Support NeoGAF

[Syriel]

I'm well aware, but in the overall grand scheme of things there is little difference. Aykroyd and Ramis didn't make the film on their dime. It's sole existence was to make money.

People would be bitching if there was a Ghostbusters 3 as well. Ramis dying put the nail in that coffin.

Not every film needs to be a labor of love from all involved parties. In this case, I fail to see the oversight that the film is created in a similar manner with SNL alum.

There was.

It is basically Ghostbusters 3.

Two women run a paranormal investigations "company" and one of them knows someone about to get tenure at a college. Peter Dinklage is a mass murderer who is given a death sentence. When he is electrocuted, a blot of lighting strikes and he becomes a ghost with the power to summon other killers from history. An MTA worker discovers him and contacts/joins the other three. Meanwhile a well-known skeptic sees videos of the team on YouTube, thinks they're full of shit, and sets out to disprove their ghost busting. They make some kind of sleek futuretech ghost equipment to take down the bad guy.

So, what you're saying, is that they're taking the plot of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, dropping it into the Ghostbusters world and calling it a day?

Electro, the ghost version!

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Something that blew my mind recently is that next to the firehouse there's a billboard with staypuft on it.

 

[antonz]

Oh, ok so they are just giving credit for creating Ghostbuster characters? Damn no hope

Yeah that's either old info or courtesy listings because Rietman for instance completely abandoned the project when Ramis died.

 

[Sanjuro]

There was.

It is basically Ghostbusters 3.

Except it's really not. They made the comment about that in the manner of feeling defeated from the studios.

It was an average game though. Kind of just pieced together popular moments from the franchise.

 

[Sanjuro]

Something that blew my mind recently is that next to the firehouse there's a billboard with staypuft on it.

It happens a few times. Dana purchased Stay Puft marshmallows in the kitchen scene. I think there is another instance somewhere else.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

It happens a few times. Dana purchased Stay Puft marshmallows in the kitchen scene. I think there is another instance somewhere else.

I knew that already.

 

[MHWilliams]

I can see you worked hard on this post, but you seem to forget that many of the new entries in these amazing new imaginings that you're so fond of were fucking terrible. Are you seriously going to bat for your argument with the latter entries in the Karate Kid, Ninja Turtle, Mission Impossible, and Fast franchises? Why not bring up CG Smurfs and Chipmunks, or The Invasion, or Vince Vaughn's totally unneeded Psycho remake, or that Guess Who's Coming To Dinner remake, or Tim Burton's shitty Planet of the Apes and Alice reboots, or any other number of complete failures of this idea?

If that's where you hope Ghostbusters is going with things, I can see why people are concerned. Those all did a lot to harm their franchises, I don't care what you say.

Karate Kid 2010 was fun reboot of the original premise. Every Mission Impossible film is completely different in tone, owing to different directors. Fast Five and Six are the best in the series, once they cast off trying to be serious at all. Dawn and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are great films. I'm unsure of what point you're trying to make; that adaptations can fail? Uh, yeah. Entertainment can always fail in execution. Many movies, adaptation or otherwise, can be very, very bad. I see no reason to stop making them.

And in order:

Karate Kid was a net positive according to critics, including Ebert, who reviewed the original. The sequel has been in production for a while.
Ninja Turtles wasn't good, but even if it completely flopped (it didn't, a sequel is on the way), someone would've done another film in 5-10 years. (See the CG film.) The TMNT cartoon is awesome, probably the best of any of the animated series.
The Mission: Impossible films have a wide variety, with MI5 coming this year.
Fast and Furious has never elevated itself above B-movie level. Five and Six are fun heist films, and since the fourth film, the franchise has made more money and actually been rated higher.
Smurfs, not good in my opinion, but kids like it and there's another film coming in 2016.
Chipmunks, also not good, but I never liked the Chipmunks in the first place. Complete wash personally. Regardless, film this year, CGI cartoon airing on Nickelodeon soon.
Rise/Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Great films. Critical consensus puts Dawn above the original, which is kind of a hokey film at times.
Psycho, bad, but it didn't erase the original. Bates Motel got a second season, but I can't comment on the quality of the show.

You get the idea. They've done no harm whatsoever. You state they have, but provide no proof of your claim. Did they burn the originals to the ground? Salt the earth? Nope. they still exist and these adaptations are going in their own directions. If i don't like any of them, like the Ninja Turtles film, it's amazingly easy to just ignore it.

It just where do you draw the line? People don't like white washing, like rumoured Akira movie. When is adapting good and when is it bad? Who determines it?

Generally, the problem I have with white-washing is the fact that there are few chances for actors of color to lead a film. Akira or Ghost in the Shell is similar to Edge of Tomorrow/All You Need is Kill: I don't have an ethical imperative, but these adaptations are great chance for Asian actors to get a shot at the spotlight, especially since in many cases, the white actors chosen for the final product (examples: Edge of Tomorrow, Airbender, Exodus) aren't particularly adding anything extra to the final product. The white actors have a much greater chance of being chosen to star in films, regardless of if minority actors possess equal talent.

Edge of Tomorrow would've been the same film with say, Takeshi Kaneshiro if they wanted to stay Japanese, or Steven Yeun, John Cho, Godfrey Gao, or Dennis Oh if they were going for Hollywood's normal style of "pick the random Asian, it'll work."

So I'll probably see Akira or Ghost in the Shell, but I would've preferred they remain starring vehicles for Asian actors. And if they bomb, whatever. The original Akira and GITS remain untouched and unsullied.

A Ghostbusters reboot is a bad idea in general because the best thing about the original was the characters and the chemistry between the actors. Not the story or the effects. There is no way you can have the classic main actors though so they should give it a rest. It would be a bad idea even if the new actors were male. But changing the gender of the main roles (it doesn't matter if the originals were male, even if they were female it would be the same thing) isn't just a bad idea, its a controversial one too. It rises eyebrows. That's a good way to make the movie a hot topic. Its free advertising.

How do you know the character and chemistry of the actresses is poor?

 

[terrene]

We can play the anecdote/list game all day. The truth of the matter is that for every bad new entry/reboot there's an absolutely solid one. For every Steve Martin Pink Panther there's an Al Pacino Scarface (you know that's a remake too, right?); for every 90s Twilight Zone a Syfy Battlestar Galactica.

Yeahhh, no. Remakes, reboots, and sequels have overtaken a Hollywood that has become deathly afraid of shouldering the risk of developing new IP. It's getting tiresome and ridiculous at this point, which is another reason to regard this reboot with a jaundiced eye, and no the quality hasn't been holding up.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

Generally, the problem I have with white-washing is the fact that there are few chances for actors of color to lead a film. Akira or Ghost in the Shell is similar to Edge of Tomorrow/All You Need is Kill: I don't have an ethical imperative, but these adaptations are great chance for Asian actors to get a shot at the spotlight, especially since in many cases, the white actors chosen for the final product (examples: Edge of Tomorrow, Airbender, Exodus) aren't particularly adding anything extra to the final product.

It sickens me how little there are asian actors used in movies. And they get mostly very typecasted roles. Black and latino actors have it easy compared to asians (even though they have problems too rising into leading roles)

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Yeahhh, no. Remakes, reboots, and sequels have overtaken a Hollywood that has become deathly afraid of shouldering the risk of developing new IP. It's getting tiresome and ridiculous at this point, which is another reason to regard this reboot with a jaundiced eye, and no the quality hasn't been holding up.

But this is part of the weird loop that I've been trying to describe in this thread with regards to audience focus and importance of branding. And it comes down to the bolded: When the audience is trained (as we've been ever since the 80s, when a new marketing paradigm emerged, represented in part by the boom of merchandising and children's programming AS advertisements first, entertainment second) to recognize their entertainment as INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY first and foremost, instead of stories, or characters, when audiences are trained to value BRANDING over the people who are helping created the product that goes under that brand (unless the people have managed to turn their own name into a brand) it only makes sense that big-budget Hollywood entertainment is going to move as fast as it can towards closing that loop and creating a perpetual marketing/branding engine.

It's part of why the superhero publishing model appeals so strongly to these studios, and why studios are scrambling to adopt it as much as they can.

They're selling to an audience that refers to every film series as a "franchise," every idea as "intellectual property," and swears allegiance to the branding first and foremost, who argues with itself over which collection of corporate executives is more "caring" or "creative" than the other. There's a reason the most important aspect of a film is often not even the film - but the trailer. Because the audience for these movies is so steeped in the culture of marketing, has been so marketed to over the last three decades, that they don't think like an audience anymore. They think like focus groups.

it's what makes complaints from that audience sound so hollow, because they're carrying the water for those executives even as they decry the practices that have molded them into the consumer they are today.

 

[WordAssassin]

So, what you're saying, is that they're taking the plot of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, dropping it into the Ghostbusters world and calling it a day?

Electro, the ghost version!

Yeah that makes me roll my eyes so damn hard. I mean, technically it might be the first time in the franchise that we actually see a ghost created? So that could be cool. It just sounds fucking stupid on paper.

 

[MHWilliams]

Yeahhh, no. Remakes, reboots, and sequels have overtaken a Hollywood that has become deathly afraid of shouldering the risk of developing new IP. It's getting tiresome and ridiculous at this point, which is another reason to regard this reboot with a jaundiced eye, and no the quality hasn't been holding up.

*Picture*

Hey, #14 is Bridesmaids! Look at the connection!

Now I'm not disagreeing that reboots, remakes, and sequels are what producers are greenlighting these days. The entire mid-budget film has died, leaving filmmakers in that space - Waters, Allen, Fincher, Soderbergh - to move into television. While I'm sad to see those films go, I'm happy that they're getting the chance to tell longer stories on TV. Even the directors in the mid-range who do make films aren't seeing a lot of traction - I'm not seeing Cronenberg's Maps to the Stars tearing up the box office - as audiences tend to watch them later on Netflix of Amazon Instant.

But to say these films aren't being made at all is false. This year gave us Boyhood, Interstellar, Birdman, Selma, the Theory of Everything, Whiplash, the Grand Budpest Hotel, Boxtrolls, Lucy, The Monuments Men, Into the Storm, Fury, Pompeii, Snowpiercer, A Million Ways to Die in the West, and any number of other original films.

Audiences just didn't watch them like they watched Transformers 3, The Hobbit, Guardians of the Galaxy, Malefiecent, X-Men: DOFP, Captain America: TWS, Hunger Games, Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

But this is part of the weird loop that I've been trying to describe in this thread with regards to audience focus and importance of branding. And it comes down to the bolded: When the audience is trained (as we've been ever since the 80s, when a new marketing paradigm emerged, represented in part by the boom of merchandising and children's programming AS advertisements first, entertainment second) to recognize their entertainment as INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY first and foremost, instead of stories, or characters, when audiences are trained to value BRANDING over the people who are helping created the product that goes under that brand (unless the people have managed to turn their own name into a brand) it only makes sense that big-budget Hollywood entertainment is going to move as fast as it can towards closing that loop and creating a perpetual marketing/branding engine.

It's part of why the superhero publishing model appeals so strongly to these studios, and why studios are scrambling to adopt it as much as they can.

They're selling to an audience that refers to every film series as a "franchise," every idea as "intellectual property," and swears allegiance to the branding first and foremost, who argues with itself over which collection of corporate executives is more "caring" or "creative" than the other. There's a reason the most important aspect of a film is often not even the film - but the trailer. Because the audience for these movies is so steeped in the culture of marketing, has been so marketed to over the last three decades, that they don't think like an audience anymore. They think like focus groups.

it's what makes complaints from that audience sound so hollow, because they're carrying the water for those executives even as they decry the practices that have molded them into the consumer they are today.

Bingo. Bravo, sir.

Another perspective:

For critics, the problem with Hollywood's superhero movies (and, perhaps, with its blockbusters in general) is that they are just fine. They are average. But they are average on purpose. They are the product of Hollywood's exquisitely designed factory of average-ness, which has evolved as the industry has transitioned from a monopoly to a competitive industry that can no longer afford to consistently value art over commerce. Hollywood needs to know what its fragile audience wants, and when it asks us, we tell them: Make something like the last average thing I saw!

Hollywood's assembly line of double- and triple-checking the viability of its $200-million products isn't debased. As one industry vet told me, the exhaustive process of smoothing and refurbishing makes many bad movies better. But studios are so worried about what audiences think—and so skilled at soliciting their feedback—that they ensure that the next blockbuster always reminds audiences of the last blockbuster. The bad stuff gets less bad, and the brave stuff gets less brave, the same guy told me. So much gets pulled to the middle. So much becomes just fine.

Sixty years ago, audiences went to the movies reflexively. Now we go to the movies mostly to see things we recognize—actors, stories, and crusaders wearing costumes. If you're a critic, you might call this Hollywood's "superhero problem." But whose problem is it, really? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 got a Rotten Tomatoes score of 54 percent, meaning about half its critics thought it was good and half thought it was bad. But out of 155,000 user reviewers on the site, 73 percent—more than 113,000 people—have rated the movie "fresh." Even with a lukewarm domestic opening, it's the biggest movie in the world. Critics will keep calling average stuff average, but it turns out there are a lot of people who are fine with fine.

 

[Sydle]

This is a pleasant surprise. Very much looking forward to an all-female cast for it.

 

[SeanR1221]

Exclusive new photos of Ghostbuster's uniform



I goggled sexy Ghostbusters so of course there is a Halloween costume.

My wife wore this one year.

Good stuff

 

[Joni]

Yeahhh, no. Remakes, reboots, and sequels have overtaken a Hollywood that has become deathly afraid of shouldering the risk of developing new IP. It's getting tiresome and ridiculous at this point, which is another reason to regard this reboot with a jaundiced eye, and no the quality hasn't been holding up.

This chart doesn't show that Hollywood has become afraid of original stories. It shows that sequels make bank. It is bad at showing the actual reason, are we seeing more sequels because we're not supporting original movies or are we supporting sequels because we're not getting originals. It can be claimed to be the first considering the increase in popularity for franchises that have remained in 2001 - 2011.

 

[User 479360]

McCarthy and Wiig are hilarious and talented, but I'm not familiar with the other two. Here's hoping it ends up being good.

 

[xsarien]

Yeahhh, no. Remakes, reboots, and sequels have overtaken a Hollywood that has become deathly afraid of shouldering the risk of developing new IP. It's getting tiresome and ridiculous at this point, which is another reason to regard this reboot with a jaundiced eye, and no the quality hasn't been holding up.

4 years cherry-picked out of the past 34? Seriously?

 

[WordAssassin]

But to say these films aren't being made at all is false. This year gave us Boyhood, Interstellar, Birdman, Selma, the Theory of Everything, Whiplash, the Grand Budpest Hotel, Boxtrolls, Lucy, The Monuments Men, Into the Storm, Fury, Pompeii, Snowpiercer, A Million Ways to Die in the West, and any number of other original films.

To be fair, that chart does explicitly say it's the top 10 movies for each of the years posted. I was like "Uh there were plenty of original films those years" too until I realized that.

4 years cherry-picked out of the past 34? Seriously?

Well I mean it's every 10 years. Why they picked those specific years though is anyone's guess.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Two women run a paranormal investigations "company" and one of them knows someone about to get tenure at a college. Peter Dinklage is a mass murderer who is given a death sentence. When he is electrocuted, a blot of lighting strikes and he becomes a ghost with the power to summon other killers from history. An MTA worker discovers him and contacts/joins the other three. Meanwhile a well-known skeptic sees videos of the team on YouTube, thinks they're full of shit, and sets out to disprove their ghost busting. They make some kind of sleek futuretech ghost equipment to take down the bad guy.

The stakes sound just so small-time. It's too personal and petty. It's like a villain from an episode of a TV show. What worked in the originals was how the ridiculous scale and scope of Aykroyd's scripts was pared down to actually be filmable. The movies had a sense of massive interdimensional calamity that the boys just happened to be in the right place at the right time to beat.

I'm trying to maintain a personal policy of not giving undue attention to franchised or adapted studio flicks, because more often than not they have little to do with whatever I liked about what they're based on. They are totally irrelevant to the creative cocktails that created the originals. The same thing started happening in the game industry more than a decade ago and is still ongoing. I'll bow out of this thread now.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

It's called adaptation. Things change. Arrow's Oliver Queen isn't DC Comics Oliver Queen. Things shift. The Karate Kid (2010) wasn't about Karate and there was no Mr. Miyagi, but the spirit of the previous film was in full force and it worked. Things adapt. All You Need is Kill is a story of nihilism, of the relentless drive to survive in the face of certain death; Edge of Tomorrow is a Hollywood action film with a cool premise.

I don't need slavish devotion to the original concept or creation. Play around. How far can the concept go? Where else can you take it? That's why I love Kamen Rider, Gundam, the Mission: Impossible films, and even the Fast franchise. They play within the confines of the same basic idea.

They want to because the name or original concept resonates in some way with people. Past that, the final product has little bearing on the original. The new Ninja Turtles film did little to diminish the original film or the Mirage comics. (The cartoons and live-action films weren't much like the comics, which varied in tone on their own.)

Which is to say, I completely disagree with your premise.

Maybe when it first came out the show runners weren't trying to do Oliver McQueen, he was running aorund with mascara on and called the Hood. Post Slade introduction however...seems like they are really trying to go for that bronze age Green Arrow that was very successful. Even had a buddy book with Green Lantern * CW...PLEASE DO THIS*

 

[Joni]

Well I mean it's every 10 years. Why they picked those specific years though is anyone's guess.

Going to guess the chart was made in 2012.

 

[xsarien]

To be fair, that chart does explicitly say it's the top 10 movies for each of the years posted. I was like "Uh there were plenty of original films those years" too until I realized that.


Well I mean it's every 10 years. Why they picked those specific years though is anyone's guess.

Oh, that's easy! It validated their argument.

 

[KalBalboa]

I'm going to really try and give this a fair shot. I absolutely love Ghostbusters. Some might have seen this before, but this is me and Dan Aykroyd.

Ghostbusters has always been really important to me. I hope they do this justice and don't turn it into another Ninja Turtles, GI Joe, Crystal Skull, Episode I, etc.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

I'll wait for the trailer. Though the lack of Rose Byrne is a real let down.

 

[terrene]

But this is part of the weird loop that I've been trying to describe in this thread with regards to audience focus and importance of branding. And it comes down to the bolded: When the audience is trained (as we've been ever since the 80s, when a new marketing paradigm emerged, represented in part by the boom of merchandising and children's programming AS advertisements first, entertainment second) to recognize their entertainment as INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY first and foremost, instead of stories, or characters, when audiences are trained to value BRANDING over the people who are helping created the product that goes under that brand (unless the people have managed to turn their own name into a brand) it only makes sense that big-budget Hollywood entertainment is going to move as fast as it can towards closing that loop and creating a perpetual marketing/branding engine.

It's part of why the superhero publishing model appeals so strongly to these studios, and why studios are scrambling to adopt it as much as they can.

They're selling to an audience that refers to every film series as a "franchise," every idea as "intellectual property," and swears allegiance to the branding first and foremost, who argues with itself over which collection of corporate executives is more "caring" or "creative" than the other. There's a reason the most important aspect of a film is often not even the film - but the trailer. Because the audience for these movies is so steeped in the culture of marketing, has been so marketed to over the last three decades, that they don't think like an audience anymore. They think like focus groups.

That's definitely happening, I agree. But I don't really care what the source of it is, the fact is (as you can see in an infographic below that compares remake Rotten Tomato scores vs. their originals) the quality isn't holding up, and by definition we are losing the diversity of choices we would have if more mid-level movies were being greenlit and given a decent release.

I can't blame companies for following the money but it doesn't mean I have to be excited for this movie, Hollywood's latest gorging at the trough of old fucking ideas.

Hey, #14 is Bridesmaids! Look at the connection!

Now I'm not disagreeing that reboots, remakes, and sequels are what producers are greenlighting these days. The entire mid-budget film has died, leaving filmmakers in that space - Waters, Allen, Fincher, Soderbergh - to move into television. While I'm sad to see those films go, I'm happy that they're getting the chance to tell longer stories on TV. Even the directors in the mid-range who do make films aren't seeing a lot of traction - I'm not seeing Cronenberg's Maps to the Stars tearing up the box office - as audiences tend to watch them later on Netflix of Amazon Instant.

But to say these films aren't being made at all is false. This year gave us Boyhood, Interstellar, Birdman, Selma, the Theory of Everything, Whiplash, the Grand Budpest Hotel, Boxtrolls, Lucy, The Monuments Men, Into the Storm, Fury, Pompeii, Snowpiercer, A Million Ways to Die in the West, and any number of other original films.

Audiences just didn't watch them like they watched Transformers 3, The Hobbit, Guardians of the Galaxy, Malefiecent, X-Men: DOFP, Captain America: TWS, Hunger Games, Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

I didn't say they weren't being made at all, just that the remake/reboot/sequelitis is getting out of bloody hand.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-11-defining-features-of-the-summer-blockbuster/

We have gone from roughly 12% of blockbusters being sequels in the mid-90s to roughly 53% today. That's four times as many as there used to be. And these are not high quality affairs, as you note below:

This is an excellent infographic, thank you! Note the difference in the Rotten Tomato scores. That's a big reason why this is prolly gonna not be great...

4 years cherry-picked out of the past 34? Seriously?

Yes seriously - it was the best infographic I could find in a pinch. Are you about to contend that there are fewer remakes and sequels these days, because I can take that shit on. It's pretty well documented.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

That's definitely happening, I agree. But I don't really care what the source of it is, the fact is (as you can see in an infographic below that compares remake Rotten Tomato scores vs. their originals) the quality isn't holding up, and by definition we are losing the diversity of choices we would have if more mid-level movies were being greenlit and given a decent release.

But then again, man was not meant to subsist on cheeseburgers alone, if you get where I'm going with that. The fact that the side of the industry most concerned with being the amusement park ride and happy meal all in one isn't very concerned about the lasting appeal or nutritional impact of its product shouldn't be all that alarming or concerning.

That's the thing about movies, to continue this food analogy - people talk all the time about how changing diet is tough because better food costs more money, and there's an obstacle to eating well and getting more nutrients - but the cost involved with watching a movie stays relatively the same regardless the genre. If I want to eat fancy (like say, a $30 italian meal) that's gonna be a big jump up from a the Taco Hell drive thru and the six bucks coming out of my wallet at the end of it. But if I want to WATCH fancy - it doesn't cost me anything extra. I'm not paying more for that theater ticket, and I'm not spending more than the two hours the average movie takes.

So again, we circle back to the fact the large amount of complaining regarding the artistic capabilities of movies designed to be amusement park rides ends up feeling more than a little hollow, because it seems to be done under the assumption the ONLY type of movie that's really worth being concerned about is the big budget blockbuster.

If the focus on the audience's part was shifted away from the big budget brand-driven regurgitation of recognizable "franchise IP" then the industry would likely respond in kind, (slowly, but eventually) but as it is, the audience is almost as culpable in the oncoming brand singularity at the box-office as the corporations are selling it to them.

The mid-level hasn't really disappeared, and the choice hasn't vanished. It just moved off of theater screens and over to television.

For me, it becomes a lot easier once you recognize the situation that's been unfolding over the past twenty years, bringing us to this point; and then adjusting expectations away from "hit me like you hit me when I was younger and less experienced about EVERYTHING regarding film and storytelling" and closer towards "just be an entertaining movie telling me an interesting story with characters worth caring for." This is almost always why I look at an announced remake/reboot/continuation with a "well, we'll see what's what, I guess," because it's fairly obvious to me that whatever weird halo of sanctity that's been placed on the studio-generated product of generations past was placed there by me, not by that studio, and was placed there under a varying levels of basic ignorance as to what my place was in this weird corporation/consumer relationship America's been cultivating with itself. And that halo is actually preventing me from opening myself up to storytelling experiences I might end up enjoying if it wasn't for the almost knee-jerk resistance to letting old stories be told in new ways.

We as an audience need to prove that we can (and do) value storytelling and characterization just as much (if not more) as we value the branding and the spectacle. Because right now studios are convinced the latter is way more important to us than the former, and the money coming in isn't doing anything to dissuade them of that, really.

 

[KalBalboa]

Bobby, you continue to be one of the reasons I check Off-Topic gaf.

 

[xsarien]

That's definitely happening, I agree. But I don't really care what the source of it is, the fact is (as you can see in an infographic below that compares remake Rotten Tomato scores vs. their originals) the quality isn't holding up, and by definition we are losing the diversity of choices we would have if more mid-level movies were being greenlit and given a decent release.


Yes seriously - it was the best infographic I could find in a pinch. Are you about to contend that there are fewer remakes and sequels these days, because I can take that shit on. It's pretty well documented.

I'm saying you need to pick an argument. Are there too many sequels? What about the franchises that are clearly doing well critically? What about the ones people seem to just enjoy? God knows we're at the 50+ year mark for Bond movies. Should we not keep adding to those? You're making a rather bold assumption that movies *aren't* being made because sequels are and arguing about hypothetical situation that can never actually be proven. Interstellar got made; Boyhood got made; Selma got made. All high-concept "risky" movies.

 

[Nerd_Incognito]

Also, the thing about all of these remakes is that the originals aren't being retconned out of existence. Even if the new ones suck you still have the originals to watch and enjoy any time you want.

Unless you're George Lucas, of course. Then you're just a delusional asshole.

 

[Abounder]

4 years cherry-picked out of the past 34? Seriously?

The comments section has more available:

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/akbar56/847416/101049/101049_original.png

http://mediacdn.disqus.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/348/2439/original.jpg


http://www.shortoftheweek.com/2012/01/05/has-hollywood-lost-its-way/

If you remove children films it becomes even worse for big budget original content. Hollywood, like the video games industry, is all about brands and merchandise. Instead of getting a new Indiana Jones we'll be getting a reboot, etc. Hard to blame them with declining ticket sales, but that's why projects like Nolan's Interstellar was hailed in the industry because he makes original blockbusters. Also makes Avatar's success that much more impressive.

 

[MHWilliams]

Maybe when it first came out the show runners weren't trying to do Oliver McQueen, he was running aorund with mascara on and called the Hood. Post Slade introduction however...seems like they are really trying to go for that bronze age Green Arrow that was very successful. Even had a buddy book with Green Lantern * CW...PLEASE DO THIS*

Even with more of those additions, Arrow Oliver is closer to Batman than pre-New 52 Green Arrow.

I'm saying you need to pick an argument. Are there too many sequels? What about the franchises that are clearly doing well critically? What about the ones people seem to just enjoy? God knows we're at the 50+ year mark for Bond movies. Should we not keep adding to those? You're making a rather bold assumption that movies *aren't* being made because sequels are. Interstellar got made; Boyhood got made; Selma got made. All high-concept "risky" movies. You're arguing about hypothetical situation that can never actually be proven.

He did mention this briefly:

We are losing the diversity of choices we would have if more mid-level movies were being greenlit and given a decent release.

There has been a trend towards more blockbusters, which generally means remakes, reboots, and sequels, because that's what audiences have proven they'll watch in theatres. The last part is important, because small film can and does do well in online streaming. Amazon is also getting into TV and I'm not sure why they aren't trying films as well.

 

[Abounder]

Double post!

 

[Slayven]

Even with more of those, Arrow Oliver is closer to Batman than pre-New 52 Green Arrow.

.

I would have watched angry Liberal Green Arrow.

 

[Mac the KNife]

So this thing's a reboot? That's disappointing. I like to imagine Venkman finally franchising that shit out. Have Bill Murray cameo in the proton pack training video or something.

 

[Sadist]

Guess I'll wait for the trailer

 

[Hilti92]

Three white women and one token black woman.

How far we've progressed in the last 30 years.

Oh boy.

 

[TheSadRanger]

Better than Seth Rogan being involved I suppose.

"Hey guys I just smoked marijuana with a ghost"

 

[Delta Assault]

They're talking about Bill Murray having a cameo as the Peck-type character, but honestly I'd be fine with just a Janine cameo. I'm pretty sure Annie Potts could fit it into her schedule these days.

 

[chadderbox77]

I'm going to really try and give this a fair shot. I absolutely love Ghostbusters. Some might have seen this before, but this is me and Dan Aykroyd.

Ghostbusters has always been really important to me. I hope they do this justice and don't turn it into another Ninja Turtles, GI Joe, Crystal Skull, Episode I, etc.

Looks like he is giving you a really weak shake and you are crushing his pinky!

 

[Grinchy]

Wiig and McKinnon? Ok, no problem. Those are people who understand comedy.

McCarthy and Jones? Are there actually people on the planet who like them? McCarthy is the second unfunniest person in history. Only Hitler was less funny than her. She was great in her dramatic role in St. Vincent, though. Jones is ok sometimes on SNL but she's kind of a one-trick pony.

 

[Candeldandel]

Honestly, I feel like this is what a reboot should be EVERY time. Not the same characters in the same place doing the same stuff, but DIFFERENT characters doing SIMILAR stuff in the SAME universe. It expands the universe, adds character(s) and plot and still keeps the original story intact. I don't know why people are so explosively angry about this! Rarely does a remake/reboot/etc eclipse the original film, and if it does, well... clearly it was a good movie! And if it doesn't, who cares? Are people afraid of this being BETTER than the original movie?

What makes Ghostbusters so special all of a sudden? Surely it's one of the Great Classics of the 80s, but hoooooly crap. What a bizarre reaction, especially given the support from the original guys behind it. I am. So confused.

 

[NinjaMouse]

Wiig and McKinnon? Ok, no problem. Those are people who understand comedy.

McCarthy and Jones? Are there actually people on the planet who like them? McCarthy is the second unfunniest person in history. Only Hitler was less funny than her. She was great in her dramatic role in St. Vincent, though. Jones is ok sometimes on SNL but she's kind of a one-trick pony.

Melissa McCarthy being a headliner is the #1 factor in why I'll bet $100 that this movie is terrible and tanks. The second reason is that it's completely unnecessary and the nostalgia factor will likely be the only thing carrying it, "and for that reason, I'm out."

 

[KalBalboa]

What makes Ghostbusters so special all of a sudden? Surely it's one of the Great Classics of the 80s, but hoooooly crap. What a bizarre reaction, especially given the support from the original guys behind it. I am. So confused.

All of a sudden?

 

[Grinchy]

Melissa McCarthy being a headliner is the #1 factor in why I'll bet $100 that this movie is terrible and tanks. The second reason is that it's completely unnecessary and the nostalgia factor will likely be the only thing carrying it, "and for that reason, I'm out."

Damn you with that Shark Tank reference. I'm addicted to that show and I say, "Wow!" like Robert does every 2 minutes and I'm always telling people I'm out. But I say it like Lori does. I drag it out way too long while smirking.

Now I have to go watch Shark Tank.

 

[Candeldandel]

All of a sudden?

There wasn't this kind of backlash when they were talking about rebooting it before.

 

[Spinluck]

In for my Wiig <3.

 

[Beelzebufo]

I really don't like Melissa McCarthy

 

[NinjaMouse]

Damn you with that Shark Tank reference. I'm addicted to that show and I say, "Wow!" like Robert does every 2 minutes and I'm always telling people I'm out. But I say it like Lori does. I drag it out way too long while smirking.

Now I have to go watch Shark Tank.

I don't know how I got into the show, but I can't get enough of it. I honestly only watch Family Feud and Shark Tank anymore.

 

[petethepanda]

Feig is the reason I'm worried about this, I couldn't stand Bridesmaids and The Heat. Not my sense of humor and flat, boring filmmaking. Get the same cast with a better director and I'd be on board.

 

[WordAssassin]

There wasn't this kind of backlash when they were talking about rebooting it before.

That's because they were never going to reboot it before. Every potential version of Ghostbusters 3 for the past 25 years that I know of has been either another story with the original cast (Hell on Earth) or a passing of the torch story (Ghostbusters Inc).

But yes, even the passing of the torch rumors got people bothered. Every Ghostbusters 3 thread for the past 5-10 years on GAF has had people flipping out saying "If you can't get everyone back, shut the damn thing down" in it and bitching about the potential casting for the New Hires.