It's worse than I thought...

[Prevenger17]

You back at work today.

I am mate, computers are back up and running

 

[carlos21]

I am mate, computers are back up and running

That's rubbish mate,

 

[Prevenger17]

That's rubbish mate,

You calling me a liar Carlos?

 

[carlos21]

You calling me a liar Carlos?

No dude

 

[Prevenger17]

No dude

Aw, that's a relief

 

[carlos21]

Aw, that's a relief

The weekend near start at 5 o'clock mate.

 

[EDINHO1]

I'm pretty sure they have ruined it.

 

[bol-uk]

'sake lads, a bunch of 'adults' complaining about a kiddies film not exactly being Shakespeare, come on, grow up, get a life.

The point is, they keep remaking films - badly.

I loved GB as a kid and this does taint it's memory. If they were insisting on shoehorning an all female cast, they should at least made it bearable to watch. The sisterhood will be well disappointed.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

The point is, they keep remaking films - badly.

I loved GB as a kid and this does taint it's memory. If they were insisting on shoehorning an all female cast, they should at least made it bearable to watch. The sisterhood will be well disappointed.

Really?
Do I have to explain the film industry to you like I would my 13 year old self?

1) The Studios don't give a poop about 'Art' or 'respecting the original' they only care about Money and the maximisation of their investment.
2) the Director and actors don't really care, yeah they want to make the best film they can for the money they've been trusted with, but it's just another project for them. For the Director it's a chance to show the studio the can be trusted with a bigger budget on other projects in future (perhaps it's the promise of doing a film he actually wants to make), for the actors it's an easy shot at showing they are bankable as it will make money regardless of how bad it is. The actors will be locked into a multi film deal so the Studio has them tied to an amount of money for the sequels just in case it is more of a success than they were expecting.
3) Nobody (yes really nobody) actually give a toss about Ghostbusters or the rest of the 'franchises' that the Studios dredge up. Yes you may have liked if not loved them as a kid, you may have had all the toys and made your own proton pack out of a rucksack and some copper piping you found, but you were a kid then, kids will love most things when bombarded day and night with flashing lights. The similar appeal to kids is why the film is being 'reimagined', so they can sell them all the same poop again, simple as... (see 1)
4) They could have doubled if not tripled the budget, got the best writers, special effects and actors in, but only a small number of extra people would go and see it, therefore it would make less money as a percentage of the monies invested so why bother? (see 1)
5) It is a film made for and marketed too kids, yes, 30 year old men-children living with their parents and students will go see it as well but they would moan about it no matter the effort or money put into it. All the utter tosh about 'pacing in the second act' and occasional 'flat dialogue' nonsense would happen regardless, so what's the point in spending more money to stop people who it isn't aimed at moaning about it. They don't care what the critics say about it, during the School holidays all the kids will go see it regardless of how many stars it gets in Empire magazine, some Adults will go see it because of the name and to see how bad it is, they have spent their money, who cares if they walk out moaning?
6) All female cast? yeah, why not it's a sad state of affairs when it's a marketable gimmick like that but Girls are half the target market and it won't but boys off watching it because they showed a ghost puking ectoplasm in the trailer.
7) it will make a lot more money than was spent on it, it will allow them to make 2-3 increasingly cheaper films with dwindling returns until the park it again and dry hump another half forgotten idea.

There are many more reasons why these films aren't great but I've lost the will to bother typing because it's that obvious, most of it boils down to maximising the profit, which is why it's a Film Industry not a Film Charity.

 

[The Cowboy]

Really?
Do I have to explain the film industry to you like I would my 13 year old self?

1) The Studios don't give a poop about 'Art' or 'respecting the original' they only care about Money and the maximisation of their investment.
2) the Director and actors don't really care, yeah they want to make the best film they can for the money they've been trusted with, but it's just another project for them. For the Director it's a chance to show the studio the can be trusted with a bigger budget on other projects in future (perhaps it's the promise of doing a film he actually wants to make), for the actors it's an easy shot at showing they are bankable as it will make money regardless of how bad it is. The actors will be locked into a multi film deal so the Studio has them tied to an amount of money for the sequels just in case it is more of a success than they were expecting.
3) Nobody (yes really nobody) actually give a toss about Ghostbusters or the rest of the 'franchises' that the Studios dredge up. Yes you may have liked if not loved them as a kid, you may have had all the toys and made your own proton pack out of a rucksack and some copper piping you found, but you were a kid then, kids will love most things when bombarded day and night with flashing lights. The similar appeal to kids is why the film is being 'reimagined', so they can sell them all the same poop again, simple as... (see 1)
4) They could have doubled if not tripled the budget, got the best writers, special effects and actors in, but only a small number of extra people would go and see it, therefore it would make less money as a percentage of the monies invested so why bother? (see 1)
5) It is a film made for and marketed too kids, yes, 30 year old men-children living with their parents and students will go see it as well but they would moan about it no matter the effort or money put into it. All the utter tosh about 'pacing in the second act' and occasional 'flat dialogue' nonsense would happen regardless, so what's the point in spending more money to stop people who it isn't aimed at moaning about it. They don't care what the critics say about it, during the School holidays all the kids will go see it regardless of how many stars it gets in Empire magazine, some Adults will go see it because of the name and to see how bad it is, they have spent their money, who cares if they walk out moaning?
6) All female cast? yeah, why not it's a sad state of affairs when it's a marketable gimmick like that but Girls are half the target market and it won't but boys off watching it because they showed a ghost puking ectoplasm in the trailer.
7) it will make a lot more money than was spent on it, it will allow them to make 2-3 increasingly cheaper films with dwindling returns until the park it again and dry hump another half forgotten idea.

There are many more reasons why these films aren't great but I've lost the will to bother typing because it's that obvious, most of it boils down to maximising the profit, which is why it's a Film Industry not a Film Charity.

It's still sad that they rely so heavily on remakes and 'reboots' instead of coming up with original film ideas.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

It's still sad that they rely so heavily on remakes and 'reboots' instead of coming up with original film ideas.

yeah but it's easier money, everyone already knows the product, saves tens/hundreds of millions on pre-publicity educating the audience, plus the original will go ballistic in sales too, almost like getting money for a second film without making it

 

[The Cowboy]

yeah but it's easier money, everyone already knows the product, saves tens/hundreds of millions on pre-publicity educating the audience, plus the original will go ballistic in sales too, almost like getting money for a second film without making it

Sure, but it hasn't always been the case. Perhaps reboots are the new sequel, which kept the brand but gave us brand new storylines.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

Sure, but it hasn't always been the case. Perhaps reboots are the new sequel, which kept the brand but gave us brand new storylines.

yeah, films before the 80's didn't really have the mass merchandising so the branding was less universal and films disappeared from the consciousness quickly without the VHS/dvd market as they weren't played again and again like they are now.

 

[bol-uk]

Really?
Do I have to explain the film industry to you like I would my 13 year old self?

1) The Studios don't give a poop about 'Art' or 'respecting the original' they only care about Money and the maximisation of their investment.
2) the Director and actors don't really care, yeah they want to make the best film they can for the money they've been trusted with, but it's just another project for them. For the Director it's a chance to show the studio the can be trusted with a bigger budget on other projects in future (perhaps it's the promise of doing a film he actually wants to make), for the actors it's an easy shot at showing they are bankable as it will make money regardless of how bad it is. The actors will be locked into a multi film deal so the Studio has them tied to an amount of money for the sequels just in case it is more of a success than they were expecting.
3) Nobody (yes really nobody) actually give a toss about Ghostbusters or the rest of the 'franchises' that the Studios dredge up. Yes you may have liked if not loved them as a kid, you may have had all the toys and made your own proton pack out of a rucksack and some copper piping you found, but you were a kid then, kids will love most things when bombarded day and night with flashing lights. The similar appeal to kids is why the film is being 'reimagined', so they can sell them all the same poop again, simple as... (see 1)
4) They could have doubled if not tripled the budget, got the best writers, special effects and actors in, but only a small number of extra people would go and see it, therefore it would make less money as a percentage of the monies invested so why bother? (see 1)
5) It is a film made for and marketed too kids, yes, 30 year old men-children living with their parents and students will go see it as well but they would moan about it no matter the effort or money put into it. All the utter tosh about 'pacing in the second act' and occasional 'flat dialogue' nonsense would happen regardless, so what's the point in spending more money to stop people who it isn't aimed at moaning about it. They don't care what the critics say about it, during the School holidays all the kids will go see it regardless of how many stars it gets in Empire magazine, some Adults will go see it because of the name and to see how bad it is, they have spent their money, who cares if they walk out moaning?
6) All female cast? yeah, why not it's a sad state of affairs when it's a marketable gimmick like that but Girls are half the target market and it won't but boys off watching it because they showed a ghost puking ectoplasm in the trailer.
7) it will make a lot more money than was spent on it, it will allow them to make 2-3 increasingly cheaper films with dwindling returns until the park it again and dry hump another half forgotten idea.

There are many more reasons why these films aren't great but I've lost the will to bother typing because it's that obvious, most of it boils down to maximising the profit, which is why it's a Film Industry not a Film Charity.

Woah, this is basically what I was saying!

They keep remaking films badly (you asked why people were so bothered about this new bad remake,remember?!)

Fact is, we all know it is about ££$$'s, this is what upsets me, is nothing sacred anymore?

Also, why make a female version and make it bad?? Make a new film about something else and have an all women cast, surely even the most PC director can come up with something?!

So many problems with this film, it's cast,it's purpose and it's failure to do what it actually set out to do that I find it laughable.

So long as the public pays the pounds the industry will produce.

 

[The Cowboy]

Woah, this is basically what I was saying!

They keep remaking films badly (you asked why people were so bothered about this new bad remake,remember?!)

Fact is, we all know it is about ££$$'s, this is what upsets me, is nothing sacred anymore?

Also, why make a female version and make it bad?? Make a new film about something else and have an all women cast, surely even the most PC director can come up with something?!

So many problems with this film, it's cast,it's purpose and it's failure to do what it actually set out to do that I find it laughable.

So long as the public pays the pounds the industry will produce.

Bridesmaids - all female leads, original storyline, well received, generally good reviews (Not my cup of tea mind)

Ghostbusters - all female leads, unoriginal storyline, badly received, generally poor reviews (of the trailer).

There can be no doubt that the legacy of the original is weighing heavily on the remake. If it had been an original film, I doubt anyone would've batted an eyelid.