GHOSTBUSTERS (2016) Headed For Massive Loss

[AndyDursin]

Not sure what reviews you've seen of SPY David but it's one of the most well reviewed films of 2015 at least in terms of it getting positive reviews. Few movies hit over 90% at RT..making money both here and overseas. Personally I've yet to hear back from anyone who didn't like it and that includes some who aren't necessary McCarthy fans.

THE HEAT grossed over $150 mil making it one of the most successful comedies of the last five years anyway.

Comedies are a matter of taste but one cannot deny how much McCarthy and Feig's films have generated.

[DavidBanner]

No question that the McCarthy movies that Feig directed have made some money. But then, so did Ride Along and several other movies that I found unwatchable. And so it is with Jurassic World. They can make a lot of money, but will anyone remember them in a few years? You're absolutely right that they're box office hits - which is why Feig is getting to direct a reboot like Ghostbusters. I just wish he'd stick to what he's done best - direct television episodes where he can be supervised by stronger creative minds than his. Back in the day, there were plenty of directors who were quite good in this area - Marc Daniels, Jud Taylor, Douglas Heyes, etc. Not every director does well when pushed into the theatrical arena. Many are best on the small screen, like Feig and Abrams.

The review I read of Spy gave it 2 out of 5 stars and indicated it was an overlong comedy at 2 hours that depended on McCarthy for what funny moments it had. Pretty much what I would think would happen with this combination of director and star actress.

[AndyDursin]

I could pick a needle out of a haystack and find a bad review of any film in existence. That negative review of SPY is in a tiny minority based on critics who have seen it.

[Monterey Jack]

I enjoyed Spy a lot, and it offered a clear improvement on McCarthy's previous two Feig-directed comedies by not being as gross as Bridesmaids or as choked with incessant profanity as The Heat. She's really honing in on the best elements of her comic persona and jettisoning the ones that people most often complain about (I can't recall a single overt fat joke in Spy...they could have cast a skinny actress, and there would have been no appreciable difference in the screenplay).

[AndyDursin]

And she'll have to do that more seeing as GHOSTBUSTERS will be PG-13. I've long been a McCarthy fan but she's seldom shown on-screen (outside of St. Vincent) the range that she displayed on Gilmore Girls and Mike & Molly where she's solid dramatically and quite sweet as well. But at the same time, I can't blame her -- every one of her starring vehicles has made money (even the misguided TAMMY) so she's gone back to the well as much as she can to capitalize on it. I agree with you MJ that she needs to broaden her feature-film act, and she's certainly capable of that.

Again, who knows with this one -- I'd have rather have seen Emma Stone than two SNL cast members -- but I just don't have a huge issue with this "reboot" as I would some others. If it's marketed and sold more as a McCarthy/Wiig/Feig comedy that happens to have the same plot, then it's going to sink or swim on its own merits (probably more than most of these remakes). For young people, there's not much baggage there in terms of being slavish to the original, 30 years is a long time and, sad to say, I'm guessing a huge amount of the coveted demo has no idea who Bill Murray even is.

If it's funny, people will laugh and enjoy it -- and if it is, they'll be able to take the film on its own terms. They have the right people handling it based on their track record IMO -- and I'd rather see the female cast route than the likes of Judd Apatow remaking it with, say, Seth Rogen and friends starring.

Hemsworth ought to be quite amusing as well and I find that casting inspired...I actually look forward to seeing him play off McCarthy and Wiig. Feig did an excellent job getting a strong comic performance out of Statham, and you know Hemsworth can be funny.

[DavidBanner]

I respected the reviewer I read who gave Spy the two stars. I wasn't about to spend money on the movie, but he spared me the two hours when it hits cable as well.

I'm sure McCarthy has a lot of potential as an actress - I just quickly tired of her persona in movies like Bridesmaids and Identity Thief. Too much, too loud and too obnoxious. I realize that some people really enjoy that, but I'm just not one of them. (I've noted in the past that Tina Fey also has some dramatic potential that really hasn't been tapped yet) As it is, McCarthy is enjoying her moment and she should. Just as Kevin Hart is currently doing and Jim Carrey did in the 90s.

I agree that the target audience here will not really know much about the original movie, other than as a relic of the 80s with some actors they don't recognize. But that's probably the same reason why so many other 80s movies have been remade. I just don't see a point in seeing the remakes. Do we really need a new Robocop? A new Footloose? A new Poltergeist (which was already a remake of a Twilight Zone episode)? I'm good with the original versions of these movies. Why not see some new movies made that aren't just carbon copies of what we've already seen when they were fresh?

[AndyDursin]

I just don't see a point in seeing the remakes. Do we really need a new Robocop? A new Footloose? A new Poltergeist (which was already a remake of a Twilight Zone episode)? I'm good with the original versions of these movies. Why not see some new movies made that aren't just carbon copies of what we've already seen when they were fresh?

I agree completely -- but I don't think this GHOSTBUSTERS is going to be a carbon copy retread. It sounds like they're using the premise and that's it, which would be wise on a number of levels.

[DavidBanner]

I guess my issue is why do they need to call it Ghostbusters? Why not make a new movie with its own premise? Granted, they could wind up with something as awful as "R.I.P.D.", but they could also come up with something better. Clearly, they're going for the marketability of the 80s movie name, in the same way that the other remakes have done. And it's true we've always been faced with a plethora of remakes, sequels and derivative movies. But it just feels to me that recent years have given us a diet of almost NOTHING but that stuff. Other than a few awards bait movies at the end of the year, which were usually made for about five bucks and a sandwich.

[AndyDursin]

Boston doubling for NYC...not the first time!

[AndyDursin]

I've got to say -- this looks absolutely horrendous. Wow. Looks like this summer's RIPD.

As a trailer, it's selling the material based on the FX and that end -- not the comedy -- and that's just insane, especially when you have Wiig and McCarthy involved. Who exactly are they trying to appeal to?

Also, can we now put a kibosh on these reboots using their predecessor's iconic themes on a dissonant, tinkering piano (i.e. THE FORCE AWAKENS, JURASSIC WORLD, etc.?). We get it, enough already.

[BobaMike]

I'm with you Andy, that is a bad trailer. I enjoyed Bridesmaids and Spy, but this just looks sad. Vomit and a "oooh, that's gonna hurt"? That's the funniest thing they can show?

And confusing. Was the city saved 30 years ago by the ghostbusters as in the trailer? Then why do we need these ladies to invent being ghostbusters again?

[AndyDursin]

It could be the trailer is just so generically edited that it's not representative of the film. Hopefully that's the case. That said, even with an open mind, it is hard not to be discouraged by the fact that it's not funny at all. Looks like RIPD with Wiig and McCarthy inserted into it and a "Ghostbusters" skin added for good measure.

I will say Leslie Jones is just so obnoxious. I don't find her funny at all. She's a walking black stereotype, and that's her shtick, but it doesn't look like it's going to add anything to the film...unless you find her LOUD BRASHNESS amusing.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are reactions like this one -- saying the movie looks "perfect"

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-new-ghostbus ... 1762501978

[DavidBanner]

This movie looks excruciating, but I wasn't expecting anything different.
Seems to be all about crude jokes and throwing slime in people's faces.
The VFX appears to be a slightly souped-up version of what the original movies had in the 80s.
Nothing here to compete with my Blu-ray of the 1984 movie, so I'm happy to stay with that.

I agree with Andy - this will likely be a bomb as bad as R.I.P.D.
It's truly a shame they couldn't get a stronger cast and a more capable director.

[mkaroly]

Lol...wow that trailer was awful. I'll be skipping this one with no regrets.

[AndyDursin]

The manic comedy of Chris Hemsworth is heavily promoted in this international trailer: