"Ghostbusters (2020 Movie)" News and Discussion Thread

Latest News & Videos

rggkjg1

The Big Red Cheese
Mar 2, 2002
7,052
0
48
32
Philly Philly
www.myspace.com
So why didn't they just do this in the first place (Ghostbusters: Answer The Call)?

I'd rather them attempt to make a sequel to Ghostbusters: Answer The Call. I think all the negativity that came about AFTER the film's release is greatly exaggerated. Did the movie really "BOMB" financially? The movie didn't bomb critically since its a certified fresh on rottentomatoes. The majority seems to agree Kate McKinnon was the breakout star of that movie and it appeared to me she ALMOST became a household name just from the movie. She might as well be now thanks to Ghostbusters and her portrayal of Hillary on SNL. So why don't they milk the Kate McKinnon popularity for all its worth and make a sequel?
 

Yojimbo

Yes, have some.
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 13, 2003
36,456
-43
113
Shahdaroba
www.dcauresource.com
So why didn't they just do this in the first place (Ghostbusters: Answer The Call)?
Reitman and co were. But Sony executives meddled.

I'd rather them attempt to make a sequel to Ghostbusters: Answer The Call. I think all the negativity that came about AFTER the film's release is greatly exaggerated. Did the movie really "BOMB" financially?
The only reason I've seen revealed about why they didn't do a sequel for Answer The Call was back on November 13, 2018, during The Big Interview with Dan Rather, Dan Aykroyd revealed the movie going over budget closed the door on prospects for a sequel. It was reported ATC took a $50 to 70 million loss even though total gross, domestic and international, was between $229 to 180 million.
 

19MagiswordLane

Anime Superhero's Crooner of Carnage, babe!
Mar 19, 2016
633
0
63
24
So why didn't they just do this in the first place (Ghostbusters: Answer The Call)?

I'd rather them attempt to make a sequel to Ghostbusters: Answer The Call. I think all the negativity that came about AFTER the film's release is greatly exaggerated. Did the movie really "BOMB" financially? The movie didn't bomb critically since its a certified fresh on rottentomatoes. The majority seems to agree Kate McKinnon was the breakout star of that movie and it appeared to me she ALMOST became a household name just from the movie. She might as well be now thanks to Ghostbusters and her portrayal of Hillary on SNL. So why don't they milk the Kate McKinnon popularity for all its worth and make a sequel?
Sony might want to wash their hands of that film and continuity for good.
 

Spideyzilla

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 23, 2008
9,490
0
83
Canada
Reitman and co were. But Sony executives meddled.

The only reason I've seen revealed about why they didn't do a sequel for Answer The Call was back on November 13, 2018, during The Big Interview with Dan Rather, Dan Aykroyd revealed the movie going over budget closed the door on prospects for a sequel. It was reported ATC took a $50 to 70 million loss even though total gross, domestic and international, was between $229 to 180 million.
Yeah, on a budget of 144 million (Not counting marketing costs), that's nothing to write home about. Remember, Vanity Fair estimated that Sony lost $50 million on that movie, so I don't blame them for not wanting a direct sequel. @rggkjg1 It did fine with the critics, but not so well with general audiences. Blame it on the controversy all you want. Personally, I gave the movie a chance, and it didn't work. It's just not a good movie for me, the jokes are flat, the visuals unimpressive and the characters mostly uninteresting. Kate McKinnon is popular, but her mere presence is nowhere near enough to justify a sequel to a movie that lost tens of millions of dollars for the studio. Sony can do another movie with her if they want, but her decent popularity (It's not like she's the biggest star in the world or anything) is not enough to solely anchor a near 200 million dollar movie, especially since it's a sequel to a movie that left a bad taste in people's mouths.

But this? I'm liking this. The fact that the original director has a son who is also a director provides a unique ability for a torch passing movie. At the very least I would expect Dan Aykroyd to make an appearance. I kind of like this "Force Awakens" trend (Although Creed did it first) of reviving old franchises by introducing a next generation of characters and passing the torch, while preserving the continuity and allowing the old characters to show up in supporting roles. It's far better than the remake trend of the previous decade. I'll admit Sony, you have me intrigued.
 

AdrenalineRush1996

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2016
1,800
0
63
22
I'd rather them attempt to make a sequel to Ghostbusters: Answer The Call. I think all the negativity that came about AFTER the film's release is greatly exaggerated. Did the movie really "BOMB" financially? The movie didn't bomb critically since its a certified fresh on rottentomatoes. The majority seems to agree Kate McKinnon was the breakout star of that movie and it appeared to me she ALMOST became a household name just from the movie. She might as well be now thanks to Ghostbusters and her portrayal of Hillary on SNL. So why don't they milk the Kate McKinnon popularity for all its worth and make a sequel?
A sequel is unlikely because it flopped at the box office, not to mention the huge fan backlash towards that film before and after it was released, so the closest to continuing Answer the Call is the IDW comics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MagiswordLane

Fone Bone

Matt Zimmer
Jan 19, 2004
26,361
-1
113
43
Framingham, MA
I hope they get Bill Murray, but I never understood the notion of him being the deal-breaker before Answer The Call was decided on. Either way I'm happy and a little miffed at how pissed off people got over Answer The Call, which didn't wind up effecting things after all.
 

Yojimbo

Yes, have some.
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 13, 2003
36,456
-43
113
Shahdaroba
www.dcauresource.com
Yeah, on a budget of 144 million (Not counting marketing costs), that's nothing to write home about. Remember, Vanity Fair estimated that Sony lost $50 million on that movie, so I don't blame them for not wanting a direct sequel.
Yeah, $50 million was one of the numbers but there are several projections that range across the gamut because of all the co-financing deals and what is counted and what isn't.

But this? I'm liking this. The fact that the original director has a son who is also a director provides a unique ability for a torch passing movie. At the very least I would expect Dan Aykroyd to make an appearance. I kind of like this "Force Awakens" trend (Although Creed did it first) of reviving old franchises by introducing a next generation of characters and passing the torch, while preserving the continuity and allowing the old characters to show up in supporting roles. It's far better than the remake trend of the previous decade. I'll admit Sony, you have me intrigued.
That's a good point. Though I am leery of Varity's article saying Jason Reitman is already testing 4 teenage actors for 4 roles.

Really, the ATC thing is Murray's fault. He didn't want to return after GB2. Too busy playing golf and enjoying his streak as a higher comedic actor. Also, a tiff between him and Ramis. A shame we never got all four back, but. . .
It's easy to scapegoat Murray and I'm not trying to absolve him of anything. The core problem was back during the GB2 era, the deal that was struck also gave him, Reitman, Aykroyd, and Ramis power. All 4 had to say yes or no Ghostbusters movie gets made. In the past 25 years they worked on trying to do a 3rd movie, it's easy to say it was just Murray that never responded to the attempts but I'm sure the other 3 also wanted to focus on their other projects and you know, it's a grind - gotta work - can't just focus on your passion projects or you'll be bankrupt, you try to make time but you got to do this and that. But if that deal wasn't made, I'm sure a 3rd movie would have been done awhile ago. Plus, with all the regime changes at Columbia/Sony of people who like Ghostbusters, to people who don't, to people who do. I recall there was an exec like that in the mid-80s that didn't like Ghostbusters and contributed to why it took 5 years to make the sequel. Then when around the same time as ATC, Sony bought them all out of the deal and then formed Ghost Corps, an oversight group within Sony that manages the Ghostbusters brand and is headed by Reitman.
 

Spideyzilla

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 23, 2008
9,490
0
83
Canada
I’ve never blamed Murray for a proper Ghostbusters 3 not happening. At the end of the day, he didn’t want to do it. I’m sure there’s a ton of reasons for it, but we weren’t entitled to a third Ghostbusters movie. The man is free to make his own decisions, even if there may be petty reasons behind it. This movie seems like a fair compromise: keep the continuity, but give it a fresh start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fone Bone

AdrenalineRush1996

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2016
1,800
0
63
22
I’ve never blamed Murray for a proper Ghostbusters 3 not happening. At the end of the day, he didn’t want to do it. I’m sure there’s a ton of reasons for it, but we weren’t entitled to a third Ghostbusters movie. The man is free to make his own decisions, even if there may be petty reasons behind it. This movie seems like a fair compromise: keep the continuity, but give it a fresh start.
The closest we got a third Ghostbusters film was the video game, TBH.
 

wonderfly

Is this the future?!?
Staff member
Administrator
Mar 22, 2002
18,990
0
83
43
Springfield, MO
Watching that gave me a real "Stranger Things" vibe, at first...I kept expecting the Mind Flayer to appear in the skies over that barn.

Either way, I'm pumped for this. Too bad it's a year and a half away.
 

wonderfly

Is this the future?!?
Staff member
Administrator
Mar 22, 2002
18,990
0
83
43
Springfield, MO
But this? I'm liking this. The fact that the original director has a son who is also a director provides a unique ability for a torch passing movie. At the very least I would expect Dan Aykroyd to make an appearance. I kind of like this "Force Awakens" trend (Although Creed did it first) of reviving old franchises by introducing a next generation of characters and passing the torch, while preserving the continuity and allowing the old characters to show up in supporting roles. It's far better than the remake trend of the previous decade. I'll admit Sony, you have me intrigued.
"Passing the torch" is always better than "I'll remake it and make it hip and trendy for younger people!"

...Well, as long as they don't make have a young star of the movie hand Ray a proton pack and he tosses it over his shoulder and over a cliff. Because he's done with fighting ghosts and wants to live on an island, oh how clever!!
 
Last edited:

Fone Bone

Matt Zimmer
Jan 19, 2004
26,361
-1
113
43
Framingham, MA
I’ve never blamed Murray for a proper Ghostbusters 3 not happening. At the end of the day, he didn’t want to do it. I’m sure there’s a ton of reasons for it, but we weren’t entitled to a third Ghostbusters movie. The man is free to make his own decisions, even if there may be petty reasons behind it. This movie seems like a fair compromise: keep the continuity, but give it a fresh start.
This. I mean outside of Garfield Bill Murray has the best movie instincts in the business. If he didn't want to do it, I'm sure it wasn't worth doing.
 

Neo Ultra Mike

Creeping Shadow of "15000"+ Posts
May 18, 2006
17,347
0
113
East Northport
This. I mean outside of Garfield Bill Murray has the best movie instincts in the business.
Eh I wouldn't say that. I mean Bill Murray did Garfield because he thought originally it was going to be written by the Cohen Brothers when it was co written by a totally different Joel Cohen and only found out the truth AFTER he had already wound up singing on for a Garfield film and a sequel. Plus the guy in 2015 did Rock The Kasbah AND Aloha, two of the biggest bombs/forgotten crap films of that year. So yeah he's made quite a few mistakes his career despite making quite a few right calls even over this last past decade. And I do think that honestly people forget that yeah Ghostbusters 2 now has sort of a cult following and a fair amount of fans and did well but... it still had backlash and was not nearly the mega hit of the first one. Plus by the time of Ghostbusters II the 80's had ended and the team especially seemed not to be really interested in even making Ghostbusters anymore. The cartoon had ended, the actors were trying to move on to other projects and the 90's let's face it would of really overally sanitized the whole concept. Like yeah Ghostbusters II was cleaned up more compared to the first but a third would of likely had more strict studio control. Thus why no one even wanted to work on a script for ages and by that point Bill Murray didn't care (especially since yeah it's much more a thing NOW for people to come back to franchises from decades past. They have been doing that for decades before like the second 90's Shaft with Samuel L Jackson had Richard Roundtree in it but those were more exceptions to the rule until... maybe Rocky Balboa? Something in the later 2000's or early 2010's to be sure) and it was seen more as a cult thing. Plus by the 2000's the guys probably wouldn't of really been up to a major action comedy even like Ghostbusters thus why though they did the video ame there's a difference between acting and voice acting. But then of course Columbia Sony in their greed tried still milking the franchise with a riduclous stunt that backfired...

And yeah now we have this new... NEW ghostbusters movie. At this point even as someone who actually liked the 2016 this feels like a franchise we should lay to rest and doin't this isn't going to fix the movi'es reputation but hey for those who want to see these guys even at their old age as ghostbusters guess you have something and will still probably watch this when it comes out. Not expecting much from it now but will still watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MagiswordLane

Fone Bone

Matt Zimmer
Jan 19, 2004
26,361
-1
113
43
Framingham, MA
Eh I wouldn't say that. I mean Bill Murray did Garfield because he thought originally it was going to be written by the Cohen Brothers when it was co written by a totally different Joel Cohen and only found out the truth AFTER he had already wound up singing on for a Garfield film and a sequel. Plus the guy in 2015 did Rock The Kasbah AND Aloha, two of the biggest bombs/forgotten crap films of that year. So yeah he's made quite a few mistakes his career despite making quite a few right calls even over this last past decade. And I do think that honestly people forget that yeah Ghostbusters 2 now has sort of a cult following and a fair amount of fans and did well but... it still had backlash and was not nearly the mega hit of the first one. Plus by the time of Ghostbusters II the 80's had ended and the team especially seemed not to be really interested in even making Ghostbusters anymore. The cartoon had ended, the actors were trying to move on to other projects and the 90's let's face it would of really overally sanitized the whole concept. Like yeah Ghostbusters II was cleaned up more compared to the first but a third would of likely had more strict studio control. Thus why no one even wanted to work on a script for ages and by that point Bill Murray didn't care (especially since yeah it's much more a thing NOW for people to come back to franchises from decades past. They have been doing that for decades before like the second 90's Shaft with Samuel L Jackson had Richard Roundtree in it but those were more exceptions to the rule until... maybe Rocky Balboa? Something in the later 2000's or early 2010's to be sure) and it was seen more as a cult thing. Plus by the 2000's the guys probably wouldn't of really been up to a major action comedy even like Ghostbusters thus why though they did the video ame there's a difference between acting and voice acting. But then of course Columbia Sony in their greed tried still milking the franchise with a riduclous stunt that backfired...

And yeah now we have this new... NEW ghostbusters movie. At this point even as someone who actually liked the 2016 this feels like a franchise we should lay to rest and doin't this isn't going to fix the movi'es reputation but hey for those who want to see these guys even at their old age as ghostbusters guess you have something and will still probably watch this when it comes out. Not expecting much from it now but will still watch.
I actually don't really care as much as many children of the 80's do. It's the same reason I didn't object to the all female reboot. Ghostbusters is literally a film where the best line is "This man has no (d-word)." Answer the Call wasn't rewriting Citizen Kane there.
 

Similar threads


Spotlight

Who's on Discord?

Latest profile posts

Why did SDCC have to happen during the same weekend as Vinesauce Is Hope?
With how widespread the Joy-Con analog drift issue is, I'm honestly surprised I haven't had that issue yet. I've had my console for almost two years.
Is Nick doing anything for SDCC
I hope Trevor Devall is in the PPG 2016 reboot.