GHOSTBUSTERS (2016) Headed For Massive Loss

[TomServo]

Whatever happened to getting actresses with good comedic chops who can actually open a movie, like Emma Stone and Jennifer Lawrence? Oh yeah, that would cost money.

How is it any different than the fact the original cast of GHOSTBUSTERS mostly consisted of SNL and SCTV players? Those were guys mainly known only as comedians, not actors "with good comedic chops". Bit of a double-standard seems to be happening here, don't you think?

[Monterey Jack]

Yeah, but comparing early-80's SNL players with 2015 SNL players the difference is glaringly obvious, all gender issues aside.

[AndyDursin]

McCarthy and Wiig being cast makes perfect sense -- they're reuniting them from BRIDESMAIDS, which is one of the most successful comedies of recent years -- but my guess is their salaries and especially McCarthy's drove up the price tag. So to save money they went with budget casting to fill out the rest with girls from the current SNL ensemble...which is what gives me pause.

The problem with SNL casting is THIS cast. The show has been woeful for some time and IMO has hit rock bottom over the last couple of seasons. I've been a long-time viewer since I was a kid and I don't even recall the "almost canceled" years of the show in the mid 80s -- when Dick Ebersol took over for Lorne Michaels -- being this barren and unfunny.

Like I wrote above, casting the likes of Jones, McKinnon and Strong is nearly like putting Charles Rocket and Brad Hall in GHOSTBUSTERS for a direct comparison -- after all THEY were the current SNL as of the early/mid 80s.

I've never had an issue with the female cast concept, and there are so many funny ladies out there, that they had a real opportunity here to put a terrific ensemble together. Instead this sounds like it could be an SNL sketch when McCarthy hosts the show (which she does frequently)...hopefully it turns out decently, but I'm not particularly confident now that the casting is official.

[Monterey Jack]

Plus, Murray, Ackroyd and Ramis actually did have a string of successful movies prior to Ghostbusters...aside from McCarthy (who has sold a lot of tickets to some pretty dreadful movies like Tammy and Identity Thief), none of these women have any sort of big-screen track record. Okay, Wiig was in Bridesmaids, but name another movie she's headlined which made money. The whole project seems like they spent all of the casting budget on acquiring the Bridesmaids duo of McCarthy/Wiig, and the other two women are basically ballast. Again, someone like Emma Stone would have guaranteed a certain amount of box office appeal, and she's a terrific comic presence, but Columbia obviously didn't want to pony up the cash, so we get a pair of comedically-challenged current SNL players as filler. One could argue that Ernie Hudson kind of filled the "other Ghostbuster" role in the first two (it always struck me that they really wanted Eddie Murphy, but couldn't get him), but in those films, his presence worked as the "straight man" to the other performers, which grounded both the comedic and scary elements for the audience.

I just find McCarthy a very one-note performer...and I say that as someone who liked both Bridesmaids and The Heat. And considering her whole schtick revolves around being as gratingly profane as possible, I don't see how a PG-13 franchise film is going to play to her limited strengths when she's not allowed to spew F-Bombs in every other sentence.

[AndyDursin]

I've defended McCarthy before, because if you've seen her in GILMORE GIRLS, or MIKE & MOLLY, or ST. VINCENT, she's quite capable of doing far more than the R-rated shtick she's been doing. She's also good as a dramatic actress but it's true that these films -- as funny as some have been -- have pigeon-holed her into one type of performance. On the one hand -- it's working, THE HEAT was both funny and a big hit, and she's carried lousy other movies (especially TAMMY) into profitable results. On the other -- it's time to mix it up. This movie may be good for her, because I think she's long overdue to make a toned-down PG-13 type of comedy, which I'm surprised she hasn't produced yet.

I'm with you on Wiig -- McCarthy was really the breakout star of BRIDESMAIDS even though Wiig got top billing. She needs this movie more than McCarthy does, and she hasn't done much of anything outside it. Still, putting her and McCarthy together at the "top" of the bill is a smart move. It's what they did under it that's the issue.

Casting someone like Emma Stone would have been smart. She's comedically inclined to begin with, but would have served as a contrast to the rest of the "improvisational" comediennes in the cast. And what you really want in a comedy is CONTRAST. Sigourney Weaver wasn't and isn't "funny" -- she's a serious dramatic actress -- but seeing her playing off Murray and the gang added to the comedy, not to mention "grounded" the film dramatically.

I don't see anything here to ground the film dramatically -- when you cast a bunch of SNL performers (and ones from the currently lousy incarnation of the show), you know what you're going to get ahead of time.

And what's worse, Leslie Jones is painfully unfunny to the point of her being a walking racial stereotype. I'M THE CRAZY BLACK WOMAN HAAHAHA -- she's going to put her performance up 110 on the volume scale. Really it's amazing how she's gone from a nobody to a "featured" performer on the show to being cast in this film over the course of a year...she must have a hell of an agent or something. McKinnon is OK but she seems to have the same attributes as Wiig. Strong I like, but it seems she'd be used in a small "straight" role or something, so why even bother?

The amazing part is the only legitimately (somewhat) funny girl on SNL right now IMO is Aidy Bryant but they bypassed her and went with everyone else!

[AndyDursin]

WTF...

http://deadline.com/2015/03/ghostbuster ... 201388917/

EXCLUSIVE: Sony Pictures is broadening the Ghostbusters franchise and the first order of business will be an action-centric comedy that is a counterpart to the Paul Feig-directed film that will start production in June. The studio is simultaneously forming Ghostcorps, a new production company whose principals include original Ghostbusters architects Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd; they will have offices at Sony with the mission to scare up branding opportunities based on the 1984 comedy classic.

Reitman is putting the film with a powerhouse brain trust: Captain America: The Winter Soldier helmers Joe and Anthony Russo, who just made a first-look Sony deal and are looking to direct and produce this; Drew Pearce, the Iron Man 3 and Mission: Impossible 5 scribe who’ll write; and Channing Tatum and his partners Reid Carolin and Peter Kiernan, who are attached to produce. The hope is for Tatum to play one of the Ghostbusters in this film. Given his versatility and franchising success in 21 Jump Street and Magic Mike, he’s a good cornerstone to launch another Ghostbusters series. The idea came from Pearce, who honed it the Russo Brothers, Tatum’s team and Reitman.

This is being put together even as the studio moves to the start line with a Ghostbusters reboot that will be directed by Feig and star his Bridesmaids leads Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy, and Saturday Night Live stand outs Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon. All of this is being steered by new studio head Tom Rothman, Doug Belgrad and production president Michael De Luca.

Reitman confirmed these early plans to Deadline, and said that this was something he and Aykroyd had long discussed. In fact, it is remarkably close to the branding prospects included in a cosmic Bible for the possibilities that they hatched 30 years ago, ideas which were used to form the original film. They were rolling around ideas for Ghostcorps with top Sony execs Amy Pascal and Belgrad last fall at the Toronto Film Festival at Montecito. That’s the 12,000-square-foot restaurant that Reitman opened near the TIFF Bell Lightbox building, and which played host to several major festival premieres. Now, after Pascal left to become a producer on Feig’s Ghostbusters, they are ready to move on the branding effort.

“We want to expand the Ghostbusters universe in ways that will include different films, TV shows, merchandise, all things that are part of modern filmed entertainment,” Reitman told me. “This is a branded entertainment, a scary supernatural premise mixed with comedy. Paul Feig’s film will be the first version of that, shooting in June to come out in July 2016. He’s got four of the funniest women in the world, and there will be other surprises to come. The second film has a wonderful idea that builds on that. Drew will start writing and the hope is to be ready for the Russo Brothers’ next window next summer to shoot, with the movie coming out the following year. It’s just the beginning of what I hope will be a lot of wonderful movies.”

IvanReitman said that aside from himself and Aykroyd, Ghostcorps principals will be his longtime Montecito partner Tom Pollock, Ali Bell and Alex Plapinger, and Sony. They’ll take space on the Culver City lot, even as they continue operating Montecito as a separate production company. They have several pictures percolating at Paramount and they are getting close on a movie adaptation of Baywatch.

“My primary focus will be to build the Ghostbusters into the universe it always promised it might become. The original film is beloved, as is the cast, and we hope to create films we will continue to love.”

This is early days and the Russo Brothers, who are prepping their second Captain America pic Captain America: Civil War (Sony’s signature superhero Spider-Man is expected to make an appearance), have also been mentioned as being coveted by Marvel to direct the next two Avengers movies — taking over for Joss Whedon — so we’ll see the configuration when this makes it to the start gate.

That uncertainty doesn’t scare Reitman, particularly given how long it took to resuscitate the franchise after waiting years for original Ghostbuster Bill Murray to read the script. They are all very happy to be relaunching the franchise with Feig’s version.

“Sometimes things happen at the speed they are supposed to happen,” he said. “The deals were so strong on that second movie that the franchise became frozen in place 25 years. Nothing got done, we all had the power to block whatever we didn’t like, but we finally got together and found a way.”

Those Ghostbusters deals simply don’t exist anymore in Hollywood. Stars don’t get first dollar gross anymore, but that opens different doors that include back door paydays and, sometimes, being a part owner in a promising new concern like Ghostcorps.

[AndyDursin]

Hemsworth in the Annie Potts role is inspired.

http://www.slashfilm.com/chris-hemswort ... eptionist/

[AndyDursin]

Emma Stone, as it turns out, was offered the movie and turned it down

http://www.eonline.com/news/667546/emma ... ters-movie

"The script was really funny. It just didn't feel like the right time for me. A franchise is a big commitment—it's a whole thing," says Stone, who starred in two Spider-Man movies. "I think maybe I need a minute before I dive back into that water."

[Monterey Jack]

I can understand Stone being gun-shy about another franchise role after the Amazing Spider-Man flicks, but it strikes me as more of they couldn't afford her.

[AndyDursin]

I thought that also but not after reading those comments. Stone doesn't command Melissa McCarthy or Jennifer Lawrence dollars, or anywhere near them, so she's someone they could have afforded. I doubt they'd have floated her name out there unless they were seriously considering it.

After seeing that, I think it's much more likely she didn't want to commit to doing three movies or whatever the contract is. Or she didn't like the script as much as she claims.

[DavidBanner]

Having worked with Emma Stone in the past, I can say that this sounds like she was being polite. She was finding nice things to say rather than burn a bridge for no reason.

If the script really was that funny, I think she'd have been happy to do it. She's trying to make interesting choices for her career, and she's in a position to pick nice parts for herself. We could argue about whether Aloha was a good idea, but when she took it, it was a nice new Cameron Crowe movie - what's not to like?

Nothing I've seen indicates that the new Ghostbusters movie will be anything more than yet another unnecessary 80s reboot. And I already have the original on Blu-ray so I'm good at this point.

[AndyDursin]

I can see that for sure David, I just doubt after reading those comments money was the issue.

However, while I'm up and down on the concept, I'm not writing this film off. Paul Feig made a pair of very funny films in THE HEAT and SPY. BRIDESMAIDS had its moments and was a huge hit. I think they're doing the right thing by making this movie its own creation (seemingly) and not set in the same "universe". It's been a long, long time since the original came out so there is a lot of distance there, and younger viewers aren't going to care how much it adheres or doesn't to the original (see Jurassic World).

Plus, it certainly won't take much to top GHOSTBUSTERS 2 at least! All that will ultimately matter is if it's funny.

[DavidBanner]

Agreed that she wasn't really making this decision based on the money. That's not her style. Although if they'd offered her a huge amount, it would be understandable for her to say yes to it. Not meaning that she wanted that, but that if it had been offered to her, she likely would have taken it, as would anyone else.

I'm frankly not impressed with Paul Feig as a director of features. Bridesmaids was wildly overlong - with multiple scenes that dragged on far beyond the point of being unfunny and became acutely painful to endure. Cases in point were the toasting scene and the airplane scene, each of which sent me to the fast forward button after I couldn't take it any longer. He seems to do better as a TV director of things like The Office, where he can work under the supervision of stronger writers and producers.

[TomServo]

Agreed that she wasn't really making this decision based on the money. That's not her style. Although if they'd offered her a huge amount, it would be understandable for her to say yes to it. Not meaning that she wanted that, but that if it had been offered to her, she likely would have taken it, as would anyone else.

I'm frankly not impressed with Paul Feig as a director of features. Bridesmaids was wildly overlong - with multiple scenes that dragged on far beyond the point of being unfunny and became acutely painful to endure. Cases in point were the toasting scene and the airplane scene, each of which sent me to the fast forward button after I couldn't take it any longer. He seems to do better as a TV director of things like The Office, where he can work under the supervision of stronger writers and producers.

Well, if you haven't seen "Spy", then you might change your mind on Feig. I thought it was enjoyable from start to finish, well-paced, exciting when it needed to be and the performances were great. I didn't see "The Heat", but I heard great things about it as well. The thing with "Bridesmaids" is that most of the cast are talented improvisors and so what happened there was letting scenes run longer to capture more of this, but I can see how this might not have sat well with all viewers or always work in a movie.

[DavidBanner]

I'm sure that the Paul Feig/Melissa McCarthy combo has some fans - Spy and The Heat have made some money certainly. But the reviews I've read of both of those movies, and the reactions I've heard to them, indicate they suffer from the same problems as Bridesmaids - overlong, indulgent, and assuming that McCarthy's antics are never not funny. Again, I realize that McCarthy has her fans - I'm just not one of them. For Feig, I do think he can be an effective director - of television shows like The Office. Some directors really are better suited for network television, such as JJ Abrams for but one example. That venue at least makes sure they're being supervised by producers who have a better handle on the storytelling, and who can contain their appetites to something that makes sense. (Granted, The Office had some jokes that ran on too long too - but at least that show only ran within a 30 minute timeslot most of the time).

What this brings us to is that there are only a handful of truly interesting feature directors working today. Most of them are right out of TV or music videos. And with TV, it's always been rare to find a truly great director - the medium is more focused on the writing. So if you're directing a TV show and you get a great script, or luck into the moment that your lead actor gets a great arc, you could get a lot of attention. Most of the time, directing TV is about making the schedule - which is what most TV directors are really hired to do. Directing feature films is a very different proposition - that's a matter of having an individual story you're trying to tell, and finding out what makes it interesting not only for you but for anyone else who might see it. Sadly, most feature directors today think that shakey-cam, lens flares and explosions equate to "Excitement!" rather than nausea, or they think that "letting the comedians off the chain" equates to "Funny!" rather than indulgence. Some comics really are great improv artists - like Robin Williams or like Eddie Murphy 30 years ago, when he was funny. Most of them really aren't that interesting and need to have everything scripted for them - which is why they do well on sitcoms where they have a large writing staff constantly coming up with jokes for them. Put them on a movie set, aim a camera at them, and tell them to turn on the funny, and we usually get something like Bridesmaids instead.