-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dan Aykroyd blasts Paul Feig, says he's not welcome at Sony after Ghostbusters
- Thread starter LordOfLore
- Start date
WordAssassin
Member
I'm pretty sure that's backwards. Murray was the one who was saying he'd only do it if he died in the first 10 minutes. It was one of the many requirements he said over the years would get him to be in a third movie.
streetsahead123
Banned
...he said, with no trace of irony, about a belligerently average summer blockbuster comedy with a 73% Certified Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Never trust a man who only wears suits.
Outside of the house blowing up and the car scene at the start, almost the entire movie is Keanu walking from room to room as squibs go off. Not terribly expensive to do I'd imagine.
Henchmen21
Banned
You might be right but the point still stands. They had an easy work-around for Murray and Ivan WAS working on a GB script before they passed it off to Feig.
excelsiorlef
Member
But they probably didn't want to write the movie where Venkman died
Dr_LucienSanchez
Banned
Feig is such a boring filmmaker. This is hardly a 'blasting' though.
I don't disagree with him, but the fault somewhat lies with the producers and financiers as well.
There's no reason a Ghostbusters movie needs to have the budget of a superhero flick. I didn't dislike the film (nor did I really love it either) but any producer looking at the script could easily see ways to save money.
Why did the first ghost they catch need to be in a jam packed (shitty) rock concert?
Why did Times Square need to be the location of the final act? why did it need to change into a 70s version of Times Square? Why was there an army of CGI ghosts and parade balloon monsters?
Ghostbusters was never about the spectacle until the final protagonist encounter. The contrast between that and what had come before was entirely the point, to see everything go completely over the top and exaggerated.
Also, a cheap way to bring the budget down would have been to remove the original cast, it was really off putting seeing the guys in the film but NOT be Ghostbusters.
There's no reason a Ghostbusters movie needs to have the budget of a superhero flick. I didn't dislike the film (nor did I really love it either) but any producer looking at the script could easily see ways to save money.
Why did the first ghost they catch need to be in a jam packed (shitty) rock concert?
Why did Times Square need to be the location of the final act? why did it need to change into a 70s version of Times Square? Why was there an army of CGI ghosts and parade balloon monsters?
Ghostbusters was never about the spectacle until the final protagonist encounter. The contrast between that and what had come before was entirely the point, to see everything go completely over the top and exaggerated.
Also, a cheap way to bring the budget down would have been to remove the original cast, it was really off putting seeing the guys in the film but NOT be Ghostbusters.
It baffles me how his is so easily missed. I think a GB movie without the original cast is easily doable, I'd love to see different takes on the idea in different locations/eras, What GB84 means to New York, do it to another city, LA, London, you name it.
Give me an Edgar Wright UK based GB franchise filled with British comedians. Not only do you get different comedy sensibilities, you get the history and mythology of the region to draw from for ghosts. Ghostbusters at Stonehenge? sign me up
shawnbuddy
Member
As a fan of the movie I think his criticism is fair, if true. Ghostbusters was a successful film, just not successful enough to justify its enormous budget.
And you can really tell where people are coming from with how hyperbolically they report any criticism of this film. The GamerGate and MRA types hate it for existing.
And you can really tell where people are coming from with how hyperbolically they report any criticism of this film. The GamerGate and MRA types hate it for existing.
...I now really want that. Man Sony screwed up hard.
Maximus.
Member
No, it's me stating my opinion. Those movies weren't enjoyable to me and when I reflect on them, I have a hard time believing they will be highly regarded comedies down the line.
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
I remember watching the RedLetterMedia Half in the Bag. I think they liked Aykroyd's vodka more than anything else. The bottle has been a prop on their table ever since.
Damn Aykroyd is such a goof ball. That is a really fun bottle. I have a the small version on my desk.
WordAssassin
Member
This is EXACTLY what I'm talkin about! Sometimes friends and others give me weird looks when I tell them Ghostbusters is my #1 favorite movie/concept but it's because it's just so ripe for imagination. Aykrody and Ray are like kids when it comes to ghosts, Ghostbusters is to him what Toy Story is to John Lasseter, it's their inner passion. Aykroyd is obsessed with the paranormal, I'm sure he could come up with ideas for so many movies (which is also partly why I can't fathom GB II turned out the way it did or why the GB III script I've read had some of the SAME tropes and story beats as the first two, wtf Dan) if they could break away from GB having to follow Peter/Ray/Egon/Winston, and even if they didn't and just (gulp) recast the Real Ghostbusters cartoon already proved there are tons of interesting stories to tell with them. And that's all just stuff in New York. What about a group of southern GBs fighting the Mothman, or LA GBs exploring haunted hotels on skid row. Do aliens exist in the world of Ghostbusters or are they just a myth? I don't know why the fuck Sony is trying to cross over MiB and Jump Street when they could much more easily fit Ghostbusters in with Men in Black.
I'm wondering what's going to happen to Sony's exclusively Ghostbusters production division Ghost Corps who was tasked to make a Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe with multiple live-action movies.
Here's Ghost Corps' description: https://www.facebook.com/pg/ghostcorps/about/?ref=page_internal
Here's Ghost Corps' description: https://www.facebook.com/pg/ghostcorps/about/?ref=page_internal
Isn't that why Tom Rothman was hired? Because Sony Pictures was bleeding money everywhere?
hodayathink
Member
Sony Pictures, generally speaking, doesn't lose that much money, they just don't really make any either. Like last year, they basically broke even, but the balance sheets look bad because they had a $900 million impairment charge (I think from their original purchase of Columbia). In general, their smaller budget movies tend to do okay, and even occasionally break out to be modest successes, but they've been swinging and missing on big budget movies for the past 5+ years (I think starting with ASM 2 or a little bit before, but I'd have to check). But if it ever got bad enough that Sony Pictures was actually outright losing large chunks of money, they'd sell, and there would be buyers.
As far as I remember, part of the reason Rothman was hired is that his history at Fox was for being a bit of a penny pincher, with some people thinking he might be there to get their financials in better shape as a prelude to a sale. But Kaz is still saying publicly that they aren't selling, and the other part of Rothman's history at Fox (him not getting along very well with creatives) has followed him to Sony as well.
JasonUresti
Member
Yes, the basic concept is men armed with science battling all manner of supernatural terrors, from all over the world's various folklore and mythology. That setup is limitless in story possibilities, and different projects could tackle it with different ratios of humor to horror to science fiction to drama.
The Real Ghostbusters did just that in the confines of Saturday morning cartoon. And that cartoon was huge in the 80's, the biggest during it's peak.
I'd argue that the cartoon has as big a place in defining Ghostbusters as the first film did. I really enjoy the original film, and like it as a kid, but it was the cartoon that made Ghostbusters such a big deal for myself and many other kids of the era.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Oh wow. A live action tv show could be legit.
WordAssassin
Member
Probably nothing. We know they're working on an animated movie, an animated TV show called Ghostbusters: Ecto Force, and I think I've heard rumors about a possible live-action tv show too? The Ghostbusters anniversary is coming up really soon, if they have any new stuff to announce I feel like they'll announce it then. They've been pretty active on Facebook.
Yes! This is exactly what I want. I really hope that now that Sony fully owns Ghostbusters and has a studio just to make stuff with the IP that they don't let this one reboot tank their whole ship and continue to do more Ghostbusters stuff. I really, really want to see the Death story from the IDW comics adapted to a movie.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Sony, aside from their PS division, is just a fucking mess of a company. Sony Pictures sounds like a prime example of simply stumbling onto success, because whenever I hear of the decisions they make, I'm left dumbfounded
WordAssassin
Member
I agree. They have a pretty healthy stable of IPs that, if handled correctly, could actually make them a fucking ton of money. Ghostbusters, Men in Black, and Spider-Man alone should be enough as far as summer tentpole franchises go and yet they continually drop the ball and let good opportunities slip by. Smurfs, Angry Birds, and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs are great kids franchises too. They'll strike lightning and then instead of pouncing on it they just fumble.
Point out issues =/= blast
I think he has a reputation for getting stuff done on the cheap. But he's also pretty difficult to work with I thought, it seem like that was something that came up a lot while he was at Fox.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
Pretty awful film to be honest. Had a trainwreck of an advertising campaign and PR, not a single joke landed for me and the ghosts looked like shit for the most part and the final confrontation was a complete joke. Surprised so much money was spent on it for the terrible final product we got.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
How much did that one lose?
Bridesmaids absolutely will.
Maybe for a restricted group. It certainly doesn't hold a candle to the true classics people still love after 30 years
hodayathink
Member
Sony only has 2 "troubled" divisions at this point. Pictures is struggling, and Mobile has gone from doing badly to doing okay. TV has turned around enough at this point to stick around. Music is doing okay, IIRC (buoyed by the fact that their hit mobile game is actually part of the music division and not PS). Everything else is somewhere between fine and good.
Killing_Joke
Member
144mil budget is Adam Sandler level of stupid. Funny thing is the CG was the worst part of the movie.
Not being funny a close second.
shawnbuddy
Member
At least $30 million, not counting marketing. Aggressively bad box office cyanide.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=nothingbuttrouble.htm
Discotheque
Banned
Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish are the only people I'd trust with an amazing Ghostbusters reboot, that could be as good or better than the original.
Feig, he makes some funny comedies but his humor wasn't a good fit and it just looked like shit from jump.
Feig, he makes some funny comedies but his humor wasn't a good fit and it just looked like shit from jump.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Replace New York with London, and don't skirt around good ideas and callbacks. Boom, you got a great Ghostbusters movie in the making.
SuperLeviathan
Member
Isn't $40 million what the original movie cost altogether?
Even adjusting for inflation, damn, that's crazy.
Even adjusting for inflation, damn, that's crazy.
Yep. Paul Feig and Katie Dippold really had no idea what made the original Ghostbusters special and wrote this weird script that felt more like a parody of Ghostbusters rather than a Ghostbusters film.
Chinese ghostbusters please.
But who would go hunting ghosts here. We live with them, basically
sans_pants
avec_pénis
They also let the Internet backlash seep into the story in some of the worst ways possible
What he actually said doesn't seem as bad as the thread title makes it seem.
My impression is he liked the movie and he liked the cast but the $40m in reshoots kinda destroyed the movie's chances of getting a sequel and the franchise expanding and that's what he was criticising.
My impression is he liked the movie and he liked the cast but the $40m in reshoots kinda destroyed the movie's chances of getting a sequel and the franchise expanding and that's what he was criticising.
The subtext is that Aykroyd enjoyed the movie in spite of Feig. Had Feig been competent, he would've followed up on Aykroyd et al's suggestions the first time they came up and made a decent film on budget.
But no, Feig didn't listen, had to do reshoots for $40 million, and ended up turfing the franchise.
Yeah, that's how I remember it too. SP may not be gearing up for a sale, but Tom Rothman does have a reputation for tight budgets.
And yeah, him not working well with creatives isn't great, but SP is bleeding money left right and center...
Similar threads
- Locked