Ghostbusters animated film, shared universe planned for 2019/2020

[Elbie]

Originally Posted by levcore

Yeah I saw all of it, it was hard to miss! lol. I'm saying I disagree with it being a gimmick, I don't see simply casting females in lead roles in a movie as being a gimmick at all.

It is when the original characters were males. No way around it. The very definition of gimmick.

[Rodney-2187]

The casting of females wasn't the gimmick. They treated the entire franchise, logo and all as one big gimmick. Ghostbusters was just name recognition waiting to be cashed-in on. They didn't understand what made the original great in the first place.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by levcore

Honestly I genuinely thought there was a big audience for more live action Ghosbusters movies.

There was, if they're good.

I can't believed the recent one did so badly at the box office. Regardless of anyone's opinions of the actual movie, I was sure the name alone was enough to get audiences to turn up.

The name was the reason why it made as much money as it did.

[MegatronG1]

Originally Posted by levcore

I kind of already covered this in my previous post but I really don't see any agenda in GB 2016 whatsoever. It just wants to be a light and fun comedy fantasy like the previous movies. The style of comedy is very different yes, but I see no agenda at all.

Okay, I do and I think the public did as well, which is why the film tanked the way it did. But hey, what's done is done, let the outcome be a lesson to certain people at Sony & the director.

[postmodel]

If the budget was smaller and it made the same box office, I highly doubt it would be regarded as much of a failure, much like Reitman was sort of alluding to.

I'm all for more Ghostbusters. Maybe they will really put it to rest depending on how well the next one is received.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Elbie

It is when the original characters were males. No way around it. The very definition of gimmick.

But the 2016 movie featured different characters, not females playing the same characters from the previous movies so I personally don't see the above as a valid criticism.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by postmodel

If the budget was smaller and it made the same box office, I highly doubt it would be regarded as much of a failure, much like Reitman was sort of alluding to.

I'm all for more Ghostbusters. Maybe they will really put it to rest depending on how well the next one is received.

Yeah, Reitman was correct when he said the budget was too big.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by MegatronG1

Okay, I do and I think the public did as well, which is why the film tanked the way it did. But hey, what's done is done, let the outcome be a lesson to certain people at Sony & the director.

Exactly what's done is done. All the studio can do now is pick up the pieces and try and do something more commercially successful with the name/ brand.

[Elbie]

Originally Posted by levcore

But the 2016 movie featured different characters, not females playing the same characters from the previous movies so I personally don't see the above as a valid criticism.

You don't have to see it but you can't change the definition of gimmick lol.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Elbie

You don't have to see it but you can't change the definition of gimmick lol.

that's OK, I'm not trying to

[esteban²]

The dates are new, but it is old news.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...t=ghostbusters

Already covered.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by levcore

But the 2016 movie featured different characters, not females playing the same characters from the previous movies so I personally don't see the above as a valid criticism.

Of course they're different characters. I don't think any of the female cast could be named Peter, Ray, Winston, or Egon.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by esteban²

The dates are new, but it is old news.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...t=ghostbusters

Already covered.

Search function is ridiculously useless, I searched by title and that didn't show up. Anyway, this also talks about the shared universe, which is new news.

FWIW, I liked GB2016 more than the original, Reitman's 100% correct that it was simply too expensive. I'd honestly just want a sequel with a lower budget and more emphasis on comedy over action and VFX. (It's not that I don't like the original, cuz I do, but I found the new one funnier.) The idea of a live-action GB with Tatum and Pratt sounds hysterical though. Kinda wish they could go R-rated with these but they won't.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Of course they're different characters. I don't think any of the female cast could be named Peter, Ray, Winston, or Egon.

Yeah exactly, that's pretty apparent.

[Seymour]

An animated film will most likely be PG rated and aimed at kids and tweens. Pass. Just let this "franchise" die already...

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by rodneyfaile

The casting of females wasn't the gimmick. They treated the entire franchise, logo and all as one big gimmick. Ghostbusters was just name recognition waiting to be cashed-in on. They didn't understand what made the original great in the first place.

It's the tone of the original that's missing. The original balanced comedy and horror and broke the sketch-comedy mold into a full on film...and the 2016 remake threw the franchise right back into the woe-fully unfunny SNL sketch humor.

Fail.

Also: The Ghostbusters aren't ninjas that do back flips while busting ghosts.

[Seymour]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

It's the tone of the original that's missing. The original balanced comedy and horror and broke the sketch-comedy mold into a full on film...and the 2016 remake threw the franchise right back into the woe-fully unfunny SNL sketch humor.

Come on. Saying the original Ghostbusters had any horror in it is a real stretch. It was a comedy. A super original one, but a comedy nonetheless.

[Foggy]

I have to admit, the 2016 Ghostbusters was entirely worthwhile just for the sake that everyone still gets their knickers in a twist at the slight utterance of the term Ghostbusters in general.

You did it to yourselves people, don't get worked up over such banal things next time.

[levcore]

Well I really enjoyed it! One of my more entertaining cinematic experiences from last year

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by Seymour

An animated film will most likely be PG rated and aimed at kids and tweens. Pass. Just let this "franchise" die already...

Well considering the tv cartoon from the 80's was better than Ghostbusters 2, and Ghostbusters (2016), I'd take PG over an R.