It didn't come off like an episode of The Office. Which this remake will surely feel like based on this Bridesmaids cast.
This is nonsensical.
It didn't come off like an episode of The Office. Which this remake will surely feel like based on this Bridesmaids cast.
OSHA compliance. Also all kind of EMT's, construction, traffic, etc. has to use them.
Not interested in the least.
Hope it does well, but I won't be watching it.
Wish they'd stop doing remakes and reboots, but they continue to make money, so why would they.
It's an almost Lucasprequel like level of irrational hate.
Remakes have been part of movies since well since movies.
and Boston is not NYC
Remakes have been part of movies since well since movies.
A lot of them tend to suck. That's why people are usually not psyched for remake/reboot.
Ghostbusters in Boston is almost as bad as a remake of King Kong taking place in Ottawa.
Pure sacrilege!
And some of them are awesome.
Is this even possible?
The extreme reactions to this movie are baffling. It's an almost Lucas-prequel like level of irrational hate. Movie might be fun, from the look of it.
If we have to live through another internet cycle of "so and so raped my childhood," I'm going to have to find a nice hermit cave.
Never understimate entitled manchildren fanboyism.
So they look like blue collar workers then.
Jesus Ramis, Murray, Akyroyd and Hudson were hardly Hollywood hunks either.
And some of them are The Fly and The ThingA lot of them tend to suck. That's why people are usually not psyched for remake/reboot.
Hey Mr/s. Fireman, why the fuck you got those stripes and no pizazz?!?
A lot of them tend to suck. That's why people are usually not psyched for remake/reboot.
Or how about New Zealand and Los Angeles only, with no shooting in NY at all?
The new Ghostbusters still takes place in NY.
Has this been confirmed? Are they just shooting in Boston, and the story takes place in New York?
"Ghostbusters (2016), like Ivan Reitmans original 1984 action/supernatural horror/comedy, will take place in New York, though its being filmed partly in Boston in order to help keep the production budget from escalating above the estimated $150 million price tag."
http://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-reboot-filming-locations-plot-summary/
Well... Alright.Yes.
I'm still not a fan of the idea of this being a reboot. I just wish it was set in the same universe as the original films. I don't need any appearances by the old characters or anything. It's just the idea of them dumping all the history of the original movies, cartoon, and comics that bugs me.
That being said, I really like that cast photo in front of the Ecto-1 and can't wait to see this.
And some of them are The Fly and The Thing
2 movies from the 80's?
The Thing remake/prequel/reboot from 2011 sucked.
Hmm, not sure but I assume the stripes are there for either reflectiveness or to glow in the dark to help everyone track clearly which is why I really don't mind them. I mean, ghosts show up in the dark usually, right?The cool thing about those stripes is that, I think, they have hi-vis reflective bits between the orange part.
Any idea how great that's going to look reflecting proton glare in darkened environments?
![]()
Oh those Ghostbusters. I guess they didn't want the superior source material
2 movies from the 80's?
The Thing remake/prequel/reboot from 2011 sucked.
They are not taking away the greatness of the originals and if they are bad they are easily ignored. Plus if you notice I bolded "one," then you proceed to list more that do not need to be rebooted as well.
Hell, if you think reboots erode the originals, how do you feel about shitty sequels? I mean Jaws, The Godfather, etc had some fucking awful, awful shit in the later films.
Do we 100% know that this is not the case?
I just feel that they tarnish the original, as for "one" yes i know but Ghostbusters is not the only movie i think doesn't require a reboot, i couldn't write them all.
A sequel is usually an attempt to continue the original story or an blatant (obvious) cash in, also most of the time they are made by many of the same people & are also of the same time.
Some reboots can work like Star Trek, but it was concepted to fall with-in the current cannon as an alternate, but what most reboots are is an attempt to bring [insert movie name here] up-to date as if it is something new.
Why couldn't Paul Feig & Katie Dippold come up with something of there own & original, the plot is slightly different in the outset, as they are not scientists, so why then have 'ghost busting' pushed in as a plot device, other than for the studio to use cash-in on the Ghostbusters name?
I know i am looking too deep into this & sound cynical about it, i think the original is a great & classic movie, i didn't think the sequel was a bad film, it wasn't good i agree but it isn't the worst sequel, it was also a blatant (obvious) cash-in, but as mentioned above it had most of the same people involved.
I have kept up with what has been said about this reboot & nothing has pulled me in, or earned my intrest in it, in fact it just reinforces my opinion that Hollywood has run out of ideas.
I am going to leave it at that.
Also some end up like Dawn of the Dead and Evil Dead, awesome but different than source. Oh and some of them win Oscars (The Departed)
What you've ignored is that many times these things are put out by people with no passion or love for the source material.
If you think Feig is one of those guys. There's no use conversing because you're on a different plane of existence
I'd say those good remakes are definitely in the minority.
We will have to wait and see for this new Ghostbusters, but I think a lot of people are less excited these days especially with the amount of subpar remakes we've been getting lately.
But the point is it's not lately. It's always.
Remember, ladies. Don't cross your streams.
Something feels off about the boots.
for those saying "yea, not bad... count me in"..... Now think again if it was the original cast and an on-set shot. BOOM, this would look like trash![]()