Ghostbusters 2016

[korvys]

I really don't understand how the process matters if the end result is good. And novelty is a component of good, so making literally the same thing simply isn't going to be good, but you can take a lot and still create.

It just seems like the same argument I hear of people saying practical special effects are better than CGI. Bad practical effects are better than bad cgi, which is what most people are comparing, because good effects of both kinds are invisible.

If you can tell a good story based on something else, or if you can tell a good story based on something original, I'm happy either way.

[Elomin Sha]

I'm more than likely very jaded over the years of bad films.

[Amake]

Hmm I was hoping to talk about why Ghostbusters specifically gets more criticism (also, by the way, blatant sabotage) for being a remake than the next 20 remakes combined, but I guess the absence of discussion says something in itself.

[Elomin Sha]

My take on possible cause. Ghostbusters came out at a pretty much perfect time (which can't be replicated), had enough saturation (through games, toys, tv shows) and was unique enough that it struck a cord when child imaginatons were hyper active.
When I've asked people over the years: what their dream job was and was given various answers from footballer, president (hard for someone in the UK to do), actor, singer. I'd respond 'what aboutbeing a Ghostbuster' they could not have changed their mind any faster.

As we've grown up we came to understand what our parents go through while we ran around blissfully unaware. All we cared about was out next toy, junk food or going outside. Now that we're adults (I'm trying to stave that off a little longer) we've become burdened with realities of how the world works; monotomy in various aspects of relationships, monetray issues, job security, health, general security and things that happen around the world.

To escape that we turn to escapism, and to many it so happens that it could be that Ghostbusters, something they haven't seen in a long time brings back the memories and experiences you had back then when things were easier. A euphoria from brain chemicals. For me I remember having my proton pack and trap when I was a kid running around my garden, my home and the forest busting ghosts. Now you take that memory and cross it with something that doesn't line up it will probably cause some a sour taste in some people's mouth. 'Wait, this isn't how I remember it'.

How people react is up to them. Some are complete idiots and don't know how to react and pick the simplest thing to attack. I had that in school with why I wasn't liked: being English. If they say something moronic they are to beheld accountable. Problem is with some you don't know how their mind is thinking. Humans are emotionally stupid.

Look at the Star Wars Prequels, people were clammering to have the same experience when they first saw the original trilogy. Some cried loudly that Episode 1 was the best film ever, and over time did they realise how broken it was in various aspects. Despite it pulling in money with the prequels it is weird to consider that Star Wars had a 50-50 rating on whether it was good or not (less if you included the Holiday Special and the two Ewok films). JJ Abrahms managed to capture something in his film during Han's revelation on the Falcon that takes you back to being a child.


I'm sure there'd be a backlash if someone wanted to remake Godfather, Back to the Future, Shawshank Redemption, Lord of the Rings or Goodfellas.

[Darkflame]

I dunno, I think its infinitely more common for people to decry the star wars prequels as the "the worst thing ever" then it is to come across people defending them. People seemed to quickly make up their mind, and then go progressively more extreme as time goes on.

As for financial success, I think the prequels did ok because, aside from the big IP....there really isn't that much like them. That sort of space sci-fi fantasy is oddly rare. Even today what you going to compare it too? Jupiter Ascending? Guardians of the Galaxy maybe.
Good or bad, Star Wars remains pretty unique.

It just seems like the same argument I hear of people saying practical special effects are better than CGI. Bad practical effects are better than bad cgi, which is what most people are comparing, because good effects of both kinds are invisible.

I think people underestimate how much practical effects are still done so if something feels off they say its bad CG. A lot is also not-CG as such but greenscreened/composited from multiple shots too. (EXTREAMLY common in TV shows, and most you dont notice).

That and sometimes people just guess and get it wrong. I heard some people saying the quicksilver sequence in the last x-men was terrible CG. Yet that was a practical effect done with highspeed cameras and compositing.
I think sometimes the problem is when your dealing with creating things people will never see in real life, theres no way for the audience to even know if it looks realistic or not. They have no real world reference to compare.

[Darkflame]

I feel it should get to the point where film goets should vote with their wallets and say enough is enough. But I know that it won't happen. I wish it would.

After a movie you should get to push a button on your seat. Say, enjoyment out of 5.
That enjoyment is then on display next to each films name at the cinema's listings.

This means you get a genuine, unbiased, assessment from people that have just seen a movie. No time to be tainted by peer-pressure. (or at least no where near as much).

Cinemas might be hesitant in case "oh no big film gets rated bad by early goers".
But Id argue it also gives lesser films time to shine - and they can quickly re-allocate screens based on feedback. (oh, Superman vs Batman is badly received? Ok, lets half the number of screens its on, and push some of the less big films a bit harder instead)

[Elomin Sha]

I dunno, I think its infinitely more common for people to decry the star wars prequels as the "the worst thing ever" then it is to come across people defending them. People seemed to quickly make up their mind, and then go progressively more extreme as time goes on.

That's because I said: people enjoyed it to begin with but over time people grew up and realised that the films had problems.

The seat idea is a good idea but would have to be labelled as first reactions.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

...we are aware that the "original" Ghostbusters film was itself a remake of a television show, right?

Whether a film is a remake or not isn't germane. Whether or not it's good is.

[Master Gunner]

Also, remakes and adaptions go back to the beginning of Hollywood, and include many classic movies, such as The Maltese Falcon.

Given how many hands are involved in a movie production, the "source material" has a rather small impact on the quality of the movie...though a familiar name does help get eyeballs on it.

[Elomin Sha]

...we are aware that the "original" Ghostbusters film was itself a remake of a television show, right?

Whether a film is a remake or not isn't germane. Whether or not it's good is.

I do know that. And Sony paid for the use of the name. The Ghost Busters is more of a Mission Impossible mixed with Scooby Doo, focusing on slap stick.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

So you're saying that the way in which the remake of The Ghost Busters was made matters more than the mere fact that it was a remake, yes?

Interesting, that.

[Elomin Sha]

Elaborate and not just leave two words.

[Darkflame]

Ah, ok, I misunderstood the Star Wars statement then.

...we are aware that the "original" Ghostbusters film was itself a remake of a television show, right?

Whether a film is a remake or not isn't germane. Whether or not it's good is.

Yes. ish.
I would say though a remake can be pointless. When the original stands up well enough on its own, you might as well do a spin-off or sequal (if the concept still has legs).
I think its better to build then to start again.

Starting again to me is only necessary if there's something damaged/wrong with the original, or the franchise has written itself into a corner. I think far to often they think "oh, its been >10 years lets start over!" as if there's some automatically necessity.

[Elomin Sha]

I should say the reason the Star Trek reboot works was because Time Travel nonsense is par for the course in that franchise.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Elaborate and not just leave two words.

Very well. I'm saying that, in your previous comment, you're making my point. That is, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with remakes per se. A remake can be good or bad - but it's the fact that it's a good movie or a bad movie that matters, not the mere fact that it's a remake.

Like with the "original" Ghostbusters. You're saying that, yes, it is a remake (of The Ghost Busters), but the way that they went about the remake (i.e. with a great deal of creativity, originality, and thought) makes it a good film.

Which is exactly what I was saying - any film, remake or not, can be good if you put thought into it, or bad if you don't. That it's a remake is immaterial.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Yes. ish.
I would say though a remake can be pointless. When the original stands up well enough on its own, you might as well do a spin-off or sequal (if the concept still has legs).
I think its better to build then to start again.

Starting again to me is only necessary if there's something damaged/wrong with the original, or the franchise has written itself into a corner. I think far to often they think "oh, its been >10 years lets start over!" as if there's some automatically necessity.

Sure. But to me, that just means that a particular remake has failed, by not bringing enough new to the table. It doesn't mean that it has failed by mere dint of being a remake.

So - and this is my point - just saying "Pffft! It's just another remake" isn't enough to condemn a film. You need to say more.

[Elomin Sha]

I didn't say it's a remake. I said they paid for the same name *cough*name make*cough*. The two professions are different. Detectives compared to exterminators. If thought is put into a remake and it turns out good, all well and done. But in my mind they put NO thought into this one. And most remakes/reboots are bad.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Okay... so... do you consider the 1984 Ghostbusters to be a remake or not?

[Elomin Sha]

From what I know of The Ghost Busters, I'd say no. They have a common theme of a business targeting ghosts and the paranormal. After that both are played very differently. Also the original premise of Ghostbusters was very different to what we know now.

TGB is a slapstick with ghosts around it. GB is a film that is played straight with comedic elements.

I'd say Scooby Doo is the closest to a remake of The Ghost Busters, but they changed a couple of things to be different. Then you have the slue of remakes/reimaginings that brought on: Jaberjaw, Josie and the Pussycats, and Speed Buggy.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Well, see, I've got to disagree, then. I do think it's a remake - albeit one that includes a lot of original and creative stuff. But when the basic premise and name are the same, I call that a remake. I'd say the same goes for the 1982 The Thing and the 2009 Star Trek.

All are remakes, and all are, independent from that, good films. Because they went about remaking them correctly - that is, thoughtfully.

And, whether we agree that the 1984 Ghostbusters is a remake or not, that is the point I'm trying to make. A good, creative, thoughtful film is worthwhile, whether it's a remake or not. "But it's a remake!" doesn't actually tell you anything about quality.

[Darkflame]

Star Trek was a semi-reboot.
Actually, most of these are reboots.
Remake is really when your (literally) taking the same plot, but updating it in other ways.

Reboot by comparison can be a different plot, even if the setup/characters/premise is mostly the same.
Critically a reboot is a different continuity. The previous things never happened. So all remakes are reboots, but not visa-versa.

Sadly the terms have all got muddled and watered down these days so meanings are never clear till its out.
[/nit pick]

I should say the reason the Star Trek reboot works was because Time Travel nonsense is par for the course in that franchise.

It helps that the two previous films wernt very well received, and neither was the last series.
So perception wise it needed a "kick".

Sure. But to me, that just means that a particular remake has failed, by not bringing enough new to the table. It doesn't mean that it has failed by mere dint of being a remake.

So - and this is my point - just saying "Pffft! It's just another remake" isn't enough to condemn a film. You need to say more.

Id say even if it brings new stuff to the table, its still a negative being a reboot unless its a strict necessity. Why do it? Why not continue the existing universe? It just seems taking the easy way out plotwise.*


*And note; I do acknowledge plot is just one aspect of many. A film can have a meh plot while still being great enough in other ways.

[Elomin Sha]

I don't think I said remakes will tell you anything about quality bar mentioning the fact that there is a track record of remakes, based on what is considered classics, have been terrible and its where it stems from.

Robocop, Total Recall, Miami Vice, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Point Break, Godzilla (1998), Italian Job.

There have been good remakes, as I have said: 13 Assassins, Magnificent Seven, Departed.
From what I have seen, read and heard; this film is a remake that doesn't do much to make itself different apart from some minor cosmetic changes. I wouldn't consider it a good idea to throw out the previous films and then reference them in abundance, which one reviewer who really enjoyed the film found to be the most annoying piece of the film. That every 15 minutes (in his words) there is a call back to the original.

[empath]

I want the movie to tank so Hollywood will get into their heads to stop thinking that making reboots is a good idea.

Why would this 'n'th reboot have any more influence on them than all the other reboots in the past while that have done nothing but give some people tax write-offs?

Their heads are far thicker than you could possibly imagine...

[Elomin Sha]

Live in hope that cracks could appear one day.

[empath]

...and you call yourself 'jaded'.