Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By DarkSpectre
#4894857
Maybe he's tired of the fight, I dunno. I did see that he's working on some sort of thriller which at least on paper is a thriller and not his poking of the genre so maybe that's why he never responded.
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4894863
It isn't a big deal...he will just move on to the next project. But it is interesting to talk about.

From what I hear, there are A LOT of people who worked on the movie really unhappy with Feig. At one point the crew tried to convince the producers just to set the movie in Boston given how extensive the shoot was there. But Sony (specifically Pascal) were adamant that because the original was set in New York, this one had to be too. So I think Feig might wanna just put this all behind him. I know for a fact (unless my co-worker is lying to me, which he really has no reason to), Feig wasn't exactly popular with the crew. One of my biggest beefs with the movie was Sony's decision to actively stoke the hate flames on social media. I think it speaks to their general anxiety about the movie and rather than just let the marking do the job, they kept pushing this angle because it kept the movie front page news. Yes, people shat all over this for the wrong reasons, but some people just didn't like the overall direction the franchise was headed in and couldn't speak their criticisms without being labeled a sexist or misogynist. And I won't pretend this was Feig's decision, he definitely made things worse with his inflammatory tweets and statements in the press. I honestly think he shares some of the responsibility for some of the horrible things said to Leslie Jones. By acknowledging the crazies, you're giving them a platform. Like I said before, I just generally think Feig was the wrong guy. I think Sony saw a guy coming of a string of modest successes who had a new angle on Ghostbusters that Sony thought wouldn't be as risky as a true sequel. And I do think Feig has developed a bit of an ego about himself based both on what I've heard and what I've read in interviews. A lot of first-hand stories about him being kinda out of touch. I mean...he had a second hotel suite just for his suits...

What this all boils down to is what a lot of people were commenting on in the beginning which is that Feig is a capable director for a certain kind of film. For mid-range budgeted dialogue-focused comedy he is very solid. I'm not here to crap all over the guy and say he sucks. I mean...he created Freaks and Geeks so it isn't like he's some hack. But I think he was out of his element with this movie and I think that became apparent to Sony when it was too late.

I know there are a good number of people on this site who visited Ghost Corps and were told of all the things that Sony was working on. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade...but that the PR machine. From what I hear...Ghost Corps is kinda in a holding pattern right now. I don't doubt we will see more Ghostbusters, and I don't even doubt it will be in the reboot timeline so Sony can save face...but it won't involve Feig.
555-2368, timeware, SpaceBallz and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4894864
Dr.D wrote:Yes, people shat all over this for the wrong reasons, but some people just didn't like the overall direction the franchise was headed
Oh I agree, I wish the entire argument had been about a reboot vs a sequel. I wish it had been more about how the originators were treated. But instead the whole thing got hijacked by the "feminism is evil" crowd. And instead of standing up for the originators, a lot of "fans" called them traitors instead.

And btw, I've only seen one Feig movie in my life, and ATC is it. I enjoyed the movie, and he was great to fans online, but I'm not calling that interview click bait in order to defend him in particular. I was more defending Aykroyd, because people like that Collider crew were taking the interview out of context and being so nasty about it.
Sav C, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4894866
Dr.D wrote:What I was told is Feig was more concerned with forcing his actresses to improvise as many jokes into a scripted scene as possible rather than focus on whether or not the story was progressing.
That makes sense. I know I said that I liked the balance of humor early on, however as time passes I'm starting to feel more and more that it wasn't subtle enough. The characters were good but as a whole the movie had a lot of room for improvement. I even admit it was a bit underwhelming the first time I saw it, which honestly I just chalked up to being biased in favor of the originals (and therefore I may of made my review a bit more positive than it could've been). A more accurate rating for it probably would've been 7/10, not 8/10.
See, Feig isn't really a cinematic director and he's part of a movement in comedy that I am really not a fan of. Alot of his movies along with people like Jud Apatow, Seth Rogen, and Adam McKay...well they aren't movies. They are lightly directed improv skits.
It'd be nice to see more comedies with higher intellectual merit. Perhaps the next Ghostbusters will be one of them, if they get the right person to make it.
From what I hear, the first cut was so bad Sony almost pushed the release back (now this is again from my source who worked on the production and something that was never made public so take that as you will). I mean, look at the infamous dance number, a six-figure budget scene that was completely cut from the movie.
I remember the trailer came out later than promised. I'm not sure what they were thinking with that dance number scene, I mean they should've realized that it wasn't going to work.
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4894874
I wouldn't say it's intellectual merit exactly, but I think there is a real lack of directors who want these comedy movies to look like movies. They film everything as plain and boring as possible so as not to distract in any way from the actors performances. Everything is so static in so many comedy movies as they are reliant on dialogue alone for things to be funny. While dialogue is important, filmmaking should encompass sound AND visuals. Look no further than Edgar Wright for a genius director who understands using framing, lighting, editing, to sell comedy.
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4894891
Very good points, now I wonder what an Edgar Wright Ghostbusters film would have been like...
Sav C, featofstrength, pferreira1983 and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By deadderek
#4894913
featofstrength wrote:
timeware wrote:Shaun of the dead was better, but I still liked it.
Image
Can we at least agree that, like most third outings, The World's End was weaksauce?
AGREED

Image
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4894923
Edgar Wright is one of my heroes. I could go on about why each film is a triumph for the genre they are representing. Hot Fuzz is definitely my favorite of the three. And something else that Wright does well that (trying to keep on topic) was completely absent in ATC was actual characters. Everyone in ATC was the comic relief. Literally every character had their own running gags throughout the whole movie. To me, they felt almost like characters in a cartoon, each vying for the spot of being the funniest. While the characters in Ghostbusters were all funny, they weren't all comic relief and there is a huge difference between the two. Everyone knows Egon was the dry, straight man. Where was the Egon in this movie? And I don't mean where's the brainy character. I mean...even Chris Hemsworth's character had to be cartoonishly dumb and over the top. Ironically, the character that was the most poorly represented in the marketing ended up (for me anyway) being one of the only bright spots in the movie. Leslie Jones' character (when she wasn't a screaming stereotype) actually felt like a human being who had real reactions to things.

When you have a whole movie full of comic relief, there's no tension and like everything else in films when tropes are overused they become boring. I don't care how much CGI crap you shove on screen, if I don't care about your goofy cartoon characters of a cast it's just boring. See, in the final battle with Gozer in Ghostbusters didn't have the cast all being comic relief. For the most part it's played straight because that's where the comedy comes from. It's funny to see these guys scared to death of a giant marshmallow and react as if it's totally real. We didn't need to see them shoot Stay Puft in the dick to understand it was funny.

With the exception of a few jokes in the dialogue the climax of the original film is done pretty seriously. If you REALLY want to analyze it, the scene is the climax of Peter Venkman's arc. When we as the audience meet him in the beginning he's pretty skeptical and doesn't even seem at all excited by Ray's news of the library haunting. He's more concerned with trying to bang a coed rather than investigate the library with Ray and Egon. Then we get to the climax where Egon suggests crossing the streams. Peter jumps back into his sarcastic self about the plan, but is the first one on the altar and the first one to open fire. He literally jumps at the chance to lay down his life to save the world. His line to Ray is maybe his most genuine moment in the whole movie, not to mention he let's Ray have the last word. Now I may be digging a bit, but I always that little side glance Peter does after Ray says "Nice working with you Dr. Venkman" was him considering saying something, but finally letting someone else have the last word. Whatever it means, it's a pretty powerful visual. Peter presents himself as a pretty carefree guy and that little glance over at Ray is, in context, such a powerful moment because it's Peter at his most vulnerable. Just like most of the great things in the original, it's subtle yet powerful.
Sav C, deadderek liked this
By pferreira1983
#4894987
Alphagaia wrote: The problem I have your opinion seems to be stuck and on a loop. You are back to discussing Boston/New York? That's the third time now?
You have problem with everything I say and the reason I go on about it the Boston filming is because I was responding to someone. Like I said opinions, everybody has them. :wink:
Kingpin wrote:Were it as easy as that.
It probably could have been easy had Feig been a competent director. :-|
Dr.D wrote:This is beyond just the budget inflating, this was a movie on which no one really knew what they were making. When Aykroyd came out and said Feig was negligent in his filming I asked if there was any truth to that. What I was told is Feig was more concerned with forcing his actresses to improvise as many jokes into a scripted scene as possible rather than focus on whether or not the story was progressing. See, Feig isn't really a cinematic director and he's part of a movement in comedy that I am really not a fan of. Alot of his movies along with people like Jud Apatow, Seth Rogen, and Adam McKay...well they aren't movies. They are lightly directed improv skits. What do I mean by that you ask? Well...think about how Ghostbusters ATC looked. Most of the film is brightly lit, static medium-shots designed to keep focus solely on the actor because "they're funny". While the action sequences are cinematic, the majority of the film is shot not much more dynamically than a network sitcom.

Compare this to the original Ghostbusters, which had a legendary cinematographer at the helm. The movie is filled with unique lighting set-ups, camera movement, and beautiful cinematography. See, the movie wasn't filled like a comedy, it was intentionally filmed like a thriller/drama. It feels big and cinematic, and that amplifies what's on screen.
Oh yeah, really good points. The original was cinematic hybrid of comedy, sci-fi and fantasy, the reboot is a modern day sitcom. Feig took no care to to create excitement and make it unique. I'm not surprised the crew didn't like working on the movie, sounds very disorganised from a script point of view.
Demon Vice Commander wrote:I still think that it was very unprofessional of Dan to throw Paul under the bus like that - all it accomplished was drumming up more drama and making the Ghostbusters brand look bad.
I think someone in power needed to say something. Feig has been getting all this fake praise it's great finally someone associated with the franchise stated the truth. It's just a throwaway thing he said anyway, Dan didn't make a huge speech about it.
JurorNo.2 wrote:You don't think he was given that advice before?
Hasn't he been quiet on Twitter for a while? When the whole thing blew up on social media I know he's said before that he couldn't resist participating in the bickering.
Dr.D wrote:Feig didn't respond because there's no correct response.
He doesn't have a response because he knows he's in the wrong. The only thing he could come back with is "at least I had funny women in my movie". :roll:
SpaceBallz wrote:Very good points, now I wonder what an Edgar Wright Ghostbusters film would have been like...
A good film? :lol:
Dr.D wrote:From what I hear, there are A LOT of people who worked on the movie really unhappy with Feig. At one point the crew tried to convince the producers just to set the movie in Boston given how extensive the shoot was there. But Sony (specifically Pascal) were adamant that because the original was set in New York, this one had to be too.
He should have just filmed more in New York and spent that money there. I mean you're supposed to representing New York but you're shooting in Boston?
Dr.D wrote:One of my biggest beefs with the movie was Sony's decision to actively stoke the hate flames on social media. I think it speaks to their general anxiety about the movie and rather than just let the marking do the job, they kept pushing this angle because it kept the movie front page news. Yes, people shat all over this for the wrong reasons, but some people just didn't like the overall direction the franchise was headed in and couldn't speak their criticisms without being labeled a sexist or misogynist. And I won't pretend this was Feig's decision, he definitely made things worse with his inflammatory tweets and statements in the press. I honestly think he shares some of the responsibility for some of the horrible things said to Leslie Jones. By acknowledging the crazies, you're giving them a platform. Like I said before, I just generally think Feig was the wrong guy.
I know. The studio messed up with their obsession with casting women just because. You don't just make a guys movie just because. It doesn't work like that. So as a result anyone who thinks differently gets the blame or gets called a troll.
Dr.D wrote:When you have a whole movie full of comic relief, there's no tension and like everything else in films when tropes are overused they become boring. I don't care how much CGI crap you shove on screen, if I don't care about your goofy cartoon characters of a cast it's just boring. See, in the final battle with Gozer in Ghostbusters didn't have the cast all being comic relief. For the most part it's played straight because that's where the comedy comes from. It's funny to see these guys scared to death of a giant marshmallow and react as if it's totally real. We didn't need to see them shoot Stay Puft in the dick to understand it was funny.
I think this is a case of 'what would happen if you made Ghostbusters today?'. Making movies is different today like for instance in comedy. Every film needs to be packed full of fake CGI, signposted funny zingers like everybody is a comedian, desaturated picture quality etc. I created a thread here not long ago asking whether it would be possible to make a Ghostbusters film today with the movie making techniques of the 80s or perhaps I just have to lump it all. The end result of Feig's film isn't too surprising.

I think I speak for everybody here when I say that Answer The Call suffered from being smothered to death either from die hard feminists or right wing misogynists. Every decision from it's conception felt boneheaded and every decision was either met with OTT praise or downright insulting language. Meanwhile people like me are generally concerned by what's going on with this movie as it's one I never wanted in it's present state. Between two political sides the film had no space to breathe. Speaking away from both those sides Pascal, Feig and Dippold (who seems to get forgotten about when there's criticism as she's as much to blame) bumbled the whole thing from it's conception. Nobody says we need a film with four funny men to please one political side, let's make a multi-million dollar movie and come up with the script at a latter date to support this idea. It's like wanting to film in another country and contriving an excuse in the script to support that. The three instigated all this hate between both sides and both sides really came out attacking although from what I've seen the left have got the most support so even that has been one sided. Had Sony left the franchise to more grounded individuals who knew what they were doing we may have got a better movie featuring women as Ghostbusters not a movie about women as Ghostbusters.
Last edited by pferreira1983 on July 2nd, 2017, 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4894997
pferreira1983 wrote:He should have just filmed more in New York and spent that money there. I mean you're supposed to representing New York but you're shooting in Boston?
Are you this pedantic with every film set in one city but filming in another? Or just the reboot? It's a common filming decision to film in one location while dressing it up as another, even the original Ghostbusters did that with some of its notable locations.

Boston offered the more appealing filming incentives/prospects over New York.
pferreira1983 wrote:So as a result anyone who thinks differently gets the blame or gets called a troll.
The term may have been applied a little indiscriminately, but some folks were branded trolls because they actually were being trolls.
Alphagaia, Sav C, deadderek liked this
By pferreira1983
#4894999
Kingpin wrote:Are you this pedantic with every film set in one city but filming in another? Or just the reboot?
The reboot. :mrgreen:
Kingpin wrote:Boston offered the more appealing filming incentives/prospects over New York.
I'm sure it did, doesn't mean it makes sense since it's supposed to be New York.
Kingpin wrote:The term may have been applied a little indiscriminately, but some folks were branded trolls because they actually were being trolls.
Did I say otherwise?
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4895000
pferreira1983 wrote:doesn't mean it makes sense since it's supposed to be New York.
It makes financial sense.
pferreira1983 wrote:Did I say otherwise?
It didn't hurt to make the point, as it seems to get glossed over a little.
Alphagaia, Sav C liked this
By pferreira1983
#4895004
Kingpin wrote:It makes financial sense.
I don't know. Seems kind of logical to me that if you're going to make people believe a show or a film is set in New York that you actually shoot in that city?
Kingpin wrote:It didn't hurt to make the point, as it seems to get glossed over a little.
There are trolls left and right, both keen to ruin Ghostbusters for their own ends. The people behind this movie also did their best to ruin what could have been a good comeback for the franchise.
User avatar
By deadderek
#4895006
pferreira1983 wrote:
Kingpin wrote:It makes financial sense.
I don't know. Seems kind of logical to me that if you're going to make people believe a show or a film is set in New York that you actually shoot in that city?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/n ... story.html

Logic is maximizing your budget. When we're talking 25 million dollars in tax credits....yeah logically it makes sense to film elsewhere.
Sav C liked this
By pferreira1983
#4895012
deadderek wrote:Logic is maximizing your budget. When we're talking 25 million dollars in tax credits....yeah logically it makes sense to film elsewhere.
I know that but when you don't get a New York that actually looks like it why bother? The end result is a film that looks like it's set in Boston. Less millions spent on endless musical numbers and more on the actual stuff that's a priority, that's what Dan is going on about.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4895017
pferreira1983 wrote:I don't know. Seems kind of logical to me that if you're going to make people believe a show or a film is set in New York that you actually shoot in that city?
You don't work in the Hollywood industrial machine, so it's understandable if decisions like filming in Boston over New York don't make as much sense to you as they did to Feig, Sony or the beancounters. Still, it's not a fact that's going to change so it's time really to make your peace with that decision.
Sav C, Alphagaia, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4895039
There is a clear lack of understanding as to how the actual business of big budget filmmaking works. Trust me when I say it's all about saving as much money as possible and minimizing risk. So when a city offers huge tax breaks and other financial filming incentives, studios jump at the chance. You keep saying "well the story is set in NY so why not just film there" which to me among other things shows a bit of a misunderstanding of the importance of a script.

Scripts mean very little in the grand scheme of filmmaking, especially once active production begins. And this is coming from a guy who is a screenwriter and wants to write for a living. A script is like a polite suggestion, especially on bigger budget movies. So many things change for so many reasons its a miracle if a finished film even resembles what was written on the page. And this isn't just creative changes or things added during filming. Sometimes proper locations can't be found, sometimes directors decide on a whim to shoot the scene in a certain style that totally undercuts the original tonality of the scene.

An example...You want two people taking on a rooftop during a sunset? Well we can't find the right kind of rooftop so we're filming that scene inside an elevator. I shit you not, this kind of stuff happens all the time. It's just a reality of practicality. So being upset they didn't film the whole thing in NY is not only kind of useless, but it isn't even really a valid criticism.
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2, Kingpin and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895040
Ehhh, I'll come down the middle. Yes, sometimes it's just not feasible to shoot where you want to shoot, and there's not much you can do about it. But on the other hand, from what I understand a lot of GBII wasn't filmed in NYC, and yet I never doubt for a minute that that's where the story takes place. I don't think ATC showcases NYC quite as successfully.

But actually, we don't even know if this was an actual point of contention behind the scenes or not anyway, lol. :whatever:
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4895043
Dr.D wrote:Filmmaking in 1989 different from filmmaking in 2016.
There are still movies today that successfully showcase NYC though. I like ATC, but I agree that I never feel like that's where the movie is taking place. Sometimes the look is a bit too cartoony, or else identifying buildings aren't dwelled on long enough to take them in. And then there are some buildings that don't look like they'd ever be in NYC.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4895046
NHawk wrote:they could've probably reduced some of the costly effects scenes where they were testing the gear.
That's one of my favourite parts, because you actually see them test, experience what goes wrong, and refine the gear. As someone else said on this forum, with the original team, they hit the bull's-eye first time out of the box... which while expedient to telling the story, is a little unrealistic (I know! I know! :P) Seeing the equipment being tested and refined is one of the things that makes the reboot stand out when compared to the original.
Sav C liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]

I read Back in Town #1. Spoilers : Hate to b[…]

I'd really like to see the new t-shirt unlocks tra[…]