And not the good one either...
https://www.dreadcentral.com/news/327925/director-teases-3-12-hour-cut-of-ghostbusters-with-melissa-mccarthy/ (https://www.dreadcentral.com/news/327925/director-teases-3-12-hour-cut-of-ghostbusters-with-melissa-mccarthy/)
hmm, I am afraid of that....
- having now seen the remake at last (or as much as I could be bothered to watch) it was bad, but not as awful as expected. it was basically like a typical modern mainstream comedy. forgettable
I don't even think it was a bad movie. Just mediocre. There were even parts of it and ideas that I really enjoyed.
The movie gets a bad rap. it's not a great movie by any means, but people tend to act like everyone involved should be tar, feathered, and ran outta town.
This is the introductory film when you go to Hell.
I made it through 10 minutes of this: 3 1/2 hours would make me want to go drown myself in the toilet.
Whatever you think of Paul Feig, I can't imagine ANYONE disagreeing that he leaves too much in. He makes two hour comedies that should be like 90-100 minutes. There's always endless improv left in that should have been trimmed and sometimes barely fits the characters.
Improv can be funny, but for movies you need a good editor to chop it way down. I wish I could find it, but there's a thing Bill Murray did where the raw take is floating around - it's just him going on script and also improving stuff for like 10 minutes. A fair bit of it is isn't very good (though Murray's charisma still sell it) - because of course it isn't, that's the nature of improv, most of it isn't great even when it's someone good at it like Bill Murray. In a movie, shoot it so you can edit it down and don't leave almost all of it in like Feig does. Bugs me.
Wait here it is
https://mediaburn.org/video/wired-in-raw-100/ (https://mediaburn.org/video/wired-in-raw-100/)
Basically, an extra 90 minutes of Ghostbusters 2016 makes me assume it's a few extra new scenes and probably an hour of weak improv he cut. So basically, a really s**tty bloated comedy, rather than an OK one damaged by being bloated.
I did enjoy Feig's Ghostbusters, its not great but good enough for me to own.
I'm not surprised by this 3 1/2 hours announcement. He did endless takes and variations on every scene when filming Bridesmaids. I believe the rough cut was like 4 hours or something. In deleted scenes the Helen character played by Rose Byrne is much more meaner toward Kristen Wiig's character. I'm glad Feig didn't go that route. Byrne is still a b***h in the final version but more likeable.
The greatest sin of Ghostbusters '16 is that it was forgettable.
I know I saw it, but I couldn't tell you what it was about or anything that happened in it, almost four years later.
The only bit I remember even slightly was seeing a statue/bust of Egon Spengler in the background of one scene, which made me smile, cuz I thought it was a nice classy touch.
Aside from that? I got nothin'. (shrugs)
The released version felt like a TV movie. Fairly obvious from some awkward cuts that a bunch of stuff was left out. Adding it all back in won't help the TV movie feel tho.
I have to agree with the people who don't think the film was memorable enough. It wasn't good enough to be a good movie, it wasn't bad enough to be so bad its enjoyable. I watched it and I struggled to remember much about it. 3 1/2 hours of it would be like a blackout.
i would rather watch paint dry than watch this film, see i'm not against a female cast but this looks awful and i have no desire to actually watch it. 3 and a half hrs? i can't stand Paul Feig Bridesmaids is one of the worst movies i've ever seen in my life.
the film is not a comedy at all but a drama. it's got some comedy in it but it's a drama and a damn depressing one too
films I would genuinely like to see a 3 1/2 hour director's cut of:
GOODFELLAS
USUAL SUSPECTS
DAZED & CONFUSED
hmm, thought I was about to reel off a longer list. those 3 anyway...
long cuts i'd love to see? those sound good how about Gremlins i think Joe Dante said all the stuff he filmed was about 3 and a half hrs long.
there's that, i think E.T. was gonna be even longer too but i could be wrong on that, Explores another Dante film that i'd love to see the longer cut, 'The Breakfast club' was suppose to be about 130 minutes but they cut so much out and i think all of it has since been released but i'd love a cut of it on 4K of the 130 minute version. how about uh putting out the Uncut 130 Minute version of (1971)'s Night of Dark Shadows? all the footage has more or less been found, some of the audio had to even be dubbed cause it had no audio which i think was lost.
it's been ready to be released for years all they need to do is remaster it i think. Darren Gross the guy who worked on both the films to get both the films back like they should have been i think found everything for the 2nd film. the 1st one he i think was able to find some footage but not enough or was it he didn't find any deleted scenes? i forget anymore. anyways, the 2nd film was shown in a Theater With Jonathan Frid and a good number of Dark Shadows cast before Frid died but it's doing nothing where it is. Gross has fought like hell trying to get that thing released and
instead of putting it out on blu-ray when the Johnny Depp film came out they said it was going to be too expensive and it wouldn't be done in time for the blu-ray release of the film so they released the cut version instead on blu-ray.
man that p**ses me off if i recall a lot of coverage was done on the making of that film before it even was filmed and so they had plenty of time to do all that yet they choose not to.
and i'm sure there are other films as well
When the original Ghostbusters movie ended at the cinema, the audience stood and clapped. It was pretty awesome, I've never seen that in the theatre, even opening night of The Dark Knight Rises or Avengers Endgame. From all accounts, the recent Ghostbusters was a lackluster, mediocre woke remake. So why is a 3.5 hour cut in any way desirable?
AntiLogic has an interesting observation about movies and properties given the woke treatment. Essentially, franchises which are not current money spinners, things which have been inactive for many years and have little reputation to lose, those are the things which are being remade or created in woke fashion. It's an observation which makes sense.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7HDozt2CK0#)
true but it really depends on the talent or lack of talent that makes it. i wasn't against a female cast i mean i didn't like it at first only cause i grew up with it being a male cast but than i thought well maybe it can be at least decent. uh no i was wrong, ya know if they make another remake with a female cast get people who actually have talent. Ghostbusters had a fantastic script the (1984) film i mean and while yes it had ad libs from pretty much everyone and Rick Moranis sorry for my bad spelling, he wrote everything he did.
but it still had a script, the entire movie of the remake i hear was just ad libs with prolly some of the script in there. i also think that just because it's a female cast don't mean they have to add dick jokes in there. i mean they get rid of the big bad by shooting him in the crotch and how is that funny?
women can be funny but you have to find the right women that are actually funny and they failed to do so with the remake. some movies do not need to be remade at all. Revenge of the nerds is one that should never have been remade even though there is a remake of it and it is i believe finished the studio apparently didn't like it so it's never been released.
there are plenty of bad movies out there that could be remade go after those.