Discuss Ghostbusters: Afterlife, released on November 19, 2021 and directed by Jason Reitman.
#4934970
deadderek wrote: May 18th, 2020, 6:28 pm What a load of crap:


7 Reasons Ghostbusters: Afterlife Won't Revive The Franchise

https://whatculture.com/film/7-reasons- ... ise?page=1
Wow, that's just, wow. How speculative. I'm sorry they earned ad revenue from my click... They haven't even seen the movie yet, and they're already criticizing it for Paul Rudd's role not being large enough, being too much like Stranger Things, being too kid-like, not being set in New York, and only having the original 'busters in a cameo role. (Also, "sequels that ignore prior reboots" not performing well is just an observation (who knows if it holds any empirical weight), not a reason for future sequels that ignore prior reboots to be unable to restart a franchise.)

Not to mention, the last "reason" is basically Afterlife won't revive the franchise because it won't generate enough hype. Unless I'm mistaken, that's almost circular reasoning.
Last edited by Sav C on May 18th, 2020, 8:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
#4934979
deadderek wrote: May 18th, 2020, 6:28 pm What a load of crap:


7 Reasons Ghostbusters: Afterlife Won't Revive The Franchise

https://whatculture.com/film/7-reasons- ... ise?page=1
Going by that logic, Halloween 2018 wouldn't be getting 2 more sequels.
Glenn Frederick liked this
#4934982
It's not worth the read then? Regrettably there's a ton of click bait articles on Cobra Kai as well.

They like to bring you in with claiming they have release date info when it's just a bunch of speculation. They know shit and want your click.

Although it would have been nice to have Cobra Kai released along side after life. I'm actually thinking it's not going to hit until early July. Season three is finished but marketing was delayed I believe.
SpaceBallz liked this
#4934983
Kingpin wrote: May 18th, 2020, 4:15 pm
RichardLess wrote: May 18th, 2020, 10:20 am Holy crap! I found the accessory thing that I used as a makeshift neutrino wand! And it is from Ghostbusters! It’s this accessory in Venkman’s hand: https://ghostbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Sc ... er_Venkman
I do wonder if that accessory was loosely based off of the slime scoop... The figure came out in 1989, so it's not completely impossible.
RichardLess wrote: May 18th, 2020, 2:59 pm I never had the Kenner Ecto 1 as a kid but I had(still have somewhere) the Extreme Ghostbusters Ecto 1. Which one do all you toy collectors prefer?
Kenner for the aesthetics*. Treadmasters for the lights and sounds.

*(Nostalgia too. The Kenner Ecto was my first, although to be specific... It was my brother's, first. The morning of maybe Christmas 1988, or 1989, he received Ecto-1, and some figures, whilst I received the Firehouse and some figures).

That was one of my more vivid Ghostbusters memories of my early teens, whilst The Real Ghostbusters had still been getting some reruns up to at least 1995, I think eventually it did slip off the air on CITV entirely in 1995 or 1996. My brother and I were just getting ready to head out for a barber's appointment in 1997 when I suddenly saw a brief snipped advertising XGB, which would be starting momentarily that very afternoon. It had the Firehouse and Ecto-1... Was this really a new Ghostbusters cartoon?

I had enough time to scramble a tape into our VCR to record it before we had to head out.

And then, maybe that year, or the one after, I ended up at a Toys 'R' Us off the beaten track when we went to visit my brother at university, and they had the XGB Ecto-1 (which came with a free XGB-branded CD of Ray Parker Jr.'s theme with every purchase).
Oh my did I come across something special on YouTube. Ok. This video starts off as a guy talking about how great RGB toys were. And that’s kind of cool enough. But then the real magic happens at around 3:54 in the video. I don’t want to spoil it so please...just watch.
Anyone who wants a massive smile and to feel good about being a kid & loving ghostbusters, watch this video. I’m serious. It’s just one of those beautiful things.



edit. I tried to embed the YouTube video, why it won’t work...I don’t know

Edit number 2: HA I figured it out! All on my own!
Last edited by RichardLess on May 19th, 2020, 4:31 am, edited 3 times in total.
#4934984
Bison256 wrote: May 18th, 2020, 7:34 pm Those internet rags are running out of money, they have been posting articles like that hopping to get hate clicks. They decided to go back to the "greatest hits" aggravating star wars and ghostbuster fans.
It's basically the same shit they did to much greater effect in 2016: fuel the hate and get some clicks.

Ignore it.
Sav C liked this
#4934997
yourbigpalal83 wrote: May 15th, 2020, 1:25 pmDan, Harold and Ernie (who goes to all of the conventions, whos been the most interactive with fans) were all ready to go and bill was the hold up for decades, and then 2 years after Harolds gone, we got a reboot, with Bill having the biggest cameo..

That really pissed me off because he said for years he would never do the film. (To be fair there was rumors that he and the rest of the cast were kinda forced into the reboot due to legal issues)
As per the usual, I should point out that this is not true, and anyone who thought it was true based on the Sony leaks doesn't understand how dates work.

Unless a person has a contract with a sequel clause in it, then no studio has any leverage to force an actor to be in a movie they don't want to be in. If they had that clause, they would've used it to make the Ghostbusters 3 that Bill declined to make for 20 years. Also, sequel clauses aren't going to cross over to a reboot, so even if they had one, they couldn't have used it to force him to be in Ghostbusters (2016), only a Ghostbusters 3.

My feeling is that Bill was a spiteful and sometimes mean person and still is curmudgeonly, but because he's reaching the end of his life rather than the beginning, he's starting to mellow out some about the things he resisted when he was younger and angrier. The frustrating middle ground is that he was probably right to turn down Hellbent and Alive Again on artistic grounds, and he let a decades-long feud between himself and Harold go on longer than it should have and resolved it too late, and he's probably as sincere as he gets in his desire to be in Ghostbusters: Afterlife and the fact that he misses Harold. He may even be doing the movie out of genuine remorse that he only has himself to blame that he wants to see Harold and can't because he waited too long to patch up his feud. You could also theorize that had he fixed things with Harold earlier, Harold might've been more involved and collaborative in developing a Ghostbusters 3, and we would have gotten a version of the movie that doesn't exist at all, even in draft form. Who knows.

I haven't been around for awhile, but the other thing brought up that I think was correct is a "Ghostbusters" TV show is where I would like to see the franchise turn if Afterlife is a success. Not to say there can't be movies, but the catch is that if each movie is about the end of the world, then you get stuck trying to top yourself over and over. The bulk of Ghostbusting as a profession would be the day-to-day stuff, so that's the angle from which I think a TV show makes the most sense.

Sony no longer distributes the Bond movies, so it would be Universal bumping it to 2021, if/when that happens.

Sony would probably not tack a $50 price tag onto ownership. They would just do as Universal is doing and put it up for rental only at $19.99, if it came to that (for the record, a digital rental lasts 24 hours from the time you start playing the movie; you have a month to start watching it).
Sav C, Kingpin, Alphagaia and 1 others liked this
#4934999
droidguy1119 wrote: May 19th, 2020, 2:54 pm
yourbigpalal83 wrote: May 15th, 2020, 1:25 pmDan, Harold and Ernie (who goes to all of the conventions, whos been the most interactive with fans) were all ready to go and bill was the hold up for decades, and then 2 years after Harolds gone, we got a reboot, with Bill having the biggest cameo..

That really pissed me off because he said for years he would never do the film. (To be fair there was rumors that he and the rest of the cast were kinda forced into the reboot due to legal issues)
As per the usual, I should point out that this is not true, and anyone who thought it was true based on the Sony leaks doesn't understand how dates work.

Unless a person has a contract with a sequel clause in it, then no studio has any leverage to force an actor to be in a movie they don't want to be in. If they had that clause, they would've used it to make the Ghostbusters 3 that Bill declined to make for 20 years. Also, sequel clauses aren't going to cross over to a reboot, so even if they had one, they couldn't have used it to force him to be in Ghostbusters (2016), only a Ghostbusters 3.

My feeling is that Bill was a spiteful and sometimes mean person and still is curmudgeonly, but because he's reaching the end of his life rather than the beginning, he's starting to mellow out some about the things he resisted when he was younger and angrier. The frustrating middle ground is that he was probably right to turn down Hellbent and Alive Again on artistic grounds, and he let a decades-long feud between himself and Harold go on longer than it should have and resolved it too late, and he's probably as sincere as he gets in his desire to be in Ghostbusters: Afterlife and the fact that he misses Harold. He may even be doing the movie out of genuine remorse that he only has himself to blame that he wants to see Harold and can't because he waited too long to patch up his feud. You could also theorize that had he fixed things with Harold earlier, Harold might've been more involved and collaborative in developing a Ghostbusters 3, and we would have gotten a version of the movie that doesn't exist at all, even in draft form. Who knows.

I haven't been around for awhile, but the other thing brought up that I think was correct is a "Ghostbusters" TV show is where I would like to see the franchise turn if Afterlife is a success. Not to say there can't be movies, but the catch is that if each movie is about the end of the world, then you get stuck trying to top yourself over and over. The bulk of Ghostbusting as a profession would be the day-to-day stuff, so that's the angle from which I think a TV show makes the most sense.

Sony no longer distributes the Bond movies, so it would be Universal bumping it to 2021, if/when that happens.

Sony would probably not tack a $50 price tag onto ownership. They would just do as Universal is doing and put it up for rental only at $19.99, if it came to that (for the record, a digital rental lasts 24 hours from the time you start playing the movie; you have a month to start watching it).
Harold was *extremely* involved in the development of Ghostbusters 3. When the movie was in it’s “Hellbent” era, he was going to direct and also wrote a draft of the script.

The truth of the matter is we can only guess what Hellbent or Alive Again could’ve been like. Read some of the drafts of GB 1 or GB2. They are very different movies then the ones we ended up with. Was Bill right to turn down GB3? Well it wasnt just that he turned it down. They needed his approval for it to happen. According to reports at the time, just for not using his veto & allowing Hellbent to get produced, he wanted 20% of the first dollar gross points.

Of course all of this could’ve been solved had they just come to me. Ideas for Ghostbusters 3 keeps me up at night sometimes, thinking about it.

I’ll share an idea for a sequence in my version of GB3.

I always thought it would be funny if we see the ghostbusters busting a ghost from the perspective of the client.
So this upper middle class family living in the suburbs is having a haunting problem. They call the ghostbusters.
The new GBs show up and have the family wait outside. Now throughout this entire sequence the camera stays only with the family. We see the GBs open the door to the house and go in. All of this happens in a single uninterrupted cut. There’s a beat of quiet as the family waits in suspense. Nothing is happening. Then all of a sudden all hell breaks loose!
From the outside of the house, from the families POV, We see proton pack beams shooting out of the roof, smashing windows, inhuman sounds & screams, a Ghostbuster gets thrown out of the window, his/her hair is smoking and looks completely disheveled, the uniform partly torn. He/she gets up, unhurt, smiles at the mortified family and heads back in. We stay with the family. And all of a sudden proton beams erupt from all over. Shooting out of the house from the inside, punching holes, lighting fires, hitting tree branches. Again, all of this is in a single take from the families POV. We see a bright flash of light and...silence. The four new GBs emerge victorious from what remains of the front door, smoking trap in hand. One of the GBs is almost completely naked & missing a chunk of hair. Why? We never find out. The others look like they’ve been thru hell too. They meet up with the mortified family. “So will that be cash or charge?” The family doesn’t answer. They hand the man of the house the $10,000 Bill. They get into the Ecto 1 and start driving away.

The family stands in what remains of their yard. Smoking piles of wood, glass and various Knick knacks all littered throughout their yard. small fires here and there. A beat as the family just stands in their PJs watching the GBs drive away, the father still with the 10,000 dollar bill in his hand, flapping in the nighttime wind. Behind them what remains of their house collapses into a heap of rubble.

The father(meekly): Thank You.

A beat.

A branch from a tree on fire falls and crushes the family car.

The end.
Kingpin, robbritton liked this
#4935000
I like it. Sounds alot like the hole in the wall gang. Although there were quite a few RGB episodes like that.
It would have been an improvement on the first movie to see more of a reaction from the guests as the GBs were getting after Slimer.
Slimer slimes the hotel owner and some woman faints before he darts back into that room.
I think the addition of a scene like that would have lent more credibility to the GBs going forward.
#4935001
RichardLess wrote: May 19th, 2020, 4:28 pm Harold was *extremely* involved in the development of Ghostbusters 3. When the movie was in it’s “Hellbent” era, he was going to direct and also wrote a draft of the script.
My recollection is that Harold talked about Dan's draft (I remember him commenting on it during press for The Ice Harvest) but I never saw a draft of the script that had Harold's name on it, only the one that Dan did. Not saying I'm right here, in this case I defer to the board. I never read any of the drafts of Ghostbusters 3, and the time when I entered the online Ghostbusters fandom was right around the time when Proton Charging had just published the story about how Dan's $150m draft was a no-go and Dan had decided to pack up and leave the Sony lot as a result.

My impression had always been that Dan was the one who was passionate about Ghostbusters 3, as the series was his baby more than anyone else's, and that Harold was certainly supportive but more personally driven by his solo directing career. I don't think he ever would've stood in the way of another Ghostbusters, nor would he have declined to help Dan, but I don't remember him doing a draft of Hellbent (I know he and Dan's writing credits on the game were basically honorary, and they didn't do much more than glance at it and give notes).
#4935002
droidguy1119 wrote:
RichardLess wrote: May 19th, 2020, 4:28 pm Harold was *extremely* involved in the development of Ghostbusters 3. When the movie was in it’s “Hellbent” era, he was going to direct and also wrote a draft of the script.
My recollection is that Harold talked about Dan's draft (I remember him commenting on it during press for The Ice Harvest) but I never saw a draft of the script that had Harold's name on it, only the one that Dan did. Not saying I'm right here, in this case I defer to the board. I never read any of the drafts of Ghostbusters 3, and the time when I entered the online Ghostbusters fandom was right around the time when Proton Charging had just published the story about how Dan's $150m draft was a no-go and Dan had decided to pack up and leave the Sony lot as a result.

My impression had always been that Dan was the one who was passionate about Ghostbusters 3, as the series was his baby more than anyone else's, and that Harold was certainly supportive but more personally driven by his solo directing career. I don't think he ever would've stood in the way of another Ghostbusters, nor would he have declined to help Dan, but I don't remember him doing a draft of Hellbent (I know he and Dan's writing credits on the game were basically honorary, and they didn't do much more than glance at it and give notes).
Short answer: Ramis reportedly worked on an outline, treatment, and at least one draft and considered directing it.

Yes, we've only seen the cover of one draft of Hellbent with only Aykroyd's name on it. We haven't seen Ramis' name on the cover of a draft nor Tom Davis who Aykroyd also later credited for a Hellbent darft.

Long answer:

In the August 1993 issue of Playboy, there was an interview with Dan Aykroyd on the set of "Coneheads" and a third Ghostbusters movie came up. Aykroyd replied, "The one I don't think we'll necessarily further exploit is Ghostbusters. It looks like that's about had its run" but then hinted, "If I could get that team together, it would be a real dream, because I think there's a great story to be told. But it won't be for a while."

Between February 7 to the 12, 1994, Dan Aykroyd appeared on WWOR Channel 9 News. When asked about doing another movie, he responded he had a story in mind he was thinking about but a factor was getting the others together again.

In 1996, Harold Ramis mentioned Aykroyd was writing a script with "a whole new, younger, and probably much more handsome team," and likened it to 'Ghostbusters: The Next Generation'.

On September 10, 1996, Aykroyd confirmed he finished the first draft, meeting with Sony, he spoke with Chris Farley about a part he is writing for him, and thinks Will Smith would make another great Ghostbuster.

On September 15, 1996, Aykroyd stated he was working on the second draft, Ramis was in negotiations to reprise Egon, Murray and Weaver passed, and a role was being written for Chris Farley.

On November 2, 1996, it was rumored Oscar, now an adult, would have a large role.

On April 15, 1997, it was reported Aykroyd and Ramis wrote an outline that included a new team. Aykroyd hinted he would love to see Chris Farley in it

On November 9, 1997, it was reported Aykroyd offered Murray a five minute walk in role but was refused so he started working on a draft without Peter.

On January 5, 1998, John Calley, then the head of Sony Pictures Entertainment, reportedly had a Ghostbusters sequel among his plans for the studio.

On January 19, 1998, it was reported the cast demanded more than 40 percent of Sony's receipts but everyone except Bill Murray all backed down to a more reasonable price and he wanted a cut of the gross not to star in the movie.

On February 10, 1998, Aykroyd commented he and Harold Ramis had a treatment but admitted Bill Murray and Ivan Reitman weren't interested.

On March 28, 1998, it was rumored Will Smith was in talks to star in the movie.

On April 14, 1998, it was reported the first draft was a "disaster," a new writer was brought in to work with Aykroyd and Ramis in late March, Murray was reconsidering, and it was unlikely Weaver would return.

On July 9, 1998, it was reported the plot concerned Egon and Ray's attempts to continue the business after Peter leaves with Dana, and that the main villain might be Hades, the Greek god of the underworld.

On August 14, 1998, it was reported Aykroyd and Ramis were working on a screenplay.

On September 1, 1998, it was rumored George Fenton would score.

On October 25, 1998, it was rumored Aykroyd spoke with Jason Alexander about a role as a Ghostbuster and he also has Jeff Daniels in mind.

On January 27, 1999, Ramis confirmed Aykroyd was writing a sequel, done two versions of it, but likened it more to a hobby. He speculated a new movie would have any original cast members "as mentors to a new, young cast."

On February 19, 1999, Ramis confirmed he talked to Aykroyd about it on a regular basis and the studio was interested but admitted Murray was very elusive and Reitman was "kind of standing on the side." He revealed the 'dream plan' was for him and Aykroyd to produce it while he would direct it and the story would be about the Ghostbusters recruiting a new team.

On February 24, 1999, it was reported in a Chicago radio show the day before, Ramis said they wouldn't do it without Murray and Murray "said that he would only do the movie if his character was killed off in the first two minutes of the movie. That way he could play a ghost in the remainder of the movie."

On March 10, 1999: A draft of Hellbent was done.

On June 18, 1999, in Entertainment Weekly, Reitman revealed Aykroyd went to his house 3 weeks ago to talk about the movie and the idea would Ramis directing it and Reitman producing.

On July 30, 1999, Reitman commented he would probably only produce the movie.

On November 12, 1999, Aykroyd commented the chances of the movie seemed slim and attributed it to Sony trying to make too many "bargains".

On May 9, 2000, in Jam! section of the Calgary Sun, Reitman commented he couldn't solve script problems and was uncertain about making deals with Sony and the cast.
Last edited by mrmichaelt on May 19th, 2020, 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
devilmanozzy, Alphagaia, robbritton and 1 others liked this
#4935003





Oh my did I come across something special on YouTube. Ok. This video starts off as a guy talking about how great RGB toys were. And that’s kind of cool enough. But then the real magic happens at around 3:54 in the video. I don’t want to spoil it so please...just watch.
Anyone who wants a massive smile and to feel good about being a kid & loving ghostbusters, watch this video. I’m serious. It’s just one of those beautiful things.



edit. I tried to embed the YouTube video, why it won’t work...I don’t know

Edit number 2: HA I figured it out! All on my own!
That was a fantastic surprise.
Took me right back to some very fond memories [emoji3]
Last edited by RedSpecial on May 19th, 2020, 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RichardLess liked this
#4935005
RedSpecial wrote: May 19th, 2020, 6:44 pm

Oh my did I come across something special on YouTube. Ok. This video starts off as a guy talking about how great RGB toys were. And that’s kind of cool enough. But then the real magic happens at around 3:54 in the video. I don’t want to spoil it so please...just watch.
Anyone who wants a massive smile and to feel good about being a kid & loving ghostbusters, watch this video. I’m serious. It’s just one of those beautiful things.



edit. I tried to embed the YouTube video, why it won’t work...I don’t know

Edit number 2: HA I figured it out! All on my own!
That was a fantastic surprise.
Took me right back to some very find memories [emoji3]
Isn’t it great? That guy who narrated his home videos, Tyler Esposito, has this whole series called “My Retro Life”. It’s Dedicated to his late father who passed away from melanoma 13 years ago. I’ve watched a few of them, which mostly centre around the theme of retro video games. It seems like his Dad was a really special person.
#4935013
mrmichaelt wrote: May 19th, 2020, 6:37 pm"If I could get that team together, it would be a real dream, because I think there's a great story to be told. But it won't be for a while."
Oh Dan... You had no idea how right you'd end up being. :(
RichardLess wrote: May 19th, 2020, 8:03 pmIt seems like his Dad was a really special person.
We'd all be lucky to have a Dad half as passionate about the things we enjoy as he clearly was.
#4935025
mrmichaelt wrote: May 19th, 2020, 6:37 pmShort answer: Ramis reportedly worked on an outline, treatment, and at least one draft and considered directing it.

Long answer:
In the August 1993 issue of Playboy...
Yeah, the long answer more or less lines up with what my impression was. Dan is always actively writing it, Harold talks more about talking to Dan about it. I imagine he was probably a little more involved with it than I had always thought, but this still strongly gives me the impression of Dan being the hands-on guy, and Harold being the supportive friend who probably read Dan's drafts and gave him notes. Offering Harold the chance to direct it himself sounds like a move to get him more interested and involved in it.

This isn't necessarily very promising: https://variety.com/2020/film/news/new- ... 234611208/
#4935027
Kingpin wrote: May 20th, 2020, 6:26 am Oh Dan... You had no idea how right you'd end up being. :(
So true.
JonXCTrack wrote: May 20th, 2020, 8:00 am In 1996 Oscar would have been about 7 years old. Was the plan to make the third entry set in the future?
It would appear so, a time skip into the 21st century. Hellbent did have the plot point that Ghostbusters was a full blown corporation so some time would have to pass for that to realistically happen.
Davideverona wrote: May 20th, 2020, 12:30 pm Maybe they were writing with the intention to shoot it in 2019.
Image
droidguy1119 wrote: May 20th, 2020, 4:42 pm Yeah, the long answer more or less lines up with what my impression was. Dan is always actively writing it, Harold talks more about talking to Dan about it. I imagine he was probably a little more involved with it than I had always thought, but this still strongly gives me the impression of Dan being the hands-on guy, and Harold being the supportive friend who probably read Dan's drafts and gave him notes. Offering Harold the chance to direct it himself sounds like a move to get him more interested and involved in it.
True, Dan definitely carried the torch since the start of the 90s, then it seemed like Harold got interested again in the late 90s then again in the mid-2000s when he was brought into help consult on The Video Game then they both got excited enough to take another stab at GB III. And it was definitely interesting to see that Reitman had zero interest until around 1999 and 2008. Both pretty much got on and off the carousel so to speak.
#4935028
droidguy1119 wrote: May 20th, 2020, 4:42 pm
mrmichaelt wrote: May 19th, 2020, 6:37 pmShort answer: Ramis reportedly worked on an outline, treatment, and at least one draft and considered directing it.

Long answer:
In the August 1993 issue of Playboy...
Yeah, the long answer more or less lines up with what my impression was. Dan is always actively writing it, Harold talks more about talking to Dan about it. I imagine he was probably a little more involved with it than I had always thought, but this still strongly gives me the impression of Dan being the hands-on guy, and Harold being the supportive friend who probably read Dan's drafts and gave him notes. Offering Harold the chance to direct it himself sounds like a move to get him more interested and involved in it.

This isn't necessarily very promising: https://variety.com/2020/film/news/new- ... 234611208/
That’s a lot of conjecture on your part. Could it have happened that way? Sure. Maybe. I guess. Anything is possible. I think what’s more likely is GB3 went just the way all the other GB movies did before it.(minus the actual getting made part lol)

“Offering Harold the chance to direct it himself”. Each GB film has started off with Dan doing his own thing, bringing it to Harold/Ivan and then it transforming. This was no different. GB3 was written on spec. That’s why he classifies it as a Hobby. The idea that Harold Ramis, probably one of the greatest comedy writers of all time, would write something like GB3 on spec, tells you everything you need to know. He wasn’t getting paid for this. It was out of a love and passion for the project. I think Harold being interested in directing it was purely out of Ivan not being interested. I mean...Dan offering him the directors chair could be what happened, sure. But was the chair dans to offer? It was probably “how do we get this made without Ivan? Only 1 of us is a talented director”.

I do love that Harold & Dan were working on GB3 together, with no commitment from the studio. No guarantees. Just doing it for the love of doing it. Most established writers who’ve had hits like Harold & Dan don’t write on spec. The ones that do? It tells you something. Writers, established ones, pitch to a studio with maybe an outline, have the studio buy the outline, and then get to work. Or they are under a development deal. Or they’ve been hired for the project. Writing a *sequel* on Spec, is rarer still. I love Dan & Harold keeping the flame alive. Tells you what kind of people they are.
#4935044
Kingpin wrote: May 21st, 2020, 5:27 am It's probably just the director's cut with the full-length riffing on every single joke, rather than any new effects sequences or story points. :whatever:
Could be, but it could also contain the scenes like Erin going to the Dean with her pack,trying to convince him Ghosts exist, the Jack in the box clown ghost people mentioned seeing in an early cut of the movie, more background story on the band and more on Rowan's backstory, changing jokes around just like the extendeded edition did and stuff like the government using the Ecto-tank on Rowan.
robbritton liked this
#4935045
Alphagaia wrote: May 21st, 2020, 5:34 am Could be, but it could also contain the scenes like Erin going to the Dean with her pack,trying to convince him Ghosts exist, the Jack in the box clown ghost people mentioned seeing in an early cut of the movie, more background story on the band and more on Rowan's backstory, changing jokes around just like the extendeded edition did and stuff like the government using the Ecto-tank on Rowan.
I forget, wasn't Erin's meeting with Dr. Filmore not in the Director's Cut?

I remember the Ecto Tank, but from what I remember seeing it was still a mixture of some shot footage (which did make it into the film) and storyboards for the effects sequences, suggesting they were never completed. The jack-in-a-box thing may also have not been completed.
#4935046
Kingpin wrote: May 21st, 2020, 6:27 am
Alphagaia wrote: May 21st, 2020, 5:34 am Could be, but it could also contain the scenes like Erin going to the Dean with her pack,trying to convince him Ghosts exist, the Jack in the box clown ghost people mentioned seeing in an early cut of the movie, more background story on the band and more on Rowan's backstory, changing jokes around just like the extendeded edition did and stuff like the government using the Ecto-tank on Rowan.
I forget, wasn't Erin's meeting with Dr. Filmore not in the Director's Cut? I remember the Ecto Tank, but from what I remember seeing it was still a mixture of some shot footage (which did make it into the film) and storyboards for the effects sequences, suggesting they were never completed. The jack-in-a-box thing may also have not been completed.
Erin and the Dean was a separate deleted scene. You could watch it on the bonus dvd, same as the Ecto-tank, but it wasn't in the extended cut.

The Ecto-tank shot actually boosts Rowan power and he uses that power to freeze the army. (which is also why he comments on why the GB are late, as he could have frozen them as well). In the movie you see him floating down the building from a blue ball of energy, which is actually caused by the blast of the Ecto-tank.

I remember people talking about the Jack in the box in a teaser reel shown during the toyfair or something, so it must have been at least (very close to) done. Depending it being a prop or CGI. (Or both). We have also seen some art of the clown.

Image

Image
#4935049
Alphagaia wrote: May 21st, 2020, 6:33 am
Kingpin wrote: May 21st, 2020, 6:27 am

I forget, wasn't Erin's meeting with Dr. Filmore not in the Director's Cut? I remember the Ecto Tank, but from what I remember seeing it was still a mixture of some shot footage (which did make it into the film) and storyboards for the effects sequences, suggesting they were never completed. The jack-in-a-box thing may also have not been completed.
Erin and the Dean was a separate deleted scene. You could watch it on the bonus dvd, same as the Ecto-tank, but it wasn't in the extended cut.

The Ecto-tank shot actually boosts Rowan power and he uses that power to freeze the army. (which is also why he comments on why the GB are late, as he could have frozen them as well). In the movie you see him floating down the building from a blue ball of energy, which is actually caused by the blast of the Ecto-tank.

I remember people talking about the Jack in the box in a teaser reel shown during the toyfair or something, so it must have been at least (very close to) done. Depending it being a prop or CGI. (Or both). We have also seen some art of the clown.

Image

Image
Imagine a 3 and a half hour cut of this movie? More dancing! More product placement! More awkward improvising! More Wonton “jokes”!

Man. All I see when I see those ghosts is “Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed”. The ghosts & their designs & aesthetic just weren’t for me.

I think Feig is half joking. I can’t see any comedy filmmaker truly wanting an audience to see a 3.5 hour cut of a comedy film, beyond a filmmaking curiosity.

I mentioned product placement above. Companies pay quite a bit of money to have their products featured in a film. I remember reading that certain films like the 90’s James Bond films & Man of Steel had their entire budgets covered by product placement. Sometimes those numbers make it to the press. Now I know it’s been reported that GB16 lost Sony something like 70 million dollars. But with all that product placement...I just find that hard to believe. I wonder how much of the budget was covered by the Papa John’s deal.
pizzarat, deadderek liked this
#4935051
Eh, product placement funds movies. That's normal then and normal now.

You can make a drinking game on the amount of coca cola cans in the first movie alone. (Coca Cola owned the studio at that time).

COCA COLA ADV. for GB II:

Interesting facts about BO losses:The 50 -70 million loss is counted on BO minus cost and marketing, but you are right this isn't exactly the truth.

Studios fund movies with different parties to split up and cover costs and losses for instance. The other parties get a part of BO profit, and spread their money over multiple movies, but Sony gets also money from various other sources:

DVD/Blue Ray sales in America alone were 35+ million for just a year for instance. Then we got various Netflix deals, airplane deals, the royalties from a German theme park, the toys (they get a percentage and Mattel paid 5 M in advance to be able to make them, the VR stations from the void that were filled to the brim for 2+ years and expanded from 1 to 5 stations that ran Ghostbusters. Comic royalties, Videogame royalties, Boardgame royalties, etc. It all adds up.

One way or another, the studio at the very least makes back it's money.
Last edited by Alphagaia on May 21st, 2020, 9:20 am, edited 4 times in total.
#4935052
Alphagaia wrote: May 21st, 2020, 8:51 am Eh, product placement funds movies. That's normal then and normal now.

You can make a drinking game on the amount of coca cola cans in the first movie alone. (Coca Cola owned the studio at that time).
Oh no, don’t get me wrong. I don’t care about it beyond the super super egregious examples, but I’m just curious. Sony claimed a 140ish million production budget and there was quite a bit of product placement, so how much of that was covered.

I mean...I enjoy the first Transformers movie and it’s product placement central. Whatever helps realize the filmmakers vision, ya know?

Christ, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind has a literal commercial for Budweiser when just before that there was a can of Budweiser on the TV itself lol. Suddenly when the commercial comes on, the can is no longer there.

Superman II has Superman thrown into a truck of Marlboro cigarettes lol.
pizzarat liked this
  • 1
  • 334
  • 335
  • 336
  • 337
  • 338
  • 677

Yep, and nightmare on elm street dream warriors.

You can see our Paranormal Boots in action here: […]

Ghostheads

Ghostheads is SO bad. So cringe. Not even in a g[…]

The opening post contain a lot information. Quick […]