Dan Aykroyd Blasts 'Ghostbusters' Director Paul Feig - Sensationalist Headlines

If this was a "passing the torch" film, it could have been so much better.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52315014] All they needed to do was what happened with Deadpool... stay out of the directors way and let the movie happen on its own. it wouldn't have had to have been that good, it'd have still sold itself.[/QUOTE] That's not a great example, since people have been wanting Deadpool for ages, ever since the script leaked about five years before it was shot. A Ghostbusters reboot was an intriguing idea, and at first it looked like they were taking great care with the costumes, the new props and the Ecto 1. They were all a little different, but at least they put their own spin on it. Then the trailer came out and it looked [I]terrible.[/I] It wasn't Ghostbusters, it was just another Bridesmaids style comedy that happened to have the Ghostbusters title

[QUOTE=J!NX;52315014]but instead the biggest thing they had for themselves is "if you're against this movie you HATE WOMEN"[/QUOTE] The best thing is that Wonder Woman's box office returns have smashed that narrative apart. If nobody went to see Ghostbusters because "America is sexist against women in cinema", [URL="https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/5/15739564/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-box-office-records"]why is Wonder Woman setting records?[/URL] It can't be because it was actually a [I]good[/I] movie, right? :v:

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52315629]The best thing is that Wonder Woman's box office returns have smashed that narrative apart. If nobody went to see Ghostbusters because "America is sexist against women in cinema", [URL="https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/5/15739564/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-box-office-records"]why is Wonder Woman setting records?[/URL] It can't be because it was actually a [I]good[/I] movie, right? :v:[/QUOTE] No, the correct analogy would be if they made Wonder Woman a man, made all the women in the movie dumb kitchen servants, and then said "If you don't like this movie, you're a feminist loonie!".

I'm surprised that as a executive producer he let this continue despite being completely ignored by Feig. If he had given the word, would he have cancelled production?

[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;52316146]I'm surprised that as a executive producer he let this continue despite being completely ignored by Feig. If he had given the word, would he have cancelled production?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Box office: 229.1 million USD Budget: 144 million USD (2016)[/QUOTE] Ghostbusters made its money back at the box office. If it'd been cancelled after tens of millions had been poured into it, that would've been a massive loss and Akroyd would've had to been able to present the studio execs with a long list of reasons to drop the guillotine on Feig and not also blame him as well. Would it have been better in the long run? Probably, but it might've doomed Akroyd's dreams of a Ghostbusters revival because why would the studio trust even more of their money with an aging property that already fucked up a remake (thanks to Feig)?

[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;52316146]I'm surprised that as a executive producer he let this continue despite being completely ignored by Feig. If he had given the word, would he have cancelled production?[/QUOTE] Does executive producer even have that much power? I was under the impression most producer credits, especially the executive ones, were usually for people related or did something important for the movie or helped make it a reality but not people who have the power to pull the plug on the operation. Did Aykroyd have that much say? I was not interested in Ghostbusters or any of the controversy surrounding it so I don't know, maybe Dan was the heart and soul of the movie and without his consent nothing would have moved forward but I find that hard to believe. The best I can see if he tried to shut if down would be him being sidelined by the studio or losing all credit and movie going ahead anyway.

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_producer"]According to Wikipedia,[/URL] executive producers have creative input but mainly handle more managerial tasks: funding, supervising, marketing, legal, etc. They don't typically work on-set unlike the producer who is the hands-on guy for the ongoing production. I don't know if an exec producer would have the clout to cancel the production. That'd depend on the contracts involved, I imagine.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52313516]Ghostbusters 2016 is the perfect symbol of what the movie industry today is a fucking joke that should be aborted [editline]4th June 2017[/editline] and then thrown into some dumpster fire[/QUOTE] I was just thinking the same thing while watching Suicide Squad. Every single character made me cringe because they tried so god damn hard to make them all cool and dark and edgy but they're about as cool as a 13 year old Reaper main wearing a Monster hoodie

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52316165]Ghostbusters made its money back at the box office. If it'd been cancelled after tens of millions had been poured into it, that would've been a massive loss and Akroyd would've had to been able to present the studio execs with a long list of reasons to drop the guillotine on Feig and not also blame him as well. Would it have been better in the long run? Probably, but it might've doomed Akroyd's dreams of a Ghostbusters revival because why would the studio trust even more of their money with an aging property that already fucked up a remake (thanks to Feig)?[/QUOTE] Technically speaking it made it's production budget back. If you take into account the fact that the marketing cost another $100 million (which is generally what Sony shells out for that kind of thing), it still came up short. [editline]5th June 2017[/editline] Also let's not forget the profit margins, if it cost only around $100 million, they would have had much more in terms of profit. [editline]5th June 2017[/editline] [URL="http://www.in2013dollars.com/1984-dollars-in-2016?amount=30000000"]Hell, the original Ghostbusters was made for roughly $70 million in today's money[/URL] and the fact that it cost TWICE that much is actually pretty embarressing.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52316165] [QUOTE][B]Box office: 229.1 million USD Budget: 144 million USD (2016)[/B][/QUOTE] Ghostbusters made its money back at the box office. If it'd been cancelled after tens of millions had been poured into it, that would've been a massive loss and Akroyd would've had to been able to present the studio execs with a long list of reasons to drop the guillotine on Feig and not also blame him as well. Would it have been better in the long run? Probably, but it might've doomed Akroyd's dreams of a Ghostbusters revival because why would the studio trust even more of their money with an aging property that already fucked up a remake (thanks to Feig)?[/QUOTE] Your forgot to add marketing costs to the budget figure, and you also forgot to subtract the money that goes to theaters from the box office figure. Losses are estimated at 50-70 million dollars. Maybe with DVD/Blu-ray sales and TV licensing they may eventually get their money back. But let's also not forget this was supposed to start a new franchise for the studio, it was supposed to fund the next one or two movies. We are probably talking about 200-300 million dollars gap between what they expected and what they actually earned. Fieg expected at least $500 million at the box office.

[QUOTE]-posts reminding me about the marketing budget-[/QUOTE] Fair enough, but the expenses recouped from a canceled movie are $0, so better $144 million than nothing. Bottom line, Feig fucked over any chances at a franchise revival whether this movie had been aborted or not.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52316233][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_producer"]According to Wikipedia,[/URL] executive producers have creative input but mainly handle more managerial tasks: funding, supervising, marketing, legal, etc. They don't typically work on-set unlike the producer who is the hands-on guy for the ongoing production. I don't know if an exec producer would have the clout to cancel the production. That'd depend on the contracts involved, I imagine.[/QUOTE] as someone tangentially in the business exec producer [I]might[/I] sometimes have the power to pull funding. as dan was credited solo, not with feig and the other EP, its more of a courtesy title. for anyone not in the know: if an EP gets their own card [URL="http://i.imgur.com/e9CgCP6.png"]like this[/URL], it's likely a courtesy title, especially if multiple EPs are credited under "Executive Producers"

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52316615]Fair enough, but the expenses recouped from a canceled movie are $0, so better $144 million than nothing. Bottom line, Feig fucked over any chances at a franchise revival whether this movie had been aborted or not.[/QUOTE] 10 years from now I'll still be amazed that they actually wanted a Marvel tier movie franchise ghost-busters universe thing going [editline]6th June 2017[/editline] alien ghosts alien fucking ghosts