Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

It's very strange.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Where is this strangeness? In some sort of community? Should we make some kind of hail or summoning?

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

It's sort of a sacred cow. Who cares that the sequels weren't all that good we cut them a break because they did such a good job with the first one. I mean who walked out of the first Ghostbusters and didn't think they just saw an hour and 45 minutes of pure awesomeness?

So if that cast is gone and the torch is going to be passed to an all new gang.. they better do it justice so we can say "Ghostbusters was so awesome!" without adding "No.. not that one."

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

It could work.

"Who's President in 2017, future boy?"

"Donald Trump."

"Donald Trump!?!? And I suppose Geraldo Rivera's Secretary of State!"

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

You know what? I'll grant you that it doesn't stretch believability at all that 3 women would go into business together and hire another woman as, "Muscle," more or less (if it were the right woman), and I'll even grant you that they may also be scientists. That isn't completely unrealistic (although I would imagine that men still outnumber women when it comes to teachers/professors of science in colleges).

But is it less believable than 3 or 4 men going in to business together? Statistics do say it's less believable. More men start businesses than women. That may not be true in another quarter century, but today it still is. But does that make the premise of gender-bender Ghostbusters implausible? No. Not at all. You are absolutely right on that point.

I guess I'm just not buying this group of actresses. Not one of them strikes me as being a scientist (not the way that Ramis and Akroyd did, not even close). And aside from Jones none of them have any real physicality that says they could handle physical action like you're going to see in the movie. They aren't believable. The premise may not be outrageous (and after further reflection, it really isn't - clearly the right women COULD easily pull that stuff off), but the casting was (outrageous - outrageously bad and inappropriate/unbelievable/non-credible).

And the promotion of the movie as, "Girl Power," sure seemed to exclude any attempt to appeal to men/boys. It was like they were saying, "Too bad, guys. This one isn't for you." The original never excluded women from it's audience. In fact, it gave a woman a prominent role (Weaver), and gave another a memorable one (Potts). And both of them played strong women, too! In this one we've got Hemsworth playing an emasculated girly man as secretary/receptionist to further the joke. So if you can't see the middle finger that the producers and writers intentionally gave to the guys in the potential audience then you're letting your social justice agenda get in the way of seeing what is so painfully obvious. It's almost like they wanted to offend men in order to create controversy and get attention. Well, if so, mission accomplished!

And the results look really bad. Far worse than a Ghostbusters 3 ever could have been 5 or 10 years ago. Even with Bill Murray doing just a glorified cameo and having a new Ghostbuster take his place I firmly believe that a G3 with Akroyd, Ramis, and Hudson would have been far better than this pile of excrement.

I see no reason to get behind this movie. None whatsoever. But there are a ton of reasons NOT to get behind this movie.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

B5Erik, I'm kind of impressed by your post. The first half anyway. But this one paragraph...

Really? I'm a man in my 30's and I don't feel like they're excluding me at all.

Nah. If anything, they're saying "Too bad, guys. This one action/comedy blockbuster in a sea of dozens of action/comedy blockbusters isn't JUST for you." See the difference?

Love interest.
Snarky secretary.

These are literally the most common roles women are given.

I think that's a slight overstatement, but sure. Why not. :up:

:lol: what? Because he's got an Australian accent and wears glasses? If the point was to make a joke towards the "real fans" don't you think they'd have picked a scrawny or overweight loser with no social skills, a terrible wardrobe, and no sense of humor?

Nah.

"wanting to offend men" and "knowing that no matter what they do, some men would be offended" are two different things.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Come on, you know that emasculating Thor had to give the producers a chuckle. ;)

I don't see anything in this movie that appeals to me, and I'm a big fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so I have no problem with a female led action show/movie. Hell, I'd kill to see a Black Widow movie. I just absolutely hate the women that they cast in this movie. To me they're horribly UNfunny and just kind of pathetic. Their comedic acting styles are just lame. Bad TV sitcom lame.

But considering that they didn't put anything appealing to guys in the movie they had to know that there would be a backlash. They can't be that stupid.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

All of those actors are doing a cameo of some kind (inexplicably apparently not as their characters?) Aykroyd would've done anything...so he could've introduced the new characters, played the Han Solo role from TFA.

I'm not against the female cast, but I'm not interested if it's not even being played as a sequel. (which the teaser even alluded to!) I'd be more interested if they worked in a 'passing of the torch' storyline.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

The trendline is going up on women in academia actually. And I will say that with the exception of two excellent male professors, all the best classes I took at college had female professors (I also had some poor female and male professors, so I'm not trying to say that gender is going to determine how good one is at being a teacher).

This looks to me like a combination of nostalgia and arguing from your conclusion. First off, tell me what a scientist looks like. The general cultural concept of a scientist is semi-nerdy, white lab coat, pocket protector. Egon is the only one who fits that model in the original film. Murray and Akroyd don't look like scientists in any meaningful way. So in that regard, I'm willing to buy these actresses as scientists just as much as I'm willing to buy the actors in the original as scientists.

As for physical humor, was there that much physical humor in the original that required great physicality from the actors? Again, Ramis is the only one who does any significant physical acting, playing Egon as stiff. The rest of the physical gags generally involve the guys getting slimed. I don't recall any Buster Keaton-esque routines in the first two movies, or even something as physical as this:



Melissa McCarthy does physical humor all the time in her movies, not all of it is good but she's no stranger to it.

Like the movie, don't like the movie, whatever. But these justifications are really grasping at straws.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Strange that of all the movies franchises in the whole world, Ghostbusters is being discussed in such an angry tone, in a thread thread may be locked because of it. I find that strange because of the kind of film Ghostbusters represents, which isn't a boys club mentality that many on here think it does. It does not.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Vigo creeped me out pretty hard when I was a kid.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

^ same.

As I said earlier in the thread, I loved GB2 for... forever. People said it was bad, but I always ignored them. I have never, and will never, read thinkpieces on why other people think it's so terrible (I mention this because the Angry game nerd guy mentions that he was "conditioned" to hate it, and I've never felt that that was the case, since I loved it up until my most recent viewing of it). Revisiting it in 2016... I just couldn't stand it. Weak jokes, terrible plot, sub-par performances, etc. etc. etc.
The only thing I like about it now is Janosz; dude is hilarious as hell and his performance is totally under-appreciated. Also, the ghost carriage taking away baby Oscar is still creepy shit.

So, for me, it's nearly impossible for GB2016 to be that bad. I've seen some terrible shit in the theatres (Pixels, The Happening, Hardcore Henry, Goodbye to Language 3D, ... the list goes on.)

I'm not saying GB2016 is going to be GOOD, but if it's better than GB2, then at least for me, it's good enough to exist.

I still don't understand why people are angry about it, though. Check YouTube or reddit (the barnacles of the internet), and you'll see it in full force. It's kind of fascinating.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

She has to resort to that because she's not funny. Ever see a Kate Hudson comedy? She falls off every bar stool in sight. Literally the very first image that leaked from the making of Ghostbusters 2016 was McCarthy doing a prat fall getting out of the Ecto 1. That was the moment that solidified it for me. All the same tired, hacky schtick dressed up as something that resembles Ghostbusters.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Totally off topic, but if there's a single actress I can point to as being colossally unfunny, and less interesting to watch on screen than McCarthy, it'd be her.

It's like the girl from Almost Famous is not the girl in everything since Almost Famous.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Fine, then make them students of one of the Ghostbusters, who is a professor of paranormal science or whatever. I'm not a professional screenwriter so I'm sure my suggestions suck, but a writer of Paul Feig's caliber could have made it work. All I'm saying is that, if they had attempted to give this even a loose connective tissue back to the originals that people may be more forgiving about some of the other changes.

Instead they seem to be toeing this weird line between going out of their way to declare their independence from the originals and NOT be connected while simultaneously trying to mine elements of the originals for nostalgia. It's oddly fascinating to me because I can't recall any other examples like this off the top of my head, excluding soft reboots that are connected to their predecessors in a canonical/story way (like Tron Legacy or Jurassic World).

Again, I'm more 'eyebrow-raised skeptical' about all of this than anything. I liked Bridesmaids, I liked Spy, and - hell - I thought The Heat was hilarious. But I'm just getting this weird cynical vibe from this project.

I'm calling B.S. on this, though. Look at the poster I shared in the previous post and compare it to the posters for remakes/reboots of 80s hits from the past few years. Mad Max Fury Road, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Clash of the Titans, The Karate Kid, Point Break, Robocop, Total Recall, Annie... If anything they're guilty of the opposite thing... straying wildly from the 'feel' of the original to appear 'modern' or 'gritty' or whatever.

Of the ones I looked up only Poltergeist really tried to ape the marketing of the previous film, and even then it wasn't as overt and had a few twists to the imagery. The Evil Dead remake had a similar 'feel' to the original's artwork as the logo was a play off the original's, but they still changed quite a bit. That Ghostbusters poster... they're using the exact same logo and exact same font, laid out just about the exact same way. Sure, they added some Photoshop shading and mist effects to it, but that's it. Honestly, if I didn't know about this remake beforehand I would assume it was a poster for a 3d-fied reissue of the 1984 version or something.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/tra...ailer#/slide/1

New international trailer released today. Don't know how to embed from here but here's a link. I think it's a lot better than anything we've seen so far.


EDIT: Figured out how to embed:

<iframe-disabled-disabled width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I think it's a combination of a lot of things. TotalBiscuit's YouTube comment from a couple of days ago brings up a couple of the points. (It's a giant block of text so I'll just link it instead of image posting it): http://i.imgur.com/rQQyLX8.png

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I used to think McCarthy wasn't funny, but I watched Bridesmaids, The Heat, and Spy in a row over three nights and I've changed my opinion. Kate Hudson isn't a comedian though, just a bad actress with no charisma. McCarthy can actually be funny with the right material. Spy in particular is excellent.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I was just turning your quote into a Ghostbusters reference.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

You know, I thought the trailer for "Spy" looked awful too, and also thought it was an excellent film. So maybe I'll just need to wait on the reviews for this one. I have been proven wrong by Feig and Co. before, so maybe it will happen again.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

This is a completely invalid criticism as well. The movie would have had physical comedy in it had John Belushi and John Candy been cast in the roles written for them. Had Murray passed on the role its not difficult to imagine them offering it to Chevy Chase which also would have inevitably brought more physical comedy into it. If Farley was cast in the never-made GB3 there would have been physical comedy. McCarthy's physical comedy isn't a strike against her any more than it is any other comedian. The roles have always been tailored to the performer playing them. Do you expect Wiig to do a Murray impression, McKinnon to do a Ramis impression, etc.? Obviously you don't. If Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis are all playing a variation of characters they've already paid then why should anyone in the new movie be expected to do anything differently?

And even if they were, there's much more variation in McCarthy's roles than anything you'd find in the film careers of Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis in 1984.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I imagine that you'll get some pushback on that post from some of the crutch users, no doubt.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Agreed. She is the one main cast member that is actually funny.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

None of those films were actually made. Your talking about hypothetical alternate versions of the film at this point.

Murray had already been in Where the Buffalo Roam and would soon star in The Razors Edge. Two dramatic performances from an actor who would continue to walk both sides of the comic/dramatic divide his entire career.

Aykroyd did things as wildly diverse as The Blues Brothers (where he shows his talent for comedy, music, and movement), Neighbors (where he plays the wild, boorish slob against type while Belushi plays straight), and Trading Places (where he plays an upright gentleman effortlessly).

You know all this already. You're just doing your usual, slagging things and people that are great to somehow substantiate the existence of things that are not.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

It sure does bring up a couple of points. Not successfully, but he tries.

The main thing I object to is him questioning where the hate was on Spy and Fury Road. For starters, there was a big MRA backlash against Fury Road. It's well-documented online. Secondly, there is a backlash against McCarthy everywhere you look online. Forbes even wrote an article called "Can Melissa McCarthty's Career Survive All These Hits?" as a response to Internet reports that tend to downplay her successes. The only difference is that those "types" (wink wink, I'm talking about the sexist nerds) can generally avoid her other movies whereas Ghostbusters puts her at ground zero of the nerd world.

You don't even need to venture outside this forum or even this thread to see a substantial amount of McCarthy hatred.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Oh I will say what I really liked about that new international trailer: I loved hearing the original Ray Parker Jr. version of the song playing over images of the somewhat familiar iconography. Seeing Ecto 1 speed by Washington Square Park with that song playing is exhilarating. Sadly it's a second unit pick-up shot and a 30 year old song. The rest is kind of a let down.

I also think it's funny/strange how for international trailers they say things like "From the studio that brought you Spider Man and Men in Black". I know they do that here in the US a bit, but it seems to be really highlighted for overseas markets.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I just don't like her blue-collar, working-class comedy style. I never like Rosanne Barr much either. McCarthy is like a female Larry the Cable Guy. I don't downplay her successes, I just don't like her tv show or any of her films. Like Rosanne she's very one-note. It's just one thing: I'm this cranky, befuddled, work-a-day person, with a big mouth.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I guess your definition of "wildly diverse" is a lot different than mine. A good chunk of those examples you listed were failures. You know you're grasping at straws when you bring up "Neighbors."

And yeah, I'm talking about hypothetical alternate versions of Ghostbusters because you and I both know you wouldn't object to Belushi's Venkman doing physical comedy. Not to beat a dead horse but your love of "Neighbors" establishes that your bar is actually set pretty low when it comes to fat men with penises.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

While it's fascinating to speculate about alternative casting, I honestly don't think a version with Belushi or Candy or Eddie Murphy could have bettered the finished film we got. There was just magic alchemy between everyone involved.

I think that buried somewhere in Neighbors is a good film. It was recut and rescored by the studio and had these awful sound effects added to it. At one point Belushi wanted a punk rock soundtrack for the film. I think it could have been a pretty exciting film.

What does success have to do with it? Hell, if anything failure indicates how diverse and outside of the box these guys were willing to go. Razors Edge was not a hit largely because Murray went in such a radically different direction than people expected.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Will everyone just please say the trailer looks great and they will go see this opening night so this will end?

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I will say that international trailer is much better. I like that they went from full focus on Leslie Jones to full focus on McKinnon and Wiig.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I laughed. :up:

Yeah... no offense, but I tap out when that guy gets brought into any discussion. He may very well have some decent points to make (much like a broken clock is right twice a day), but I'm not interested entertaining the opinions of a guy who says death threats aren't credible if the 'target' is still breathing. Fuck that asshole.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Yeah, that international trailer is even better still. I know this is going to be a controversial statement but I'm gonna risk my reputation and go out on a limb here and say these last two trailers have been competently-cut and successfully present the movie as a funny, appealing comedy.

In all seriousness, I don't see how anyone could honestly say these last two trailers are bad, and that's different than saying they don't appeal to you. If you can watch them back-to-back with the Yoga Hosers trailer (literally the worst trailer I've ever seen in my life and fully deserving of hundreds of thousands of YouTube dislikes) and still say the Ghostbusters trailer is worse then that really says it all. These trailers are really shining a light on the people who have absolutely dug their heels in and will not change their opinion under any circumstances.

On the other hand, I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised to see so many positive reactions on the otherwise-vile Ghostbusters Reddit a couple days ago when the 2nd US trailer launched.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

This morning on "Kevin and Bean", a local Morning Radio show here in LA, they did a whole thing on the GB16 hate. They took calls and it was fascinating hearing all the reasons why people were in such a Hate Mode for this film.

Their co host Allie brought up this very point...She said almost all the Trailers for Feig films have sucked even though the films were pretty good. The theory they had was that the good material in the film often needed more time to breath than a trailer could offer so they go for the quick jokes/gags.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Also, Feig always has his actors shoot multiple reactions and line readings. I wouldn't be surprised if completely different ones end up in the actual movie vs. the trailer.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I'm intrigued that in the New York shots, all the billboards are out of date movies; Taxi Driver, Tommy, Snake People, Fists of Fury... So I guess it's supposed to be the "ghost" of the old city returning? (Forgive me if this was previously discussed, I didn't see it in the astonishing 24 pages of this...thread)

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

The international trailer wasn't that bad, much better then the two US ones.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

It's not the real Time Square, it's completely conjured using special effects. So they made every ad either a joke (Twinkies) or a Sony product to avoid having to license real products that advertise there. I doubt that Taxi Driver was ever advertised in Time Square on a 40 foot tall billboard.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Great comment by TB. I didn't realize it was a reaction to the screen junkies video until about halfway through. I found that video kind of odd because with Movie Fights and a lot of their other content they usually go for a "debate" type angle and try to get guests that disagree, and yet on this controversial issue they didn't do that.