|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12804647)
It's fucking insane that people are opposed to the title. Countless remakes do the exact same thing for a hundred years and all of a sudden it's fucked up that the Ghostbusters remake is called Ghostbusters. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that it features lady Ghostbustresses with vaginas. 100% pure coincidence.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
A new trailer was just released. And it is equally as shitty.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Yeah, it's not looking good at all. Here:
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I think I chuckled at the lady with the selfie stick? But man, McCarthy wasnt working for me and Wiig seemed flat as hell.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by dex14
(Post 12804819)
A new trailer was just released. And it is equally as shitty.
It is not equally shitty (to the first one). It is even shittier than the first. The movie itself looks like a joke - like it's not meant to be real, but a practical joke played on some die hard Ghostbusters fan. I have never seen a pair of worse trailers than these two. If that's the best they've got, then this movie is going to be one of the worst in recent years. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I like this youtube comment
"Uhh I don't know if it was a race thing or a lady thing" Forcing yourself onto a crowd that doesn't want you, and when you fall on your back you question if its about race or gender. Sounds like this movie's PR in a nutshell. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
That trailer was even worse.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I can't even seem to put in words why this has zero interest for me....maybe it's Melissa M., whom I'm sick of.
I don't even care that it's women, Wiig is also annoying to me. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
First thing you see in trailer is "SEWARD". Clever.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
"Uhh I don't know if it was a race thing or a lady thing" Forcing yourself onto a crowd that doesn't want you, and when you fall on your back you question if its about race or gender. Sounds like this movie's PR in a nutshell. There is nothing organic about this movie. Everything is forced, and forced into a gimmick. That whole Chris Hemsworth in Ghostbuster uniform showing off his less than manly Ghostbusters bike thing was embarrassing. It was just thrown into support the gimmick, but don't you dare question the gimmick! And then there's everything else in the trailer - it's all schtick and cliche with nothing remotely clever or funny. The original Ghostbusters almost OD'd on clever. This Ghostbusters is going to die from cleverness deficiency. Cinematic malnutrition. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by B5Erik
(Post 12804859)
Yep.
There is nothing organic about this movie. Everything is forced, and forced into a gimmick. That whole Chris Evans in Ghostbuster uniform showing off his less than manly Ghostbusters bike thing was embarrassing. It was just thrown into support the gimmick, but don't you dare question the gimmick! And then there's everything else in the trailer - it's all schtick and cliche with nothing remotely clever or funny. The original Ghostbusters almost OD'd on clever. This Ghostbusters is going to die from cleverness deficiency. Cinematic malnutrition. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
This trailer is a substantial improvement over the earlier one. You can definitely tell who was just waiting to bash it regardless though. It pretty much cements the fact that the Internet hive mind's opinion was cemented long before a single second of footage was released.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Chris Hemsworth! Cap had nothing to do with this! :lol:
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12804880)
This trailer is a substantial improvement over the earlier one. You can definitely tell who was just waiting to bash it regardless though. It pretty much cements the fact that the Internet hive mind's opinion was cemented long before a single second of footage was released.
That was a horrible trailer. Forget about the, "Controversy," over the gimmick, it was a horrible trailer. Not a single funny line, and the schtick (big black woman falls flat on her back because the crowd won't crowd surf her, Chris Hemsworth looking less than masculine in his reversed role) is just lowbrow, lame, and pathetically UNfunny. Forget everything else, this movie looks bad on it's own merits - even if the original hadn't existed. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12804880)
This trailer is a substantial improvement over the earlier one. You can definitely tell who was just waiting to bash it regardless though. It pretty much cements the fact that the Internet hive mind's opinion was cemented long before a single second of footage was released.
Its just not funny. And for a film that is claiming to not be tied to the original - why keep using things from it (the Ray Parker Jr. song, the "mass hysteria" comment). We see Hemsworth taken over by the ghost, and what power do we see it give him - the ability to pop a wheelie. Amazing. Not driving up the wall or flying, but stunt riding. It seems like these trailers are being cut with no real idea about the identity of the film - if it is a comedy, they really aren't putting selling it as such (the jokes aren't funny, at least IMO). If it is a dramatic film, it isn't doing thay, either. If someone edited this trailer - but used the original cast instead of this one, the reaction would be the same. Just not funny. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by stingermck
(Post 12804888)
Chris Hemsworth! Cap had nothing to do with this! :lol:
Originally Posted by B5Erik
(Post 12804892)
(big black woman falls flat on her back because the crowd won't crowd surf her, Chris Evans looking less than masculine in his reversed role)
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
If their intent was to make me laugh, the trailer failed miserably.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by bluetoast
(Post 12804820)
Yeah, it's not looking good at all. Here:
On a side note, why are so many of the SJW trolls so concerned about what people think of this movie? It's pretty sad that they have no lives and nothing better to do than worry about what other pople think. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Quack
(Post 12804847)
I can't even seem to put in words why this has zero interest for me....maybe it's Melissa M., whom I'm sick of.
I don't even care that it's women, Wiig is also annoying to me. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by stingermck
(Post 12804888)
Chris Hemsworth! Cap had nothing to do with this! :lol:
But, MAN, is Odin going to be PISSED!!!!
Originally Posted by HN
(Post 12804900)
did i miss a Capt. America reference? :whofart:
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
There's too many Chrises in the MCU, B5Erik is confused.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Jabroni
(Post 12804910)
There's too many Chrises in the MCU, B5Erik is confused.
(And after watching that trailer I think I lost about 45 points off my IQ...) |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Jabroni
(Post 12804910)
There's too many Chrises in the MCU, B5Erik is confused.
;) |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
If I had some kind of agenda I woulda been sucking the dick of the first trailer. Good luck finding a post where I defend it.
The first trailer was not only inept regardless of the content, the content itself was substandard. The fact that Sony rushed a revised trailer out that excised the disastrous Exorcist footage really says it all. It was even more troubling when the concert footage that replaced it was only slightly better. That concert footage holdover is really the only part of this new trailer that misses the mark. This one actually has effective comedy moments in it. Wiig holding onto the table warning people to leave NYC. The Michael McDonald joke. McCarthy saying its beautiful as Wiig gets drenched in slime. It's like a night-and-day difference. Of course, writing "even worse!" is a lot easier and far less controversial. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by wishbone
(Post 12804914)
Oh fer Chrisakes...
;) And funnier & more clever than anything in that trailer! :up: :toast: |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12804920)
If I had some kind of agenda I woulda been sucking the dick of the first trailer. Good luck finding a post where I defend it.
The first trailer was not only inept regardless of the content, the content itself was substandard. The fact that Sony rushed a revised trailer out that excised the disastrous Exorcist footage really says it all. It was even more troubling when the concert footage that replaced it was only slightly better. That concert footage holdover is really the only part of this new trailer that misses the mark. This one actually has effective comedy moments in it. Wiig holding onto the table warning people to leave NYC. The Michael McDonald joke. McCarthy saying its beautiful as Wiig gets drenched in slime. It's like a night-and-day difference. Of course, writing "even worse!" is a lot easier and far less controversial. If you really believe that this is a halfway decent trailer then we'll just agree to disagree. I honestly think it's garbage. UNfunny, not the least bit clever, and poorly edited (not to mention the, "Jokes," been poorly written and delivered). And that would be my take on it even if there were no previous Ghostbusters movies. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
MovieBob has some stuff to say about the "Angry Video Game Nerd" video I posted earlier.
http://moviebob.blogspot.fi/2016/05/...-internet.html There's a LOT, but this is the gist. I have ZERO reason to believe he has some kind of issue with women and the fact that he doesn’t bring it up at all bares that out: I take him at what looks to be his word that this is about remaking classics and not about gender politics or whatever. I HATE the fact that we can’t have an honest back and forth about this or any other movie without having to think about whether or not what we say is going to get repurposed a weapon in a bullshit “culture war,” but I know who’s to blame for it – and it aint’ the so-called “SJWs.”: It’s the regressives and the trolls and fedora squad and the MRA/”meninist” right-wing internet collective that’s been banging on about this shit ever since they realized that the inexorable tide of cultural evolution is poised and ready to sweep them and their bullshit played-out reactionary worldview into the dumpster of societal-obsolesence. Because guess what: The remakes of ROBOCOP and TOTAL RECALL *both* looked just as bad as the new GHOSTBUSTERS looks (and spoiler: they WERE exactly as awful as they looked) – but I don’t remember a year-long preemptive, pre-TRAILER hate campaign against those movies; so logically there’s obviously something else at play here – and while it’s true that Chris Hemsworth being in a movie where he’s NOT playing Thor is usually a bad sign… I kinda don’t think it’s that. You think the remake of GHOSTBUSTERS looks terrible? I agree – it looks terrible. I just hope it doesn’t stop people from putting Leslie Jones Kate McKinnon in good movies because those are two funny fuckin’ people. You think it looks super-disrespectful to the legacy of one of the most important genre-comedies ever made? Yeah, I think that looks to the most-likely case. Don’t wanna watch it because of that? Fine – totally valid, you do you. But please, don’t you DARE insult either of our intelligences by trying to tell me that *most* of the super over-the-top mega-hatred that’s being trained on this project and RUINING any chance to have an honest discourse isn’t mainly coming from paranoid sexist assholes who think something is being “stolen” from them. It's when the focus goes from "this looks bad" to "women, especially scientists, can't carry backpacks" that it's more difficult to separate the legitimate complaints (of which there are many) from the sexist bullshit. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Even on the cesspool that is the Ghostbusters Reddit the consensus seems to be that this is a much stronger trailer.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I don't see it. It looks awful.
I'll be honest, where this whole project went off the rails for me was Melissa McCarthy. I was out the moment her name was mentioned. I just really loath her. If it had been Aykroyd, Murray, Hudson all returning and McCarthy was cast in the Jenine role I would have still been out. Seeing her thrust her crotch after shooting at a ghost is just pathetic. It's cringe worthy in that way where I actually feel embarrassed for her when I look at it. McCarthy is just recycling the kind of middle class, blue collar comedy that folks like Rosanne Barr and Brett Butler capitalized on in the '90s. I don't like blue collar comedy and I don't like her schtick. I'm not sexist, I'm just extremely prejudiced against this one person. I can't stand her or anything she's made. I did like Inside Out however. Exception to the rule I guess. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Mabuse
(Post 12804982)
I did like Inside Out however. Exception to the rule I guess.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
looks bad.... and i dont know what it is.
i feel like its just the same thing or a parody of the other one. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Dan
(Post 12804990)
If you're talking about Sadness, that was actually Phyllis Smith from The Office. :)
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Dan
(Post 12804969)
It's when the focus goes from "this looks bad" to "women, especially scientists, can't carry backpacks" that it's more difficult to separate the legitimate complaints (of which there are many) from the sexist bullshit.
Someone bigger and stronger than me (5'7", 190) is going to be able to do it better and easier than me, be it a man or a woman. That's just a fact, and I'm not the least bit insulted by that. I know that when I have had packs on my back that weighed 30 or more pounds I got winded and sore after 5 or 6 minutes. Would that happen to a person who is 5'11", 200? Not nearly as much. And, again, I would not be the least bit insulted if someone suggested to me that a bigger, stronger person do the heavy lifting instead of me. The bottom line to most people's irritiation with this movie is simply this - whole gender switch was a gimmick and an excuse to get a movie made that SHOULD have been made with the original cast years earlier. The studio dragged it's feet on a sequel with the original cast, but then they instantly greenlit a gender-bending sequel,l even without a passable script. That's largely what got people pissed about the gimmicky gender swap. Reitman and Akroyd worked for over a decade to get a sequel made, only to have the studio drag it's feet because they said they didn't like the scripts, and then as soon as someone says, "Why not a remake with women Ghostbusters instead of men," the project gets greenlit - without a good script! And as we've seen from the trailers, the script is loaded with cliches and incredibly stupid stuff, so it can't be any better than (and probably not nearly as good as) the scripts that Akroyd and Reitman were working on. There is nothing in either trailer that makes this movie look funny or clever. I have zero doubt that this is going to be a shit movie that only got made because someone thought that the gimmick was more important than a good script. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
It looks fucking horrible. People are delusional if they believe this is better. It's nothing to do with the women either. If the same type of jokes were being done with men it would be equally awful. This looks to be appealing to the lowest of low brow humor and I don't see any redeeming qualities. McCarthy and Jones in particular solidly the fact that I'll never watch this.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by B5Erik
(Post 12805002)
See, no one said they can't. It's just harder for someone at 5'3", 120 pounds to lug around heavy equipment than someone at 5'10" 190 pounds to do the same thing.
Someone bigger and stronger than me (5'7", 190) is going to be able to do it better and easier than me, be it a man or a woman. That's just a fact, and I'm not the least bit insulted by that. I know that when I have had packs on my back that weighed 30 or more pounds I got winded and sore after 5 or 6 minutes. Would that happen to a person who is 5'11", 200? Not nearly as much. And, again, I would not be the least bit insulted if someone suggested to me that a bigger, stronger person do the heavy lifting instead of me. The bottom line to most people's irritiation with this movie is simply this - whole gender switch was a gimmick and an excuse to get a movie made that SHOULD have been made with the original cast years earlier. The studio dragged it's feet on a sequel with the original cast, but then they instantly greenlit a gender-bending sequel,l even without a passable script. That's largely what got people pissed about the gimmicky gender swap. Reitman and Akroyd worked for over a decade to get a sequel made, only to have the studio drag it's feet because they said they didn't like the scripts, and then as soon as someone says, "Why not a remake with women Ghostbusters instead of men," the project gets greenlit - without a good script! And as we've seen from the trailers, the script is loaded with cliches and incredibly stupid stuff, so it can't be any better than (and probably not nearly as good as) the scripts that Akroyd and Reitman were working on. There is nothing in either trailer that makes this movie look funny or clever. I have zero doubt that this is going to be a shit movie that only got made because someone thought that the gimmick was more important than a good script. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by B5Erik
(Post 12805002)
The bottom line to most people's irritiation with this movie is simply this - whole gender switch was a gimmick and an excuse to get a movie made that SHOULD have been made with the original cast years earlier. The studio dragged it's feet on a sequel with the original cast, but then they instantly greenlit a gender-bending sequel,l even without a passable script. That's largely what got people pissed about the gimmicky gender swap. Reitman and Akroyd worked for over a decade to get a sequel made, only to have the studio drag it's feet because they said they didn't like the scripts, and then as soon as someone says, "Why not a remake with women Ghostbusters instead of men," the project gets greenlit - without a good script! And stop with the back pack shit already. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Mabuse
(Post 12805013)
And stop with the back pack shit already.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Dan
(Post 12805010)
You just can't give up on this one can you?
Bigger, stronger people can carry heavy stuff more easily than smaller, weaker people. Why do some people have a problem with that? It's a fact. Get over it and let it go. I can't see it being worse of a film than Ghostbusters 2 at this point, so :shrug: does any of that stuff even matter? I would have much rather seen a G3 than this garbage, even if G3 were no better than G2. At least we'd have good characters that make you feel good while watching them. And maybe, just maybe, Akroyd and Reitman could have come up with a better script this time out. Now we'll never know since the studio refused to make G3. The fact that they instantaneously greenlit this movie based solely on the concept of a gender swap just adds insult to injury. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Much better trailer but the only place to go after the last trailer, was up.
The selfie stick thing was pretty funny. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.