Sony to do Ghostbusters again

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.slashfilm.com/jason-reitman-ghostbusters/

Jason Reitman to Direct New ‘Ghostbusters’ Movie, A Sequel to 1989’s ‘Ghostbusters 2’
Posted on Tuesday, January 15th, 2019 by Ben Pearson



If you’re looking for someone to direct a new Ghostbusters movie, who ya gonna call? If you’re Sony, the answer is Jason Reitman – he’s been hired to tackle a secret Ghostbusters film that’s being described as a sequel to the 1989 movie Ghostbusters 2 and reportedly will not be connected to the all-female Ghostbusters: Answer the Call that was released in 2016.

Variety reports that Sony has officially hired Jason Reitman, the filmmaker behind movies like Juno, Up in the Air, Thank You For Smoking, Young Adult, and last year’s Tully and The Front Runner, to direct a new movie that’s aiming for a summer 2020 release date. Reitman is also the son of Ivan Reitman, the man who directed the original 1984 classic Ghostbusters and its direct sequel.

“I’ve always thought of myself as the first Ghostbusters fan, when I was a 6-year-old visiting the set. I wanted to make a movie for all the other fans,” Reitman told EW. “This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ‘80s happened in the ‘80s, and this is set in the present day.”

Jason Reitman has been secretly developing the project for the past few months and working out of the Ghost Corps offices on the Sony lot, which are designed to look like the famous firehouse that served as the Ghostbusters’ headquarters in the original movie.



This new movie, which the younger Reitman co-wrote with Gil Kenan (the director of Monster House, which /Film’s Peter Sciretta loves), is said to “be a continuation” of Ghostbusters 2. That leads to the obvious question: will Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson return to reprise the roles they made famous in the ’80s and ’90s? (Harold Ramis, who played the fourth Ghostbuster, Dr. Egon Spengler, died in 2014.) It’s unclear if the original stars will be back, though it’s unlikely that Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, or Leslie Jones will appear since this movie appears to be completely ignoring the existence of Ghostbusters: Answer the Call.

No plot details for this new entry have been revealed yet, but a report from The Hollywood Reporter’s Borys Kit says the main characters will be four teenagers: two boys and two girls. I’m not sure of the timeline here, but that detail instantly makes me think about the Stranger Things episode where the kids suit up as the Ghostbusters for Halloween, so I wonder if that had anything to do with how this idea came together. Also, the fact that the lead characters are teenagers aligns well with Monster House, an animated movie about a group of kids who discover that their neighbor’s house is a living, breathing monster.

“This is very early, and I want the film to unwrap like a present. We have a lot of wonderful surprises and new characters for the audience to meet,” Reitman told EW.

Ivan Reitman’s production company Montecito Pictures is producing this movie.

“It will be a passing of the torch both inside and out,” Ivan said. “It was a decision he had to come to himself. He worked really hard to be independent and developed a wonderful career on his own. So I was quite surprised when he came to me with Gil and said, ‘I know I’ve been saying for 10 years I’m the last person who should make a Ghostbusters movie, but…I have this idea.’ Literally, I was crying by the end of it, it was so emotional and funny.”


Jason Reitman appeared on The /Filmcast back in 2013 and was asked about directing a Ghostbusters movie one day. You can listen to the full episode, but here’s his response:

“At the end of the day, when people always ask me about directing a Ghostbusters movie, I think the line kind of holds true for any genre film: If I directed a Ghostbusters film, there would be no busting. It would just be like, people talking about ghosts. If I did the Avengers, there would be no action, it would just be the Avengers talking.”

Reitman appeared in front of the camera as Brownstone Boy #2 in Ghostbusters 2, and interestingly, this technically won’t be the first time he’s directed something Ghostbusters-related: in 2012, he directed a Live Read of the original script with Seth Rogen, Jack Black, and Rainn Wilson as Venkman, Stanz and Spengler, respectively.

Part of the backlash against the 2016 reboot was that people didn't want a reboot, so this at least ticks that box. I personally didn't mind reboot or otherwise, and I enjoyed the 2016 film, although I thought it was less funny than the original.

Leslie Jones from the reboot isn't pleased.

linky

[Tsyroc]

I didn't like the idea of a reboot but still thought it was entertaining. It wasn't as a good of a movie as Ghostbusters II but I enjoyed it more.

Neither are close to the original.

[The Romulan Republic]

If at first you don't succeed...

Normally I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to original Ghostbusters. But in this context, it feels like a sop thrown to internet trolls and misogynists, and another servile retreat from creative independence or integrity, as we enter the age where franchises are run by whichever fanboys whined loudest online about the last film.

[ray245]

If at first you don't succeed...

Normally I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to original Ghostbusters. But in this context, it feels like a sop thrown to internet trolls and misogynists, and another servile retreat from creative independence or integrity, as we enter the age where franchises are run by whichever fanboys whined loudest online about the last film.

If a film is financially successful, no one will care about the internet fanboys. If the film isn't, then studios will have a greater incentive to listen to the fanboys.

[The Romulan Republic]

Generally that's true, yeah.

[ray245]

Generally that's true, yeah.

This is why I feel if you are going to adopt a confrontational attitude towards fanboys, you better make sure the film will succeed financially. The director will have to bear the consequences of failure in legitimising the voices of the fanboys.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, as there is no way to be absolutely sure that a film will be a box-office success before it airs, that is tantamount to saying no risks should ever be taken, nor anything done that offends the most vocal/vitriolic fans.

That may very well be the messages the corporate bosses take away- but it will be to the detriment of creativity.

[ray245]

Well, as there is no way to be absolutely sure that a film will be a box-office success before it airs, that is tantamount to saying no risks should ever be taken, nor anything done that offends the most vocal/vitriolic fans.

That may very well be the messages the corporate bosses take away- but it will be to the detriment of creativity.

There's a big difference between making a creative difference and going on social media and on interviews with a very antagonistic and confrontational attitude towards the fanboys. They tried to make a whole PR/marketing campaign centered around a more confrontational attitude towards the fanboys. And because the movie bombed at the box office, the studios execs first thoughts is to assume that antagonistic attitude was the leading cause for failure.

[Jub]

Well, as there is no way to be absolutely sure that a film will be a box-office success before it airs, that is tantamount to saying no risks should ever be taken, nor anything done that offends the most vocal/vitriolic fans.

That may very well be the messages the corporate bosses take away- but it will be to the detriment of creativity.

Is an all female remake actually creative though? It seems lazy and a bit pandering if anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, as there is no way to be absolutely sure that a film will be a box-office success before it airs, that is tantamount to saying no risks should ever be taken, nor anything done that offends the most vocal/vitriolic fans.

That may very well be the messages the corporate bosses take away- but it will be to the detriment of creativity.

Is an all female remake actually creative though? It seems lazy and a bit pandering if anything.

No more than doing an old-school love letter to the fanboys would be lazy and pandering.

Depends on what they do with it, though. If they use the gender change to open up new thematic or storytelling opportunities.

[Jub]

No more than doing an old-school love letter to the fanboys would be lazy and pandering.

Depends on what they do with it, though. If they use the gender change to open up new thematic or storytelling opportunities

Did they though? It seems to have failed to capture hearts and minds.

You also ignore that a love letter, careless penned, can be worse than nothing. Any number of fan works can attest to that.

Pandering to a fanbase is a fine line to walk, you have to know which old parts still work and which to cut. You must dance around cutting things, like Venkman's casual sexism and creepy behavior towards the women in his life, while understanding that the Ghostbusters are meant to be everymen. You need to get across that you can have a protagonist that isn't a role model, that you can have an enjoyable movie where no lesson is learned at the end, and you need to sell that to a modern audience. That's a herculean task, one which even Ghostbusters II failed to really accomplish.

You can't just remake Ghostbusters with women/minorities, flip the jokes, and have a worthwhile end result.

[ray245]

No more than doing an old-school love letter to the fanboys would be lazy and pandering.

Depends on what they do with it, though. If they use the gender change to open up new thematic or storytelling opportunities.

You seem to be assuming that every movie/show that make use of gender change would actually be using it for new thematic and storytelling opportunities instead of simply being pandering and condescending to the female demographic. The last ghostbuster movie was making a implicit suggestion ( in interviews and marketing) that female audience needs to embrace the movie solely because of the gender change alone.

When you try and turn gender change into a marketing ploy, you better make sure the movie is good enough to succeed in one way or another. Otherwise you are just being completely reckless in pushing for social change and you will make it harder for other directors to convince studios to fund projects that will make meaningful use of gender change.

Recklessness has very, very severe consequences. People who does this do not deserve to be defended from major criticism in my opinion.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't assume that at all. Its certainly possible to make a vapid, shit movie with gender-switched characters. I said it depends on what they do with it.

Frankly, I could say that you seem to assume that any gender change in a movie is being done simply for pandering, and has no further substance to it. That might or might not be an exaggerated characterization of your views, but it is at least no more fallacious than your characterization of mine.

I will also note that you are conflating "the message the movie was sending" with "the message the marketing team was sending". Those are two very different things and you know it (or you ought to). If your beef is with the marketing, then criticize the marketing department, not the film or the filmmakers (who usually have fuck all in terms of say in what the marketing people do).

[ray245]

I don't assume that at all. Its certainly possible to make a vapid, shit movie with gender-switched characters. I said it depends on what they do with it.

Frankly, I could say that you seem to assume that any gender change in a movie is being done simply for pandering, and has no further substance to it. That might or might not be an exaggerated characterization of your views, but it is at least no more fallacious than your characterization of mine.

I will also note that you are conflating "the message the movie was sending" with "the message the marketing team was sending". Those are two very different things and you know it (or you ought to). If your beef is with the marketing, then criticize the marketing department, not the film or the filmmakers (who usually have fuck all in terms of say in what the marketing people do).

I've seen the movie and I've followed the marketing campaign. I feel like you've not done so and are making an argument in defence of something you've not seen, judging by what you've said so far.

It's not a horrible movie that some fanboys make it out to be, but it's also not a movie that will make female audience flock to see it simply by the virtue of the female cast. The problem is when the director and the cast reacted against the backlash by effectively turning the movie into a social cause. The message the director himself was sending out was " if you are not sexist, you need to watch this movie and make sure it succeed". They( and not just the marketing team) tied the financial success of the movie to people's social and moral obligations.

The director himself express his regret for turning the movie into a social cause.

I think it kind of hampered us a little bit because the movie became so much of a cause. I think for some of our audience, they were like, ‘What the fuck? We don’t wanna go to a cause. We just wanna watch a fuckin’ movie,’” the director says. And he still has mixed emotions about how it all panned out.

https://www.vulture.com/2017/11/paul-fe ... cause.html


My personal stance is that most media companies and studios are mishandling how they target the female demographics by making an assumption that gender-switching by itself is enough. I think they are more likely to create a vapid, shit movie with gender-switched characters than to make a meaningful movie that offers an interesting perspective via the use of female characters.

[Gunhead]

Yea right.. crappy movie tanked because it was crap, but hey lets pretend it was some internet conspiracy by the people who hate the womenzzz.
GB 2016 was a movie I didn't pay to see but at the end of it, I still felt people who made it owed me my money back. It was unfunny, boring and pointless without any notable high points and it managed this all on its own.
So far more probable scenario is that Sony saw the turd they had produced, buried it and gave the franchise to someone who might be able to make them a movie people like thus make them money. Time will tell I suppose.

-Gunhead

[mr friendly guy]

GB 2016 cost $144 million to make and grossed $229.1 million. As a rule of thumb these days, it needs revenue 2.5 to 3 times of the cost to break even, and lost around $70 million.

Now according to Dan Ackroyd, Feig had to do reshoots which cost an extra $30-40 million, although Sony disputes this as only a few million. However if this is true, then GB 2016 could have almost broke even and with DVD and blu ray and merchandise (what little there was) it might have turned a small sum. So it might not have been that bad financially, ie break even instead of tank if Feig didn't have to do these reshoots. It would have been a respectable result, but not a good one.

[Sea Skimmer]

I basically expect another movie to be not very good and not do very good even with the original cast, a lot of time has passed.

I don't think I'm alone on feeling like the original success was very much a product of it's time, with for example the silly but not actually out of place lab equipment helping set the mood. Today we expect and know the considerable majority of everyone in a US city is walking around with a cellphone and a camera, paranormal stuff just doesn't have the same appeal. It's certainly hurt horror movies, and a comedy about ghosts suffers the same way.

Also Ghostbusters depended a lot on some deadpan lines that worked like magic, that's never been easy to repeat and certainly wasn't repeated in Ghostbusters 2. But guess we'll see if they come up with some decent ideas.

[mr friendly guy]

Also Ghostbusters depended a lot on some deadpan lines that worked like magic, that's never been easy to repeat and certainly wasn't repeated in Ghostbusters 2. But guess we'll see if they come up with some decent ideas.

Yeah, Bill Murray's line about, "yes its true, this man has no dick," worked. Ghostbusters 2016 tried its humour a bit differently with Melissa McCarthy going full on with expressions in the lines. Take the repeated scenes where her character talks about not getting enough wantons in her soup. While I found Murray's line more humourous, I won't necessarily say that style of comedy is intrinsically less funny than the deadpan lines, but rather that the comedy styles are different. However, I know from reviews some fans liked the deadpan humour and were disappointed GB 2016 couldn't replicate it, well aside from Chris Hemsworth's character.