rule in music. But in Hollywood it's "let's just keep milking yesterday for all it's worth." just today I saw a tv spot for a new Ben Hur remake. Why? Seriously why? If you want to make a film similiar, that takes place in anchient Rome, then do it. Be original, don't remake a movie that people have already seen.

Same goes for Ghostbusters. They could have easily made just about the same damn movie they just made, but called it Ghost hunters or whatever. Erase all ties to Ghostbusters, slimer, etc. But left the premise the same and nobody would have batted an eye. You can rip off Ghostbusters all you want, sure everybody would say that, but at least it would be it's own thing.

Its like Mega bloks, sure as Lego fans might not like them much, but at least they are there own thing.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Captain Pirate Man

[legonerd54321]

The thing is GB 2016 IS its own thing. In your eyes, it may not be. But it was able to take the same premise of catching ghosts, and made it different. They made it to where instead of catching them, they progressed their technology and made it to where they actually "bust" the heads of ghosts. Of course there would be ideas from the original they would use, like the Ecto 1 or proton packs, but then it wouldn't be Ghostbusters if it didn't have those things.

[LEGODalekbuster523]

So you are ok with them milking things from yesterday as opposed to making NEW movies with new ideas.

Yes, because that's what's popular at the moment. I don't expect Hollywood to take a risk with new ideas when new ideas don't fare well at the box office.

[Captain Pirate Man]

It's clearly not all that pooular, since remakes/reboots don't do all that well at the box office. They do ok, but not great. Ghostbusters didn't even win it's opening weekend. In all honesty it's doing average type numbers, so I don't really but the "it's what is popular now" type arguments.

[LEGODalekbuster523]

It's clearly not all that pooular, since remakes/reboots don't do all that well at the box office. They do ok, but not great. Ghostbusters didn't even win it's opening weekend. In all honesty it's doing average type numbers, so I don't really but the "it's what is popular now" type arguments.

But many have been successful. The sequel reboot Jurassic World for example.

[Captain Pirate Man]

Jurassic World WAS a sequel, not the same thing. Yes the word reboot gets attached to that one, but mainly because it is reinvigorating the series, same goes with The Force Awakens. Ghostbusters is a remake/reboot, completely different thing all together. If Jurassic World pretended that Jurassic Park never happened, it would not have been NEARLY as successful.

But beyond all that, there are countless YouTube videos with MANY people expressing frustrations with the amount of remakes. This is not something I am just making up, a lot of people are just plain sick of remakes. I do think people are MUCH more open to sequels of older franchises than remakes. Remakes just make people mad.

[Littleworlds]

Jurassic World WAS a sequel, not the same thing. Yes the word reboot gets attached to that one, but mainly because it is reinvigorating the series, same goes with The Force Awakens. Ghostbusters is a remake/reboot, completely different thing all together. If Jurassic World pretended that Jurassic Park never happened, it would not have been NEARLY as successful.

But beyond all that, there are countless YouTube videos with MANY people expressing frustrations with the amount of remakes. This is not something I am just making up, a lot of people are just plain sick of remakes. I do think people are MUCH more open to sequels of older franchises than remakes. Remakes just make people mad.

I disagree, and quote myself from a couple of posts earlier:

People seem to be content to watch a retelling of the very same story again and again. The nostalgia-machine running at full speed. (In Jurassic World, for example, the dinosaurs looked even more retro, than back in 1993, when Jurassic Park came out!)

Same applies for The Force Awakens. Another kinda deathstar, another young hero from the desert, and a vader-wannabe isn't really innovative either and in my understanding not invigorating anything. Its just warming up and serving the same meal again people are used to.

Arguing against remakes in general of course ignores the spiderman reboots, the many batman reboots and the star trek reboot, which run all quite successful and with quite high fan-acceptance - or at least not with a rabid outcry as it happened with Ghostbusters, which is really ridiculous.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Littleworlds

[Captain Pirate Man]

I understand, and agree that the films you mentioned are very similiar to the originals. But where I and many others disagree with is that sequels CONTINUE the cannon, remakes erase them, or at least push them aside. If The Force Awakens decided to completely ignore Luke and Vader, pretend they never existed and replaced them with Rey and Kylo, people would be outraged. Well thats exactly what Ghostbusters did.

As for the other films you mentiond, yes some of them have been rebooted to varied level of success. Batman always seems to do well, so I'll give you that one. Rebooting Spider-Man is half the reason why Sony is in so much trouble right now, because that reboot has NOT been successful. Star trek has done ok, but the current film is already showing signs of trouble at the box office.

But all of that aside, what's the common denominator here, all of those franchises kept the characters in tact. If we had Joe Blow and Bobby noname instead of Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker people would be mad about it. That's what I don't understand about you people defending this movie, you call yourselves Ghostbusters fans, yet you are ok with a Ghostbusters world without Ray, Peter, Egon, and Winston. If you want to call yourself a fan of the new movie, good for you. But to me at least, you are not a Ghostbusters fan.

[NXS7]

I understand, and agree that the films you mentioned are very similiar to the originals. But where I and many others disagree with is that sequels CONTINUE the cannon, remakes erase them, or at least push them aside. If The Force Awakens decided to completely ignore Luke and Vader, pretend they never existed and replaced them with Rey and Kylo, people would be outraged. Well thats exactly what Ghostbusters did.

As for the other films you mentiond, yes some of them have been rebooted to varied level of success. Batman always seems to do well, so I'll give you that one. Rebooting Spider-Man is half the reason why Sony is in so much trouble right now, because that reboot has NOT been successful. Star trek has done ok, but the current film is already showing signs of trouble at the box office.

But all of that aside, what's the common denominator here, all of those franchises kept the characters in tact. If we had Joe Blow and Bobby noname instead of Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker people would be mad about it. That's what I don't understand about you people defending this movie, you call yourselves Ghostbusters fans, yet you are ok with a Ghostbusters world without Ray, Peter, Egon, and Winston. If you want to call yourself a fan of the new movie, good for you. But to me at least, you are not a Ghostbusters fan.

So if you like a Ghostbusters film your not a Ghostbusters fan??

[PicnicBasketSam]

Um. Captain Pirate Man? I'm not sure if you know this, but there have been other people in the Batsuit (see: Batman Beyond) and other people as Spider-Man (Miles Morales most immediately springs to mind, but there are others) and there was not a huge outcry then. Your logic has failed. You are saying "If other people are in the Ghostbusters story, it's not Ghostbusters, and you are not a fan of Ghostbusters if you like the new Ghostbusters. Never mind if you enjoyed the originals or not, nope, you're not a fan." This is like saying "If somebody else is Batman or Spider-Man, it's not Batman or Spider-Man, and you're not a fan of either of them if you like the new versions." But this is simply not true. Other franchises have done the exact same thing as Ghostbusters without huge outcry--excepting Lady Thor--and nobody gave a damn. This "If we had Joe Blow and Bobby noname instead of Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker people would be mad about it." isn't true. That actually happened. Backlash was minimal.

[Ultron]

Why do people feel so personally threatened by this movie? I don't understand.

[Captain Pirate Man]

Um. Captain Pirate Man? I'm not sure if you know this, but there have been other people in the Batsuit (see: Batman Beyond) and other people as Spider-Man (Miles Morales most immediately springs to mind, but there are others) and there was not a huge outcry then. Your logic has failed. You are saying "If other people are in the Ghostbusters story, it's not Ghostbusters, and you are not a fan of Ghostbusters if you like the new Ghostbusters. Never mind if you enjoyed the originals or not, nope, you're not a fan." This is like saying "If somebody else is Batman or Spider-Man, it's not Batman or Spider-Man, and you're not a fan of either of them if you like the new versions." But this is simply not true. Other franchises have done the exact same thing as Ghostbusters without huge outcry--excepting Lady Thor--and nobody gave a damn. This "If we had Joe Blow and Bobby noname instead of Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker people would be mad about it." isn't true. That actually happened. Backlash was minimal.

Wrong. Not as a film. If they did the current Ghostbusters as a comic book, nobody would care. Well there might be SOME backlash, like there was with female Thor, but nothing close to it would be if it were a film.

Can we compare Apple's and Apple's here people? Movies and comic books are not even remotely on the same level. As soon as they release a feature length big budget non Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker Batman and Spiderman, then talk to me.

[BrickBob Studpants]

just today I saw a tv spot for a new Ben Hur remake. Why? Seriously why? If you want to make a film similiar, that takes place in anchient Rome, then do it. Be original, don't remake a movie that people have already seen.

Um, Ben Hur (1959) is itself a remake (of a 1925 film) In general, I'm not that fond of remakes either (I much prefer sequels or prequels over them) but I get why Hollywood tends to go in that direction. And it's not a new thing, take a look at the box office hits in the 50s and 60s, there are tons of remakes among them that people aren't even aware of

Back to Ghostbusters: I'm still looking forward to it and don't really mind the fact it's a remake, maybe because I don't have that much of a connection to the originals

[NXS7]

My general opinion; I didn't think it looked good from the trailers, looked like a remake rather than reboot, but the actual film is pretty good. It's better than it looked. Not saying it's the best film, some jokes are pretty corny, but it made for a good two-what hours of entertainment.

Regarding Stay Puft... When I saw him in the TV Spot, I thought nothing about the film other than the evil logo ghost would be original, but his role is more of an Easter egg in the film;

It's not the same Stay Puft, it's one of many evil balloons that attack the Ghostbusters

[LEGODalekbuster523]

My general opinion; I didn't think it looked good from the trailers, looked like a remake rather than reboot, but the actual film is pretty good. It's better than it looked. Not saying it's the best film, some jokes are pretty corny, but it made for a good two-what hours of entertainment.

I'd really like to see the four hour cut.

[BarkerJ94]

This was an awful movie haha!

[LEGODalekbuster523]

This was an awful movie haha!

Yet you can't offer any reason why you found it awful...

[BrickBob Studpants]

Just seen the movie and I have to say that I was pleasently surprised despite having quite high expectations based on the mostly positive reviews (the trailers not so much ). It was a lot funnier than the trailers suggested and I really liked the characters and the chemistry they shared. Kevin and Holtzmann for instance were both real scene stealers I also appreciated the fact that the characters were original and not just genderbent versions of the classic characters I also quite liked the oft-criticised villain Rowan, didn't expect that to be honest Now I can't wait to get the Ecto-1 and -2 set and play the Dimensions story pack!

[Actor Builder]

Yet you can't offer any reason why you found it awful...

I believe you mean that he hasn't.

It is quite possible that he was a legitimate reason of whatever substance for disliking it, but he just hasn't let us know why yet.

Your reply assumes that he is incorrect. He found it awful. In his opinion, it was awful. He is right about his opinion.

I'm not saying anything about the film, I haven't seen it. I just don't care for mob psychology and this film has certainly created two distinct mobs on the internet: Those that hate the film for whatever reason, and those who hate the people who didn't like it.

I think I'll refrain from ever seeing this film, because of that. If I don't like it, I'll immediately be labeled as a sexist pig, even if my reason for not liking it is something like "The plot was jumpy" or whatever.

This film has done little other than stir up controversy and create animosity amongst anonymity.

[PicnicBasketSam]

Actor Builder is quite correct... Nostalgia Critic's review of this movie made a lot of good points about the stupid flame wars between the people who didn't like the movie, the people who don't like those people, and the people who haven't seen the movie but hate on it anyway because of the trailers/cast/premise/whatever. I'm not concerned about getting caught in something like that, so I'm going to watch the movie when my local library gets it, but I feel like this whole thing is all kinds of stupid over a harmless movie.

I wonder what the internet's reaction would be to a remake of Seven Samurai that sold itself as a remake of The Magnificent Seven...

[BrickBob Studpants]

Actor Builder is quite correct... Nostalgia Critic's review of this movie made a lot of good points about the stupid flame wars between the people who didn't like the movie, the people who don't like those people, and the people who haven't seen the movie but hate on it anyway because of the trailers/cast/premise/whatever. I'm not concerned about getting caught in something like that, so I'm going to watch the movie when my local library gets it, but I feel like this whole thing is all kinds of stupid over a harmless movie.

I agree, the NC summed up (and ridiculed) the whole issue perfectly, as usual

I wonder what the internet's reaction would be to a remake of Seven Samurai that sold itself as a remake of The Magnificent Seven...

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, The Magnificent Seven (1960) is itself a remake of Seven Samurai (1954) Remake-ception?

[Jbricks]

I didn't see NC's review, but if you want a fact-based analysis of the "issue" and how it was blown out of proportion, check out Redlettermedia's Scientist Man On Ghostbusters video.

[Blondie-Wan]

Speaking as a fan of the originals, I have to say i immensely enjoy the new one. It's honestly a lot better than Ghostbusters 2, and I say that as someone who actually enjoys Ghostbusters 2.

[Space Police XVIII]

In the end it's looking like a 70 million plus loss for Sony, and the director said he'll never reboot another franchise, so, hey! Something good came out of this ugly trainwreck after all.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Space Police XVIII