MovieChat Forums > Godzilla (1998) Discussion > Godzilla '98 = Ghostbusters '16

Godzilla '98 = Ghostbusters '16

posted 8 years ago by Darwinskid
6 replies | jump to latest

Think about it for a second...

- Both Sony productions.

- A director is hired who has made some hit films and is on fire at the moment. They accept the offer after turning the film offer down a couple of times because of having lack of emotional attachment to the source material.

- Fans are extremely critical of the goings on of both productions and key people involved in both went out of their way to paint the critics as being selfish, lazy, and close minded people who are insignificant. Paul Feig and Dean Devlin pretty much took aggression out on long time fans of each brand and only further fueled the fire.

- Both films featured forced references to their originals and were not done is the best of interests.

- The makers involved in both films pretty much generalized the type of film the originals were and went with it instead of truly understanding what made them favorites.

- Both films' casts largely consist of actors mostly known for comedy.

- Both were expected to be huge box office hits, both underperformed and didn't spawn any continuations.

Biggest difference between the two is that Ghostbusters didn't get extremely bad reviews online on release, Godzilla did. Even so, general reception for both from the average film viewer was/is mixed to negative. More haters and less fans.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

[–] Catgurl22 8 years ago

Biggest difference between the two is that Ghostbusters didn't get extremely bad reviews online on release, Godzilla did.

That's because critics were scared of giving harsh reviews to Ghostbusters (even though they really wanted to) because they were afraid of being labelled sexists and misogynists by the moronic GB fan brigade. Same reason why they also ignored all the obvious flaws in "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and just kept praising it to high heaven.

Nowadays critics walk on eggshells when giving their reviews. They don't criticize female lead movies, black lead movies and Chris Nolan's movies.

Mr McGee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

Not really. The 98 "Godzilla" was absolute pants. With "Ghostbusters 2016", it wasn't good, but it wasn't the worst piece of $hit either. It was a little more faithful to the originals (especially in comparison to "Godzilla'98"), plus it had Ivan Reitman as producer.

"Fans are extremely critical of the goings on of both productions and key people involved in both went out of their way to paint the critics as being selfish, lazy, and close minded people who are insignificant. Paul Feig and Dean Devlin pretty much took aggression out on long time fans of each brand and only further fueled the fire."

"GB" was arguably in an even worse position than "Godzilla'98", as for 27 years fans and fanboys had requested for a "Ghostbusters 3", but nothing was done in all that time. There had been talk of doing a possible "GB3" with a different, younger cast, with the older cast mentoring them, but arguably that would have been just as alienating as the 2016 movie, if not even more so. Whether it would have been done as "GB3" or as a reboot, the filmmakers were from the get-go in a no-win situation. The whole "not seeing the movie makes you sexist" (or the statement that had been made by cast and crew to that effect) is the worst sort of blanket statement one to hide behind. However, it didn't exactly help that fanboys (some of them anyway) were making racist and sexist remarks. Most of the anti-new Ghostbusters reaction has gone from a feeling of violated nostalgia and bled over into what can only be described as a hate campaign. Without any member of the public having seen the film, there was a concerted effort to vote the trailer down on YouTube to the point it now ranks as one of the site’s least popular clips ever (with nearly a million dislikes). A scroll through the comments section underneath the trailer makes illuminating reading – that’s if you don’t mind diving into the bile that is allowed to pass in internet comments sections (and this is just the ones that haven’t been removed by Sony, suggesting it gets even worse) – where at least every second posting contains either a word like ‘feminazi’, ‘dyke’ or is insulting the intelligence of or calling a ‘libtard’ anybody who has spoken up to support the film. (And most of this comes from people who have not seen or swear they never will watch the film). The harassment of star Leslie Jones with racist comments on Twitter goes beyond despicable into words that fail me – there are some days the internet reminds that humanity is an innately ignorant and not very nice species to belong to.

"The makers involved in both films pretty much generalized the type of film the originals were and went with it instead of truly understanding what made them favorites."

But the thing with "Ghostbusters" is that the original isn't all that great to begin with. It's enjoyable, but it is a very overrated movie. It is amiable knockabout farce, largely carried by the special effects team and Bill Murray’s lazy sarcasm. The film stands on Bill Murray’s shoulders and would have been rather flaccid without him. (Interestingly, the part was originally written for John Belushi, who died of an overdose in 1982). What seems particular odd here is that the two screenwriters – Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis – also play the two supporting ghostbusters, but only write themselves in as forgettable characters. Were it not for the film’s indulgent pandering to Bill Murray’s nonchalant, laidback outrages, the comedy value would have come out more insipidly than it does, one suspects. Sigourney Weaver gives the film a great injection of class – the scenes with her being possessed is a wonderfully witty piece of deadpan. Rick Moranis has geeky fun doing the type of role he does best.

The film is also overlong and ungainly. The middle of it is taken up by a good many ghostbusting scenes and could easily have lost twenty minutes. You keep asking questions that it leaves unasked – like how a team of discredited researchers with no money could have managed to build such advanced hi-tech ghost hunting equipment.

The effects climax is certainly entertaining enough, but the problem one has with it as a plot is that all it relies upon is nifty devices and technical doubletalk to save the day. It requires nothing of the heroes except a series of flashing lights.

In terms of "GB 2016", it’s amiable enough without being particularly standout. In other words, fairly much exactly the same things I would have said about the 1984 film.

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

Ivan Reitman didn't have any say in the making of Ghosbusters '16, Amy Pascal and Paul Feig both sneakily did everything they could to make sure he wouldn't have anything else than a "in-name-only" credit because he didn't agree with their ideas at all; Reitman didn't want a remake, he wanted it to continue from the original two films, he also wanted a team of both male and female Ghostbusters. This was all from the Sony e-mail leaks.

Some of the backlash from die hard Ghostbusters fans was largely exaggerated by the media and was exploited by Sony brass who saw fit to delete comments on YouTube that were legitimate criticisms and left in the more vile, hateful remarks up to attract attention, then they tried to make the film into a political act to see it in favor of presidential candidate Hilary Clinton. I won't condone the actions taken by those radicals who said heinous things online, but apparently Sony saw some of it as fuel to grow interest in their product, which is pretty slimy in and of itself.

And sorry, but the original Ghostbusters is a classic and is still heavily regarded to this day. It's right up there with Back to the Future, The Terminator, E.T., and Indiana Jones in popularity and cultural significance. Type in "80's classic movies" and the original Ghostbusters is one of the first titles to pop up. It's more than just a comedy - The film is shot, staged, and paced like the horror movies of its day and great care was put into the supernatural aspects of it. The comedic aspects were all mostly reactionary, there weren't any moments done to illicit laughs comparable to say the bathroom scene from Dumb and Dumber or Austin Powers mistaking the excrement of one of Dr. Evil's henchmen for coffee. The movie is as much a comedy as the original Gojira from 1954 was a giant monster movie, it's much more beneath the surface level.

Like the '98 remake of Godzilla the makers of Ghostbusters '16 just generalized the type of movie the original was and turned it into a colorful, saturated, lightly toned comedy with no interest beyond the surface level. And like Godzilla '98 Ghostbusters '16 failed. Big time.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

"Ivan Reitman didn't have any say in the making of Ghosbusters '16, Amy Pascal and Paul Feig both sneakily did everything they could to make sure he wouldn't have anything else than a "in-name-only" credit because he didn't agree with their ideas at all; Reitman didn't want a remake, he wanted it to continue from the original two films, he also wanted a team of both male and female Ghostbusters. This was all from the Sony e-mail leaks.

That's assuming the emails are indeed genuine and aren't fakes. If they are, Reitman could try to take legal action.

In terms of his "not having any say in the making of "Ghostbusters '16", that's not entirely true. This was from an interview that he gave:

"This was really their vision, and I thought it was my job, really, to just warn them when I thought they were going over the line, one way or the other - which was just to perhaps do something that I thought would be insulting to the original film. Which they did not do; I just thought it was my job to make sure. And at the same time say, ‘Hey, that’s really cool. You should think about that!’"

"And sorry, but the original Ghostbusters is a classic and is still heavily regarded to this day. It's right up there with Back to the Future, The Terminator, E.T., and Indiana Jones in popularity and cultural significance."

Being highly regarded isn't the same as it being a good movie, nor does its being such magically rid the movie of its problems. It's nowhere near as good as those movies. It's an entertaining movie, even charming, but it's heavily overrated. If it weren't for Bill Murray, the special effects and the wave of commercial hype for it at the time, the movie itself wouldn't have been as well-received.

"It's more than just a comedy - The film is shot, staged, and paced like the horror movies of its day and great care was put into the supernatural aspects of it. The comedic aspects were all mostly reactionary, there weren't any moments done to illicit laughs comparable to say the bathroom scene from Dumb and Dumber or Austin Powers mistaking the excrement of one of Dr. Evil's henchmen for coffee."

Almost none of the scenes were filmed as scripted and, in fact, almost all of the scenes had at least one or two ad-libs. Most of Bill Murray's lines are ad-libs.

"The movie is as much a comedy as the original Gojira from 1954 was a giant monster movie, it's much more beneath the surface level."

The comparison to the original 54 "Godzilla" is an extremely forced and tenuous point to make, even to the extent of being overly generous (too overly generous) for what is an average movie. The movie itself wasn't particularly deep - there wasn't any symbolism, nor was it particularly intelligent; it had a great concept, but ultimately, "Ghostbusters" was a film predicated on special effects, amiable and unchallenging humour and a big commercial promotional campaign, nothing else.

"Like the '98 remake of Godzilla the makers of Ghostbusters '16 just generalized the type of movie the original was and turned it into a colorful, saturated, lightly toned comedy with no interest beyond the surface level."

In other words, a cartoon, which "Ghostbusters" was down to the designs of its creatures and ghosts.

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

That's assuming the emails are indeed genuine and aren't fakes. If they are, Reitman could try to take legal action.

In terms of his "not having any say in the making of "Ghostbusters '16", that's not entirely true. This was from an interview that he gave:

"This was really their vision, and I thought it was my job, really, to just warn them when I thought they were going over the line, one way or the other - which was just to perhaps do something that I thought would be insulting to the original film. Which they did not do; I just thought it was my job to make sure. And at the same time say, ‘Hey, that’s really cool. You should think about that!’"

No, the emails were real. Watch this video, all of it -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPAklIlov-A

The only reason why he "okayed" the movie along with some of the original cast members was because Sony locked them into a contract that would forbid them from speaking out against it or they'd get into legal troubles.

Being highly regarded isn't the same as it being a good movie, nor does its being such magically rid the movie of its problems.

Except the movie is very good, and a classic, flaws aside.

It's nowhere near as good as those movies. It's an entertaining movie, even charming, but it's heavily overrated.

Its held in just as high regard by a lot of people, professional film enthusiasts included.

If it weren't for Bill Murray, the special effects and the wave of commercial hype for it at the time, the movie itself wouldn't have been as well-received.

A good movie has to live up to its commercial hype and stand the test of time, Ghostbusters has done just that hence why its still a recognizable property.

The comparison to the original 54 "Godzilla" is an extremely forced and tenuous point to make, even to the extent of being overly generous (too overly generous) for what is an average movie. The movie itself wasn't particularly deep - there wasn't any symbolism, nor was it particularly intelligent; it had a great concept, but ultimately, "Ghostbusters" was a film predicated on special effects, amiable and unchallenging humour and a big commercial promotional campaign, nothing else.

You're missing my point - On the surface level Ghostbusters is as much a comedy the same way Gojira '54 is a giant monster movie but there's a lot more going on that laughs or city wide destruction. Ghostbusters had a very fresh and original take on its subject matter and successfully blended genres into a singular package that managed to push the right buttons, hence why its a classic film.

In other words, a cartoon, which "Ghostbusters" was down to the designs of its creatures and ghosts.

The term "cartoon" is a pretty weak dismissal of a property given that cartoons have as much story telling potential as physical visual story production can create, in a lot of cases cartoons can surpass live-action easily not just in visuals but in story telling and character growth. Just saying...

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

"No, the emails were real. Watch this video, all of it -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPAklIlov-A

The only reason why he "okayed" the movie along with some of the original cast members was because Sony locked them into a contract that would forbid them from speaking out against it or they'd get into legal troubles."

Hm. Interesting. If indeed real, it does cast a very unfavorable shadow on Amy Pascal.
In terms of the whole whether they should have had done a sequel or a reboot, either way it would have not been as good as the original (it's possible either could have been good, but the chances were practically a million to one). I mean, everyone remembers how good "Ghostbusters 2" was (NOT!). The idea of having the old Ghostbusters mentoring younger ones....again, that would have been just as bad as rebooting, if not worse, as a lot of the other movies that tried to do that ended up being not very good (cough cough "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull", "Live Free or Die Hard" and its sequel, etc). To a certain extent, a reboot makes a certain degree of sense, especially considering the cast were getting older and Harold Ramis had died. That, along with the difficulties of even getting Bill Murray involved (he was quoted as saying to Dan Ackroyd "Noone wants to see old fat guys chasing ghosts"); hell, even in the case of the game the game developers had to convince him through his brother.

In theory (theory mind you), a reboot could have fixed the problems of the original, if not improved upon it, while making certain strides to be its own creature in the same way that "John Carpenter's "The Thing" was different from the 1951 version. The 2016 movie wasn't good, but it wasn't the worst pile of crap either. What I did like about the film was its sense of mythopoeia – of taking the elements from the original – the converted hearse, the firehouse base, the boiler suits, the backpacks, the name of the group, the logo with the crossed-out ghost, etc – and extruding each into an origin story. In the first film’s script, they just materialised out of thin air whereas here each comes with their own piece of backstory that makes much more sense. The one thing I fail to see is how people could construct and be allowed to run around with nuclear devices and megawatt lasers in an urban environment today without being put on a terrorist watchlist. Plus, I’d also go far as to say that "Ghostbusters" 2016 makes far better use of its ensemble of comic actors than "Ghostbusters" 1984 did. The 1984 film felt like it was driven by Bill Murray’s lazy, sarcastic delivery of one-liners while Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, both talented comic performers in their own right, took a backseat as the nerds and Ernie Hudson filled out the team but didn’t get much to do. In comparison to "Godzilla'98", which had NOTHING to do with the character whatsoever outside of the basic premise, taking more from movies such as "Star Wars", "Aliens" and "Jurassic Park", at least some attempt was made in acknowledging the originals.

"A good movie has to live up to its commercial hype and stand the test of time, Ghostbusters has done just that hence why its still a recognizable property."

Of course, marketing had nothing to do with its perpetuated existence in mainstream, be it toys, soundtrack, comics, cartoons and so on. Marketing is a powerful tool, even for an average film like "Ghostbusters". In fact, it did a world of wonders for the likes of the game "No Man's Sky" in creating hype (that is, before its subsequent crash and burn).

"Except the movie is very good, and a classic, flaws aside."

Only if you choose to ignore all the details and live in a vacuum. Ask yourself this: would the movie itself have been just as good without Bill Murray and its special effects?
The truth of the matter is that those are its only saving graces and nothing else.

"You're missing my point - On the surface level Ghostbusters is as much a comedy the same way Gojira '54 is a giant monster movie but there's a lot more going on that laughs or city wide destruction. Ghostbusters had a very fresh and original take on its subject matter and successfully blended genres into a singular package that managed to push the right buttons, hence why its a classic film."

It had a very original idea, one that deserves proper exploration and interrogation in a mature, intelligent manner, perhaps either as another movie or as a TV series. In terms of what it had delivered....it was only average at best. I like that it blended all these different genres together, but its potential wasn't fully realized. The movie had slack editing, uneven tone and missed comic beats, among other things. Story-wise, New York Times said it best: "its jokes, characters and story line are as wispy as the ghosts themselves, and a good deal less substantial."

"The term "cartoon" is a pretty weak dismissal of a property given that cartoons have as much story telling potential as physical visual story production can create, in a lot of cases cartoons can surpass live-action easily not just in visuals but in story telling and character growth. Just saying..."

I understand the story-telling potential of animation, let alone cartoons themselves - I never dismissed that. There are plenty of wonderful examples such as the animated "Batman" series from the 90s. However, it's naïve to dismiss some of the worst examples and aspects within the genre, especially those whose stories pandered to the juvenile level, whose stories required nothing from the protagonists in their reaching a resolution and whose stories are resolved neatly and tidily with no consequences whatsoever. It's like the horror equivalent of walking through a house that has been safety-proofed for children – where nothing is allowed to be too scary, where no blood is spilt or nobody actually dies, where chaos is unleashed around the town and then all magically put back in the box with nothing affected. "GB" suffers from that in a big way.