In Bob We Trust: HOW TO FIX "GHOSTBUSTERS"

[@NickPiers]

Not doing Gozer is a good idea. You're right. They need to establish their own universe first. Otherwise, we get Wrath of Khan done wrong in Star Trek Into Darkness. Which was terrible.

[@ChristianNeihart]

Nick Piers I knew I wasn't the only one who thought Into Darkness was terrible

[@nunyabizness3866]

Christian Neihart anyone who is a real Star Trek fan would call the Abramsverse as a whole a pile of shit.

[@singletona082]

I liked Wrath of Spock though.....

[@NickPiers]

Nunya bizness As a long time Trek fan, I didn't entirely hate the first one. Into Darkness was a load of crap and I wasn't crazy about Beyond. But the first one was all right for what it was. Still pales in comparison to MOST of the original movies and shows.

[@singletona082]

My problem with people that whine about new trek is they mostly come off as IT'S NOT THE SAAAAME! WAAAAAH I WANT MY TREK! I DON'T WANT IT TO BE DIFFERENT! Which they tried to please fans by making a bunch of callbacks that ended up hanging around the franchise's neck rather than 'ok we have established why this universe differs. RUN WITH IT.'

[@BATCHARRO]

If there really were ghosts, and ghosts were the spirits of living people, would anyone be comfortable with their grandmother being fucking busted? Would anyone be comfortable with knowing granny isn't in heaven, or even in hell, but rather in some company's custom limbo? Or would there be a lot of pressure to end such a busting of sentient beings, the kind of pressure your Cecil the Lions can get? If you ask me, THAT is the angle they should take: no longer just the bureocratic pressure the original GB suffered and where poking fun at, but the social and economic pressure well intentioned but myopic and ignorant groups can have.

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

The morality of busting ghosts; now that's something I haven't considered before.

[@DetectiveLance]

This. This has merit. More merit than to be in a GB reboot, tbh, but I can see myself paying to see a movie or read a book about that.

[@JeepWranglerIslander]

Yeah, i think this idea could be the main crux of the conflict idea Bob had for the GBs vs the Religious.

[@AlteredNova04]

Yeah there definitely would be tons of people protesting the Ghostbusters basically locking up the ghosts in a containment unit forever. "Ghost rights" activists saying we should let them go free, rival spiritualist groups claiming they should be given access to the ghosts because they could help them "pass on" to the actual afterlife, other scientists demanding they be allowed to study the ghosts, religious zealots saying the ghosts are just demonic witchcraft, alien nuts saying the ghosts are actually alien life forms, politicians wanting to regulate their equipment and maybe even nationalize the technology and create a federal ghostbusting agency, etc. The ghostbusters would be constantly harassed by almost everyone.

[@Maladjester]

Interesting thoughts. If the choice is between granny hanging out in my bedroom or stuck in a containment unit, I'm going to go with containment unit. Sorry, Gram, you had your time. Ghosts don't seem particularly happy. Downright miserable, in fact. If they're suffering outside containment, how much worse can it be inside? Ghosts seem to be out to terrorize or murder the living when they can. The least offensive of them are guilty of trespassing and voyeurism. If they are sentient beings, the actions they commit are punishable crimes. Conventional jails can't hold spirits, you can't take them to trial, you can't fine them or stick them with community service. What can you do besides throw them in containment? Of course the nutters won't see it that way. I can even see a cult of ghost-worshipers being killed by members of their order who have already crossed over to create an unstoppable army of spectres. Maybe their vision of utopia is a world of ghosts, where no living people remain?

[@SoftButReady]

You've already written this screenplay haven't you?

[@henriklarsen8193]

He's playing hard to get, the sneaky bastard :-D

[@singletona082]

Likely started on it as soon as the credits rolled.

[@skyline4388]

screenplay/fanfic; po-tay-to/po-tah-to either way, he's not gonna get a call from Sony based on his "vision" for a sequel.

[@scifantasy]

Maybe, maybe not. You want to find out, pay up.

[@skyline4388]

Will Frank I would but the pennies keep getting jammed in my SD Card reader port.

[@Starik20X6]

Personally, I'd always felt a modern day Ghostbusters movie should have treated the 'Ghostbusters' as, over the last 30 years, become a nationwide (possibly even worldwide) business franchise. That way you don't even have to worry about a 'torch passing' because the new team aren't replacing the old team, they're just getting a job as a Ghostbuster. Go all out and not even have them in New York, have them become part of the Seattle branch of the Ghostbusters. Or the New Orleans branch.

[@Veiwer77]

Starik20X6 They teased that at the end of the video game and I believe the table top role-playing games. Franchises! It would be the perfect launch point take for a cinematic universe.

[@keiichimorisato98]

the video game is the plot of Ghostbusters 3.

[@gunsandammo92]

Ghostbusters international was essentially the 2nd edition (advanced d&d) of the original tabletop game where franchising became a part of the game mechanic

[@VickStarkiller]

So you want to Men In Black it?

[@22Tesla]

Ghostbusters international would have been a MUCH better idea than this film basically taking the major plot points of the original. Besides, ghosts are EVERYWHERE... and not just ghost, supernatural beasties too. We could still have the female ghostbusters, it just needs a better script

[@ForbiddenFruit73]

Okay, listen. The original movie was a collaboration between a skeptic and a believer, and it shows. By the end the Ghostbusters had the support of the Archbishop of New York, and Venkman returned the sentiment with his "Nobody steps on a church in my town!" line. To me that's a much better outcome than any science vs. religion plot.

[@Malisteen]

"IP management masquerading as storytelling" is the best description for nearly everything DC comics and various screen adaptation spin offs have been screwing up for the last few decades.

[@ConradW]

check out Bob's red left eye. Secret terminator detected

[@FutureExitsMedia]

He did say 'I'll be back'

[@charleynewman5057]

Nah, he just forget to wash his hands after wiping.

[@Gizmomaster]

How about not having every single one of your characters be the comedy relief.

[@JCLegendary]

What Ghostbusters needs is an actual script writer, writing an actual script, with actual jokes, an actual plot, and an actual villain. And you'd need a director that would stick to that instead of just improving everything, filling time with in-jokes, and doesn't pass out re-writes just to spit on the critics. And none of that is ever going to happen.

[@louisduarte8763]

Bob accidentally described an IDW Ghostbusters crossover with that exact premise.

[@RobotShlomo]

That would fix the film from a plot and structure stand point, however it wouldn't fix it stylistically. I know this is a completely separate issue, but the biggest problem with Paul Feig's movies is that he doesn't really "direct". He sets up cameras, and then lets the actors improv HOPING to film something funny. Judd Apatow has the exact same approach. There's this whole movement towards this in Hollywood now, and it's really very lazy form of film making. So part of fixing the film would involve replacing Feig with a director that can do visual comedy, and not just lightly edited improv.

[@CMWaters910]

RobotShlomo That would never happen, but yes, that would be one way to fix it. XD

[@HorrorSurvivalist]

RobotShlomo It seems to me that Fieg just is not good at making PG-13 movies funny. He should stick to doing R-rated comedies like Bridesmaids and Spy.

[@stevethepocket]

To be fair, the original _Ghostbusters_ had a lot of ad-libbing too. And one of the actors was also the director, so he probably didn't have a lot of opportunity to view the scene from the audience's perspective let alone tell the others if they were doing it right.

[@RobotShlomo]

Pocket Fluff Productions The difference is that if you have a well written script to begin with, and then you do something off the cuff that adds to it, then it might be funny in the context and usable. Like I said before, Paul Feig doesn't seem to write anything. He lets the actors ad lib the jokes, and then just hopes they're funny.

[@hwoarangthedoorbell]

I'd go with Edgar Wright or Adam McKay for visual comedy!

[@TheGreatLKHS]

One of the big problems of the movie that Bob did not mention was the lack of “straight man” characters and moments. By that term, I am referring to classic comedy duos, like Laurel & Hardy, Sonny & Cher, Abbott & Costello, The Smothers Brothers, or Sonny & Cher. One character is the straight man and the other is the funny man. The funny man gets the people to laugh. The straight man keeps the story grounded. In the original Ghostbusters films, there was the correct balance of straights and funny men. The team and Luis Tully were the funny men. Everyone else was straight. Plus the team itself had a balance of straight with funny. Egon was a straight man, even during the few times he did something amusing. Peter was a funny man, but much of his comedy was delivered straight. The (im)famous “This man has no d*ck” is a great example. Ray was a goof ball, but you never thought of him as an idiot. Winston's comedy was designed to keep the audience grounded in the story. Luis was a classic funny man, but he behaves like a straight man. Every other person in the movie is a straight man. Even when Jeanine gives the lines, “I've quit better jobs than this. Ghostbusters! What do you want?!”, she is doing it as a straight man. Balance! In Ghostbusters (2016), almost every character that has a notable amount of screen time is a funny man or has comedic moments. The College Dean, the Concert Promoter, The Cab Driver, The Mayor, The Mayor's Assistant, the Villain, The Secretary, The Won Ton Kid, Slimmer, Holtzman's Mentor, The Museum Tour Guide, Ozzy Osborne, etc. Nearly everyone's trying to get a joke, prank, or pratfall within the film. Almost every actor is behaving like, “Look at me! Remember me! I'm famous and in the movie, or I'll be famous someday. Here is my big break!” No Balance! It is fine that the leads and director want to get their buddies work in a feature film. However, it is wrong to sacrifice the quality of the project because you want to give your palls can add a credit to their resumes. The movie, Enemy of the State, featured Jack Black, Jamie Kennedy, Jason Lee, and Seth Green. Despite being comedians, they weren't trying to make the audience laugh every 30 seconds. >:-(

[@redwolfjo3_647]

This is something that modern comedy seems to miss so often! When everything is wacky, nothing really is!

[@TheGreatLKHS]

Redwolfjo3 _ Indeed.

[@22Tesla]

This is why this film was never funny to me. If everyone is trying to be funny, then it STOPS BEING FUNNY. The original film's characters, as you point out, pay straight and come off as funny. It's like they are not trying to be funny and I laugh. This film, they try to make me laugh, and they get a sympathy chuckle at best

[@75aces97]

That seems to be the broader thing with scripted comedy in the past 20 years. Nobody seems to want to be Abbott or Margaret Dumont. Everyone wants the one liners, but doesn't want to set the table for the punchline. Comedy takes discipline. Set up somebody who can be appalled, then put together a scenario where you can offend them.

[@jonathonbisiach749]

Here's an idea: actually have a fully drafted script with jokes already in it rather than point a camera at your actors and tell them to be funny. And hope that works. This time.

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Jonathon Bisiach Regrettably that is how VERY few comedies are made anymore. Judd Apatow and his crew brought with them this wave of "just keep rolling the camera and let them riff" approach that hasn't been shaken off yet. Sure comedians in things like the original Ghostbusters would improv, but they'd ad lib one line while now the approach seems to be to ad lib scenes. To be clear, I agree with you: write it tighter and stop leaning on improv crap. I'm just pointing out that what they did here is basically just how most major studio comedies are being done and have been for nearly a decade now.

[@Kekkersboy]

Forget about this movie. Most movies are filmed before the script is done. It's just the way it's done nowadays.

[@ARX78]

Jonathon Bisiach Funny people = funny movie. Right?.........RIGHT?!!!

[@MrNegativecreep07]

And perhaps don't go out of your way to insult the existing fanbase?

[@riggzboson6187]

That's what I thought... The whole time I was watching it didn't seem like a script in development for years, I saw a script that had barely had a second draft, just a 'Yeah, that'll do' half baked effort.

[@LazerPunches]

If the Ghostbusters movies want to move forward it needs to embrace the idea of the Ghostbusters as a franchise business. New Ghostbusters in different cities. New York isn't the the only city that needs the Ghostbusters.

[@dorsk188]

Somewhere in the multiverse there's a world where the 2016 Ghostbusters movie was a sequel written by Dan Harmon starring Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Donald Glover, Alison Brie, and Danny Pudi. And yet, we're in this shit universe for some reason...

[@skeletongwen]

hell make Bill Murray a ghost and have him do some nonsense

[@stephen2624]

These are good ideas. Religion, witch-hunting, ghost-related childhood traumas. These are cool ideas. Perhaps maybe for part III, there could J-horror-style ghosts like Ringu and JU-ON! or like the Fatal Frame video games. Okay, that stuff is much darker, even for a horror-themed comedy but I'm sure it could work. Tricky but not impossible.

[@IcoOst]

it worked in cabin in the woods? best part, imho

[@stephen2624]

I'm thinking a J-horror-themed Ghostbusters could potentially have some great Japanese actors like Chiaki Kuriyama as an antagonist.

[@pyrolee17]

Oooooooo I like that too

[@JackgarPrime]

Doing the witch-hunt themes, while almost eye-rolling in terms of how heavy handed it could be, is one of the things that would fit very well specifically with a female-focused cast. You'd be able to say "See? This story wouldn't really work as well with an all-male team" while distinguishing yourself from the already existing elements of the franchise.

[@BobLogical]

If they really feel compelled to go a Gozer-style Big Bad ghost, then I think a progressively darker storyline going through each movie would be the way to do it. Eases people into the idea of some Eldritch Horror creature in a way the original never did. The Gozer reveal works as a parody of rushed third act villains, but it also just fails when you try to take it genuinely. It's unavoidable, which is why not doing that would be extremely important (especially since their own third act villain wasn't as developed as he should have been, even though his demeanor was spot on).

[@sandrockman]

The cartoon even did a similar story to the "witch" background where one of Egon's ancestors used something akin to the dark arts and a really shiny and glow-y crystal ball as a containment unit. And the town revered his ancestor as a hero to boot.

[@sandrockman]

I honestly believe Bob is on-point with this assessment and when you came up with something of which J. Michael Straczynski would approve all on your own, (please forgive the Ghostbusters II pun--it really was unintentional,) I think that you have the bedrock of an amazing story on your hands.

[@LuisManuelLealDias]

As much as I disagreed with many things you've said in the past... I completely agree with your take here 100%. I think you nailed in everything you said.

[@MastodonKnightStudios]

I thought Ghostbusters 2016 was... alright-ish. There were 2 big things that really turned me off, from what could have been a fairly decent film in my opinion; The absurd cartoonish (lack of) intelligence of Kevin (it felt like he came out of Zoolander) and some really, really stupid attempts at humor they just kept going on about, like at the start of the movie: "You pooped your pants" "No, I didn't" "Oh no, you really did. I distinctively remember you said you pooped your pants on the phone." etc. Heck, you could probably cut those parts out and you'll have a fairly decent product left to watch.

[@Vitrous]

Hey Bob, great video but whatever happened to Really That Good? Hope you haven't abandoned it because it certainly lived up to its name. Either way, looking forward to your future content.

[@AzureArc]

Really That Good is great, but it also seems very personal, and also quite limited in just how much Bob has to pull from in order to create it. II doubt it's abandoned, but I also doubt it will ever become a regular show because each episode covers something that Bob is clearly deeply passionate about and also feels he can very clearly justify as being as good as he believes it is. Most of us only tend to have a finite number of things that we could ever speak that passionately about so I'm not surprised he needs time to figure episodes out.

[@collaborator541]

Andrew Young he's working on it. They take a long time and lots of money. It's funded with patreon money and is not his main job.

[@johngoode3509]

Andrew Young those things are like sequalitis. they take ages to make so don't expect a regular output. also this is an early comment so it possible Bob is reading this so while I have the spotlight. ... really that good on Kill Bill plz. that would be such a good video

[@norcalroamer5774]

He said on his twitter recently that he has made head way on the Titanic review. He didn't say when it will be released though so hopefully sometime this month :)

[@Sora744]

Andrew Young He started making it about bad movies like Independence day.

[@LoonerFlight]

Honestly, these are all freaking fantastic ideas, and I'd love to see any one of them get made

[@Azmodeus87]

Not a bad set of ideas, especially the part with witches. You could even have Vigo be a witchmaster, so now you have modern day magitech (oh shut it, if the 2 principles meet and one doesn't cause the other to fail due to different rules, it's magitech) going up against whatever alchemic/arcane nonsense Vigo can throw around. You know what they definitely SHOULD NEVER DO? In any way have the fan reaction be an integral part of the narrative. At best you're devoting part of the runtime patting yourself on the back and blowing raspberries at your haters, at worst you're wasting your audience time with your own behind the scenes drama while using a few idiots as reasons to ignore all criticism, including the legit one provided by actually concerned fans.

[@Veolynn13]

Azmodeus87 why would someone whine about magitech?

[@Azmodeus87]

GammaWALLE It's the fandome side of the internet. I dunno, maybe i jumped the gun there, but i'm used to minute details being the topic of heated debates *especially* when it comes to science and magic.

[@silverdreamdancer]

What he said about Gozer goes double for Vigo, just no. Although I do like the witch concept.

[@Wintermute01001]

The Ghostbusters undergoing a modern day witch trial was already in Ghostbusters 2.

[@seraphonica]

The only error in this; nothing shuts up the whiny fanboys. They just find something else to complain about.

[@Dr_Grid1]

This guy should be directing movies full time!

[@japeth3213]

How to fix Ghostbusters? This is an easy one... fire Paul Feig. As soon as the movie was announced, everyone paid so much attention to the cast but the director was the bigger red flag for me. A guy who makes vulgar r-rated comedies is suddenly supposed to make a kid friendly special effects movie? He's also not great at pacing scenes, this is with all of his movies as well. Bad director? No. The right choice for Ghostbusters? No. Because the movie felt like another Paul Feig movie (it has McCarthy after all) with the Ghostbusters title slapped on it. That's why it didn't work for me and many others.

[@nighttimevideo]

Stick with the cast, but give the sequel to Edgar Wright.

[@japeth3213]

Cole Thompson Lynch Now you're talking!

[@kanvaros4451]

Japeth321 also Paul's comedy style is just bashing men and holding the camera waiting for funny stuff. actually write a script with actual humans not just walking robots

[@nighttimevideo]

If Edgar Wright would direct the sequel, I'd like to see Jessica Stevenson (who worked with him on Spaced) replace Kirsten Wiig as Erin. I do like Wiig, but her sense of humour does not fit the Erin character at all.

[@macmcleod1188]

yea, but it was rated pg-13 even back then in simpler times.

[@jz4373]

This movie doesn't warrant a sequel. Let it be done at one

[@singletona082]

I... actually wouldn't mind a sequel. Just a sequel that 1. Doesn't try basically following the first one's beats. 2. DOES NOT follow up on the Ghozer breadcrumb t the end of the first movie, or at the absolute least tries something different with it. 3. Doesn't go for the same stupid jokes this movie had. Please, can we not shoot the logo in the ghoulies again? THANK YOU FOR SHUTTING DOWN INFINITE CRISIS GHOSTBUSTERS! THANK. YOU. THAT IS STUPID. I like the idea of Slenderman. I do not like your witch trial thing AS STATED. However as an ongoing background thing... maybe? I also don't want it to be 'all religions all everyone IN those religions' because then it becomes Atheism vs Religion and thank you no i"m fucking out because I'm tired of militant asshats. Maybe have a local bishop or preacher or SOMETHING actually batting FOR the ghostbusters under the 'God gave us minds that could reason. Why not The Father has always wanted His Children to do on their own without relying on him for Everything... God alone knows how many people come to me about THEIR deadbeat do nothing kids....'

[@HandmadeGoose97]

to be honest, if the ghost they had to bust was a 17th century witch from Salem or something, that would be cool

[@Gyrono]

I'd like that. The Ghostbusters shouldn't be up against religion, they should be up against fundamentalism and doctrinal literalism.

[@RubberyCat]

Heh, I remember the comics where they once had to bust a dead exorcist. ^_^

[@Wright805]

+ Andrew Singleton Thank you so much. I'm a theist and I'm sick of the negative depictions of faithful people in the media. Yes I know, zealots and fundamentalists exist, but we're not ALL like that.

[@drow_Lilith9940]

as someone who loves ghostbuster 1 and love ghostbuster 2 even more your ideas sound pretty good

[@MrHodoAstartes]

Alright. First step to salvaging this: Kick out Paul Feig. Then bury this abomination and start over in ten years with a competent director who actually liked the first movie, a horror movie DoP and competent actors who are handed a working script.

[@malkavian2]

My biggest problem with the reboot was the lack of consistency with their own lore Do they trap ghosts or blow them up? And if they can blow them up why do they bother trapping them?

[@Mephistophelolz]

"How to fix 'Ghostbusters!'? Heh. This should be good! wait... 'In Bob we trust'? oh man.... This should be good."

[@Jayfive276]

Mephistophelolz you know the shows title is deliberate hyperbole right? It's a pun on "in god we trust". Bob might be a bit overly verbose sometimes but he's not that up himself.

[@Mephistophelolz]

Jayfive276 I was referring more to the fact that it was Bob doing the video. Like, if I saw this video pop up in my subscriptions feed, but from literally any other KZbinr, it would be a completely different video. That said, c'mon, Bob is *totally* that up himself.

[@NoeLPZC]

He's up himself with reason though. As far as movies are concerned he generally knows what he's talking about.

[@Izlude84]

"Hahaha no you want more screenplay for me, pay me" was the moment I got invested in your screenplay. Lol damnit Bob I want this!!!

[@TheGhostPanel]

"his heart has been in the place throughout the whole thing" Really? His heart was in the right place when he was plotting with Amy Pascal to keep Reitman away from the project and contemplating legal action against Murray if he refused to be involved?

[@CERTAIND00M]

Somebody in Hollywood just give this guy a job writing already.

[@apaini9941]

Joel Farrelly totally agreed!

[@somed214]

Others have said similar, but I'll reiterate: the way to fix Ghostbusters is to actually have a screenplay. Where Feig's movie didn't work was the constant line-o-rama and SNL style beating a joke to death. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any ad-libbing, but it should be a bonus to a script that already has jokes in it. And then in editing, actually cut stuff out.

[@DecKrash]

Sounds pretty interesting, Bob! However, if Feig didn't get the fandom, then I don't think he's the guy for the job of director.

[@DerpinPON3]

Alright, so Paul claimed to not understand the cultural impact of the original Ghostbusters, so he made a film that clearly still could not push forward with any kind of confidence to stand on its own with how much it nodded and winked to the original everyone loved. And while I did not really have an issue with the all female cast, I can't shake the feeling that it was yet another example of entertainment reducing female and minority characters to just token or gimmick. This movie was never billed as just a Ghostbusters reboot, but an all female Ghostbusters reboot every time it was brought up. That shouldn't have to matter. But I really think some studio execs thought to some extent the controversy would be something to bank on, and since it didn't succeed as well as they wanted it to, my biggest fear about this was them thinking genre films starring women just can't be successful. Because yes the film industry IS that out of touch with reality. I do like your ideas though, and if they did take cues from you Bob, I'd actually still see it. But I just don't think a sequel will happen at all. In fact, they probably don't know what to do now and will put this franchise on hold for years. Only to come back when they feel its safe to reboot it again.

[@WeirdedOutShiba]

somebody tweet this to Paul Feig

[@Launchpad05]

No, let's not, and say we did.

[@triumph2992]

My biggest problem with the sequel were the critics who really pulled their punches with their reviews be they were A) too afraid to come across as sexist, or more likely B) Were too proud to admit that the vast majority of the audience was actually right to hate this movie.

[@BlargleWargle]

Bravo Kilo This sounds a lot more like you're saying "I don't like that the critics didn't agree with me".

[@frankwil21]

IamTMan007 nah. he's right. the movie is awful and never should have been made. it's barely scripted, incredibly under directed, and above all, not funny

[@BlargleWargle]

This is an opinion. I really enjoyed the movie. This is also an opinion. The original Birth of a Nation shouldn't have been made. This is still an opinion but more of a general consensus.

[@janedoe3209]

the majority of legitimate reviewers attached to newspapers/movie websites/tv etc gave it a generally good review and everyone that ive spoken to who has seen it liked it. it really doe look like you're just mad the critics didn't agree with you

[@frankwil21]

IamTMan007 so a movie about an important black american hero shouldn't have been made but an reboot of a pop culture classic complete with political agenda should have been? Lol

[@thecinematicmind]

Paul Feig needs to move on and do something else.

[@brokenserenity01]

I completely agree, the guy is 95% of the reason the movie has been so badly panned by folks who couldnt stand his blaming everything they said or did for why the movie was bad rather than admit maybe his crappy attitude was the issue

[@TommyDeonauthsArchives]

The Cinematic Mind Didn't Paul Feig say he wasn't going to reboot another classic film ever again?

[@thecinematicmind]

homesponge Oh god.

[@DanielBMS]

The sooner they separate the better

[@Zombiesnyder13]

Or at least go back to R-Rated movies He is terrible with PG-13 movies

[@ckmondaviable]

I'd love to see the religious angle, but knowing Hollywood they won't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

[@ryujisama]

one more thing the sequel can fix is a wider range of personalities for the male roles. I'm not trying to be an anti-feminist, but all the men in the Ghostbusters reboot seem to be on one of two modes: incredibly mean or incredibly stupid. at least when you had women in the original Ghostbusters movie, they all at least seem like competent capable people.

[@kn6361]

The terrible idea would be making another one

[@theantithesis1]

Here's a plot idea for a Ghostbusters sequel. Kristen Whig gets into a car accident, and the man is sentenced to be her butler, as he has no insurance.

[@tommybello3162]

my biggest problem was they weren't funny to me. like they're chemistry and banter wasn't funny. I also felt their characters didn't complement each other to me at least. so all and all it shouldn't have a sequel in my opinion because there's nothing to come back to. though I will say I'm not the only one who's biggest complaint was the comedy and characters… which is bad because it's comedy is character driven and it wasn't fun… again all opinion, my sis looooooved it, I found it unappealing. not bad, just not great

[@vincentdaniels2596]

tommy Bello Dude the more I listen to Bob and other critics the more I am convinced that we watched a different movie all together. I didn't think it was just "Fine" at all. I thought it was really bad with cringy comedy and no chemistry. Glad to see I'm not in the Twilight Zone.

[@MrNegativecreep07]

I also felt like I was watching a completely different movie to the one the critics saw. The biggest annoyance for me was how no one acted like a real person would in that situation. No one ever looked scared or in peril, and the stupid characters were so stupid they wouldn't be able to function in everyday life. Comedy works when you have the goof playing off the straight guy, it doesn't work when everyone wants to be the goof. Most scenes went nowhere and there was no sense of tension, danger or stakes.

[@moviemaster8510]

Well, that, and the fact that Paul Feig not only refused to remove the toxic climate of the controversy surrounding the film from the film, but that he saw fit to pump more of it in (apparently, reshoots and extra scenes were done just a couple of months before release so that they could take more cheap and dishonest potshots at the people who didn't like what they planned on getting). The movie wasn't funny to me in the first place, and making virtually every male character in the movie a coward, dipshit, asshole, or any combo of the three only served to make the movie even worse and make the cast and crew look like a bunch of whiny, salty bitches.

[@HereComesPopoBawa]

I love lots of movies which aren't in any way funny. The trick is to watch the movie first, and only then decide what it was like. Rather than being spoon-fed what the experience is "supposed to be".

[@NoeLPZC]

Same. For example, I think Dunston Checks In is a masterpiece. I haven't laughed so much in my life... but I was laughing AT the movie, not with it. It's an awful movie, but definitely a "so bad it's good" for me.

[@ViscaBarcaInter]

They could start by not being dickish to fans of the franchise, since fans are why franchises BECOME franchises in the first place. In terms of making the film, I'd suggest not letting all the characters do the same kind of zany quippy dialogue. Feig really comes across as a poor man's Whedon at times, since Whedon also occasionally has a problem getting characters to properly diverge from each other. Let McCarthy's character do crazy stuff, and maybe one other person. The original Busters did actually play against each other quite differently at times. And definitely don't do a previous plot, put together something fresh and new, something that's never been in Ghostbusters before.

[@hannabelphaege3774]

I really don't like the idea of building up to "their own Gozer". In comics you have these big cool, well established villains so another univere finding their version is a big deal. Gozer was in one movie. That'd be the reboot saying they don't have any better ideas than reusing a villain that was kind-of-cool-that-one-time-I-guess.

[@camethedawn683]

Bob the vid is genius. Thanks for the upload. I think your ideas are brilliant. 👍

[@ya9ya10]

That film lost a lot of money, there's no way it's getting a sequel.

[@harrisonknockers2038]

Normally I would agree with you. But Hollywood is too locked into established IPs right now. I give it 60%. I mean, look at the DCU. I know there are fanboys that scream if you criticize it. But the only two I liked more than not for the last two plus decades are Batman Begins and The Dark Night. They keep making those movies...badly. (see what I did there) Watchmen doesn't count as DCU. DC owns the IP. But it's not a DCU story.

[@patrickm1695]

Look at the box office, the DCU movies make a bunch of money. A BvS has made the studio gain 300 to 400 millions. Ok, they wanted more, but who cares. If a movie loses money on the other hand, it's a problem, especially when the controversy surrounding it has given it a bad reputation. I can't imagine they will follow it up, perhaps an animated TV series...

[@harrisonknockers2038]

Patrick M That is a fair point. With the international market even after deducting the the theaters cut of the ticket sales, the studio probably made a little money with BVS. Some money is better than a loss. But this is also why I gave it a 60% chance. Because studio execs lack imagination and still just love those established IPs. You will always get one that will say "I can make it work".

[@GaiashKetoji]

I think a sequel is likely but I do think it'll get a much smaller budget.

[@Kaefer1973]

+Patrick M I don't think Batman v Superman made nearly 300-400 million, since Box Office doesn't equal earnings of the studio (seeing as in foreign box office a lot of it goes to other hands, particularly in China), and there were a lot of promotion costs (and other hidden costs) not included in the Budget, but it certainly did make money. This doesn't go against Batman v Superman, all movies actually make less money than the statistics are supposed to make us feel they did.

[@carolinewheeler77]

Dude you should totally write that script. Your ideas are really good and you shouldn't loose them.

[@jennybiggs1739]

There are definitely some good ideas in here, and I agree that the new Ghostbuster franchise has a lot of unrealized potential, and ultimately some GREAT characters that could really stretch their legs. My biggest beef with this (and your Agents of SHIELD video recently) is your utter dismissive tone for fanfic. When, honestly, what you've done here and your "How to fix" Series is just that - outlining a fanfic. Just because that's not the way you choose to participate with the fandoms you're in (which, honestly, you DO, you just call it by a different name) doesn't invalidate people who do decide to that way. There's a really interesting observation about curative vs transformative fandom that was initiated in this discussion that might be worth a quick look: np.reddit.com/r/gallifrey/comments/2u73cg/tumblrbashing_why_or_why_not/co5ucsk/

[@BubblesTheBard]

the religion angle is cool. I want that.

[@Black7apex23]

Can someone forward this to the movie director please?

[@hdofu]

Outside of Resurrecting Harold Ramis this is just impossible

[@SidheKnight]

3:31 You forgot the Extreme Ghostbusters.

[@sengirfrank]

There's only one thing to say. "Thank you" for this video. Loved it and everything you had to say about it. You should write the script!

[@davecolumbo]

This is driving me nuts. I found movie bob through his REALLY THAT GOOD Ghostbusters episode and marveled at the depth of his appreciation for how good the original was. Then somehow he was the only online critic who didn't think the reboot was a train wreck, but now he's back to claiming it WAS a failure and getting on a condescending high horse about where to go and not to go with the franchise?

[@joshrysavy]

The very beginning of this episode he says what he said in the review, Ghostbusters 2016 was 'ok'. His suggestions here are ways to make it better than 'ok'...

[@davecolumbo]

It just seems like a complete backtrack. When you watch his review, his comments imply Ghostbusters 2016 wouldn't need FIXING, and now he's got a video not only on how to FIX Ghostbusters, but sarcastically yells NO NO NO at what he imagines other's suggestions would be, like he's got the high ground on how the franchise should proceed. I know all this is all theater, I just think if you release a review calling it "pretty good" but then a few months later release a video detailing what didn't work and what needs to be overhauled, it's obvious he's trying to get on the bandwagon of criticism after the fact.

[@skyline4388]

You think he's bad here, you should see his twitter.

[@laeldestan1536]

Forget Paul Feig and hire Robert Zemeckis.

[@Renkencen]

It feel like a drinking game the amount of time he said no.

[@KazamaFury]

Let it die, don't fix it. Not comparing it to the original, it was less than fine to me. The damn movie couldn't decide between reboot and how much it mirrored the original. It just wasn't that funny either

[@ZhangHe2369]

If I found out you were a part of the sequel, i might go see it even though I thought the reboot strait up sucked. I know you said it was ok, but i personally felt it was a D+ effort and its saving graces being Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon being genuine talents. The biggest problem i have is that everyone in the movie feels like they need to be funny rather then have the comedy come naturally. It gets really tiring fast and feels very unreal and comes off as trying too hard. It wasn't as bad as most of the internet has said, but it just sucks for the reason most reboots suck. Its trying to be its own thing while constantly trying to be something else and can't work out the dissonance.

[@pjny21]

They already did put the GBs on trial, and Salem was mentioned.

[@MattMcIrvin]

The "Crisis on Infinite Ghostbusters" scenario Bob rejects in the middle of this video is... basically the plot of "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse." Which was incredibly good! (It probably helped that none of the timelines in "Spider-Verse" were exactly movies we'd seen before--they referenced the Raimi trilogy, but weren't the Raimi trilogy--though they were based on existing comics properties most viewers probably hadn't read. So it didn't feel so much like crass IP management.)

[@louisduarte8763]

I think the IDW comic books did that already.

[@Solarstar10]

I utterly despise the Ghostbusters reboot. But if they took some of these ideas on board, then they could legitimately have a really good film.

[@jomon21]

I felt the problems with the first one were its lack of direction and poor writing, combine those with a very high point with which it would have been compared to and you have a bad movie. With a better script, new direction (an actual new direction, not a rehash), and a director who knows the audience of this and the originals... I dont have high hopes, excited for more GB, but it needs to be independently good first.

[@DownThePlotHole]

I can't help but think you're overly kind to this film. I'd honestly put this up there with Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad. That said, you're idea for future sequels is good...I just hope there aren't any sequels. :D

[@hdattila]

I dunno, GB remake made me a bit bored, not angry. (Which is weird, Ghostbusters means much more to me than anything in the DC universe.)

[@sourgodgaming_1723]

I rocks with your content MovieBob! Keep doing what your doing dude.

[@mullerpotgieter]

Is Fieg going to fund it himself? Caude the movie didn't even make back its budget

[@jtgyk]

www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostbusters2016.htm Except it did worldwide...

[@Wokiis]

That's not counting advertising nor that the movie gross doesn't equal the same profit for the production company as the movie theatres need their share too as well as that foreign markets tend to take a bigger slice of the cake. Considering all of that, it still could possibly have made even. But that's considered a failure as well.

[@BobLogical]

If you don't factor in toy sales, DVD and Blu-Ray releases, costumes, assorted merchandise, and renewed interest for Ghostbusters 1 and 2, then maybe. It succeeded, though, in the fact that it revived a franchise.

[@Daemonworks]

Well, it certainly brought a lot of attention to it at least...

[@creamithmanning2632]

Bob Logical Check out The Midnight's Edge video on the subject. The movie had abysmal merchandising sales and according to Paul Feig, $500 million was the break-even point.

[@voltairinekropotkin5581]

Much as Bob impressed the idea of "NO!!!" with regard to a "Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe" and Crisis on Infinite Earths style movie which ties all the different continuities together - including the one with the gorilla - I can't help but really like the idea ^_^

[@JoshGal85]

Um your left eye keeps flashing red. Are you uhh a terminator bro?

[@rentellironwood6361]

Once again a great video I have been a big fan for a while now. Keep up the great work.

[@ShyGuyXXL]

Just one thing, if it ends up sucking and everyone hates it, don't blame it on sexism.

[@ShyGuyXXL]

What about all the comments saying "I just don't find this funny." or "The writing and acting leave something to be desired." and other such level-headed comments? There will always be trolls and shitposters. That's why you have to focus on the reasonable people.

[@janedoe3209]

ShyGuyXXL its fine to focus on reasonable critiques of the movie but we cant ignore that the majority of the backlash against the film is flat out racism and sexism- not just trolling. trolling kind of implies just saying shit to get under ppls skin without taking responsibility for saying these things, leslie jones has been continually harassed by not just trolls but ppl who were happy enough to tell her from their own personal accounts how she looks like a gorilla and they're glad her bother was murdered etc etc all because they were pissed she was in this movie.

[@ShyGuyXXL]

That's why you never show the internet if trolls get under your skin. Once you let them know that what they are saying bothers you, you are basically inviting them to continue. People were making racist jokes about Leslie Jones because they knew it would bother her. Because she TOLD THEM that it bothers her. If she wasn't black they'd be making fun of something else. If she was fat people would make fat jokes. If she was jewish people would make jew jokes. If she was gay people would make gay jokes. It's whatever they can get a reaction with. She just happened to be black and sensitive about racist jokes. She's what they'd call a lolcow. Because they can keep milking her for every last reaction. (Trolls aren't necessarily anonymous, btw) But the *good* thing about the internet is, people can only see your reactions if you LET THEM see your reactions. When you post online you can make your reaction, aka. your response whatever you want. You have time to think about what you wanna say, you have time to work out your feelings if you're upset. Even if whatever people are saying REALLY bothers you on an emotional level, you don't have to show 'em that. You can be the better person. You can - **gasp** - simply ignore them. Responding in outrage is about the worst possible thing you can do. It won't stop the trolls, it won't make you look better, it'll just make everything worse. It's like if you got prank-called and you got all upset and started screaming into the phone. Of course people are gonna prank-call you if they can get reactions like that out of you. I bet most people who "harassed" (big air quotes there. I wouldn't call sending mean tweets harassment) Leslie didn't even care about the movie and maybe didn't even know her but just wanted in on the trolling. The more people get upset over jokes that are racist, sexist, homophobic, & the whole shebang, the more trolls are gonna wanna make them. They do whatever gets people upset. I bet if there was no fuss over these jokes then the trolls wouldn't make them. Remember when people used to make fun of others for wearing glasses? Today no one takes those jokes seriously anymore so people stopped using them. If they thought the same way about racist (& co) jokes people would stop using them. But I digress.

[@ShyGuyXXL]

My overall point here is that the "backlash" got artificially inflated. It became less and less about the movie and more about twitter nontrovercies and troll squabbles. If the people behind the movie hadn't acted so irrtionally it would've just blown over. But no, instead they blamed it on various isms which just created more nonesense. It's like no one had learned anything from Sarkeesian. Paying attention to trolls is the dumbest move ever and doesn't let you move forward. ...then again, feeding the trolls gets you publicity, doesn't it?

[@ShyGuyXXL]

"if she wasn't black and they'd make fun of something else they;'d still be in the wrong, whats ur point." My point is that they're not making fun of her because she's black. They're making fun of her because she's easy to get a rise out of. If she got all this hate JUST because people are racist and sexist that would mean that if she was a white man instead and did the exact same things people wouldn't have ridiculed her. Which is asinine. "this isn't about prank calls" "wearing glasses in no way compares to racism" Dude, you completely missed the point of my analogy. I didn't mean to say that what Leslie Jones got is comparable to things like prank calls. I meant to say that in both cases if you act upset you're giving these jerks what they want. I'm also not saying she didn't have the right to be upset. I'm saying that her reaction to these awful things was leading to more awful things that could've been avoided. Analogies aren't meant to compare the severities of two situations. They are supposed to convey meaning. If I said for example "Feeding trolls on the internet is like waving a blanket in front of a bull." What that is NOT supposed to mean is that getting trolled online is as severe as getting impaled by an angry bull. It's just supposed to convey that both actions are foolish, lead to bad things and are easily avoidable." Do you get the point of an analogy now? In the same veign, my glasses analogy is supposed to be an example for something that used to be taken seriously but isn't anymore. If you compared black people to gorillas and they simply didn't give a shit people would stop doing it. I mean just think about it. Being called a gorilla? That's so immature. That's not even worth giving the time of day. That's like a child calling you a "poopy face". How could you take that seriously? It's just embarrassing. Dude, I know what it's like to constantly be made fun of. I had been made fun of for being the fat kid all throughout my school life. By everyone. But then I grew up. I learned that strangers calling you random things doesn't mean anything. I don't know them and they don't know me. No matter what bad things they were saying about me, it didn't change who I was. Why should I care what some rando thinks about me? They don't know me. And they don't deserve to know me. If they choose to make fun of me for something as shallow as my appearance then that's their problem. I don't want these people's respect. Getting respect from shallow people is like getting a back rub by a skunk. (Pssst, that's another analogy!) "when black ppl are denigrated in public and stand up to dehumanization its an act of respect and representation for black ppl who are not in the public spotlight experiencing the same thing who can look to that and realize they do not have to put up with racism either." Maybe instead they could be made to realize that they don't NEED to "stand up" to these trolls. That these trolls don't DESERVE their attention. That in the grand scheme of things these trolls can't do anything. They have no power over you. They may be saying a lot of horrible shit, but that's just it. It's just shitty words. Shitty words from nobodies. One encouraging word from a friend means a hundred times more than a thousand shitty words from random nobodies. You gotta show these people that insults don't change who they are. That they are great people, no matter what trolls say. THAT'S what I call empowerment. Making you realize that you are strong. Don't show that you are upset, show that you are stronger than them. Show that you are smarter than them. Show that you don't stoop to their level. Show that you're not as shallow as them. Show that you GROW from these experiences. Move forward. Don't wallow in the past. Don't make people grow up upset. Make them grow up determined. ACTUALLY empower them. Not everyone is gonna have the same experience, but everyone who's on the internet is gonna have to deal with trolls sooner or later. But when it comes they need to be able to stay strong, be introspective and not just feel sorry for themselves or let their emotions overrun their rationality. .....but I digress. It's late now. I have to go. Maybe just think about it for a while. What would actually help these people? What would help them grow? Does shutting other people up make you grow as a person? (I'm just talking about words here, not nude leaks, that's obviously illegal) Would love to see a response. :)

[@dogishappy0]

I hope they listen to you, you know just how to talk to my inner nerd.

[@razerhowl7189]

Why not let Disney reboot the Ghostbusters?

[@WilliamLevasseur]

Honestly, I don't know why you're not writing this already. You've convinced me. I'd go watch that movie.

[@ARX78]

Respect the previous movies. Show respect to the fans. Have integrity in your vision. Get a better writer.

[@bacht4799]

ARX78 agree a good idea 💡😃

[@creamithmanning2632]

ARX78 Katie Dippold is a hack. Can't wait to see her awful Amy Schumer comedy.

[@christopheraustin5915]

I recently watched the extended version and found that to have a more obvious theme. Erin had a more fleshed out subplot which dealt with her feelings of not being taken seriously because of her work and beliefs, and that helped inform her return in act 3. Watching this cut made me realize that the theatrical one was done in such a way to make it seem more like the original, which took away from a much more focused story and left out the individual character development.

[@TyroneBruinsmaFilms]

SPOILERS! (Just so no one gets mad in case) I think if Hemswroth was the possessed villain from the beginning and the other guy was a red herring villain and at the end it turned Hemsworth wasn't dumb at all-it would've worked better. Also bringing gender politics into a franchise that never had any feels out of place.

[@mara_kalat]

Isn't adding gender politics to a franchise exactly what Mad Max: Fury Road did spectacularly successfully?

[@dalebrush5366]

There aren't really gender politics in the movie though, are there? The four main characters just happen to be women. It's not really dwelled on. They're just characters.

[@viraltang]

Right on..

[@TyroneBruinsmaFilms]

Walter Kovacs

[@mara_kalat]

Walter Kovacs That too!

[@barryallen2569]

"They should have done a sequel, but that opportunity has passed" Oh, Bob, we wish it was that simple anymore.

[@DocVonDoom]

They need an 80-foot Ed Koch. It also might help to not have the title translated as Your Mother Has a Hairy Back.

[@bull705]

Thank you Jay Sherman!

[@haldon12]

Another great critical look at a franchise that's not doing the best. It's really heartening to know other watchers had the same reaction I did to Ghostbusters '16, and want similar things out of a sequel. Here's hoping they do commission you for the screenplay for the next one!

[@ethansmall581]

Make the how to fix a series

[@BlargleWargle]

Feig's perspective on seeing the original and lack of nostalgia explains a lot. Like I loved the movie but hearing that stuff does clear some things up.

[@slapslap7329]

Lol and he calles the reboot "fine" but Ghostbusters "2" sucking. Compared to the reboot, Ghostbusters 2 was fucking King Kong.

[@ThisIsYourGodNow]

Some awesome ideas thrown around here bob. Well done!

[@masterDarts4188]

I wish I could buy into it. But sadly, I just don't see this franchise working :-/. The first movie dug a hole way too big for itself. And after seeing the Reboot, I don't think Paul Fieg has the writing capability to balance talking about religion and spiritually without doing what he did in the first film. By that i mean he'd more then likely just paint both sides in a very overly simplistic manner where one side is "right" the other is "wrong" and if you disagree with that then you should just "get over it". Even in the original, the guy who was interfering with the Ghostbusters had good reason to do so. Paul Fieg would more then likely just write the film where the religious people interfering with their work would just be painted as one note bad guys. But that's silly, because in reality, if anyone discovered the existence of an afterlife religion would explode in support, regardless of how it was discovered.

[@570y3n]

I actually really like your idea of mixing witch mythos into it. Really clever.

[@herbivarsawus4359]

I doubt they'd want to touch religion, TBH.

[@davidshead1323]

Yeah it's risky and it's a high concept film so risks are not touched with a ten foot pole.

[@hwoarangthedoorbell]

They seemed to have no problem politicizing the film's marketing in order to guilt men into watching the movie. Why not just go all in at this point?

[@herbivarsawus4359]

I take your point, but do MRAs or Feminists ever turn up to the theatre with guns blazing? Religion is so emotive in America right now.

[@xTheRedMagex]

Because the moment the plot suggests anything resembling "Christians in an antagonistic position", even if said Christians in the sequel are WBC-expies, the very notion that Christianity is doing anything but helping resolve the problem will spark an outpouring of rage and boycott threats from Media Watchdogs.

[@davidshead1323]

hwoarangthedoorbell Idk if that's going for much though, by having female leads you win in any way, if people say the movie looks shit or perhaps even just dont want to go see it "OH YOU'RE SEXIST", very safe game doing that. If they rebooted with a male cast the film wouldn't have had that and I doubt many people would care to go see it.

[@DFloyd84]

Point of order: nobody was burned at the stake in Salem, they were almost all hanged.

[@DavidWesterlund]

Sorry dude, but there is no way this can be called a 3 star movie. The jokes sucked and the fx sucked. I was expecting garbage but was still shocked at how bad it was. It was a complete and utter failure. The audience knows it, the cast knows it, the director knows it, and sony knows it.

[@LiveLXStudios]

"Everyone agrees with me, they just don't want to admit it"

[@datboishiz3474]

Bob said at the end of that video that he'd be back with 'Something completely different', and in the middle there, he showed the Spanish Inquisition... so... NEXT WEEK MONTY PYTHON EPISODE?! YES I LOVE THE PYTHONS

[@AdraTheGhost]

I agree on all your points but I honestly feel like it would be better to just steer away from the sexism meta because honestly that was what turned me off from ever seeing the first movie

[@ChaosoneX]

Paul Feig: "I want to do a sequel to Ghostbusters!" Ivan Reitman: "I have creative control back." Pual Feig: "I meant Ghost Whisperer."

[@kanvaros4451]

The chemistry was not interesting in the remake at all. It felt like oil and water no connection no reaction.

[@creamithmanning2632]

Travis Sanchez I had to double-take at 5:27. The Abby/Erin fractured friendship bullshit was the strongest aspect of the movie? In what universe? It was so forgettable that when it was re-introduced in the climax, I actually became confused for a second. "Wait, what? Whaaa-- oooooooh. Yeah. I completely forgot about this poorly established relationship dynamic that was about as well-developed as an Omnicorp killbot."

[@kanvaros4451]

JonTron it feels that bob is bending over backwards for a movie that doesn't deserve it

[@p4riah]

God, I would love the hell out of your Ghostbusters 2.

[@geekinitwithjimclassic8240]

I did like your ideas Bob. However just on principle I'd rather see no sequel at all at this point. Sony and Paul Feig trolled and bullied people into watch their movie and based on that alone it just doesn't deserve a follow up.

[@vorpal997]

I don't know how I didn't find this video sooner. It may be old now, and we know Feig's sequel definitely isn't happening, but these are still great ideas. The girls having witch ancestors and inheriting their role is brilliant. It would make up for the film being a reboot instead of a sequel since a "passing of the torch" still happens.

[@jokerz7936]

Here's an idea let this dumb movie go away. Ivan Reitman is working on a new Animated Series do that and then do a direct sequel to the original film with a new cast in a few years once the stink from this one has gone away some.

[@ToadManJon11]

"NO, NO, NO, NO, just NO." that line killed me, great stuff