• Ghostbusters (2016) Angry Movie Review
    67 replies, posted
is there some kind of contract from ghostbusters (1) that lasted 30+ year's?
[QUOTE=Ardosos;50731866]I get they were trying to do the whole "women can do anything men can do" thing but wouldn't they have gotten their point across better if they had a mixed team with women working side by side with men, actually doing the things the men were doing?[/QUOTE] nah we can't have any of that in today's social-political environment, women need to be represented as )mostly) hyper-competent sassy people that don't need no man while every man is just an idiot, an asshole, or a suicidal bullied nerd that wants to murder everyone .. I'm sure there's, uh, better context for the villain with that last bit, but with how bad the film is already, I wouldn't be surprised if that was basically his character, which is honestly even worse than the [sp]dick shot[/sp] or the queef jokes.
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50733138]is there some kind of contract from ghostbusters (1) that lasted 30+ year's?[/QUOTE] probably something to do with additional films. since reboots didn't exist then, they probably got them under a technicality more than anything else.
[QUOTE=Pops;50736090]probably something to do with additional films. since reboots didn't exist then, they probably got them under a technicality more than anything else.[/QUOTE] If the contract they signed for the performance had an unlimited "three film" obligation, then it's entirely possible and likely that Sony has been waiting to cash in that chip. The real obstacle was the fact that, in order for the contracts to be 'fair,' they would've had to call back everyone who had that obligation. Bill Murray notably hated Ghost Busters, and would've likely given a relatively uninspired performance, which is why Sony waited until now, in the age of reboots, to use that ancient obligation.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;50736132]If the contract they signed for the performance had an unlimited "three film" obligation, then it's entirely possible and likely that Sony has been waiting to cash in that chip. The real obstacle was the fact that, in order for the contracts to be 'fair,' they would've had to call back everyone who had that obligation. Bill Murray notably hated Ghost Busters, and would've likely given a relatively uninspired performance, which is why Sony waited until now, in the age of reboots, to use that ancient obligation.[/QUOTE] they only moved to the reboot option when harold ramis died. before that they were still looking at ghostbusters 3.
[QUOTE=spekter;50723178]Only thing I ever think of when GB2 comes up is his servant saying "THE CHILD!"[/QUOTE] I always think of this [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncGHiVKJh0Y[/media]
I enjoyed the film, just finished watching it at [URL="http://putlockers.watch/"]free movie streaming[/URL] . May be it's because I watched it with my little brother , it was rather funny. Of course it is not so epic as old good GB , but still the movie is nice. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Warez" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.