Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
#376
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: Formerly known as achau9598 - Baltimore, MD
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.
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.
#377
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
#378
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
If their intent was to make me laugh, the trailer failed miserably.
#379
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Certainly no tired and predictable jokes there.
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.
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.
#380
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Yeah. What these idiots dont understand is that it's not that it's women in these parts. It's that 3 of the four women that they cast in a COMEDY are not funny.
#381
DVD Talk Legend
#383
DVD Talk Legend
#385
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#386
DVD Talk Legend
#387
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
#388
DVD Talk Hero
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.
To be clear: I don't think all the people here are paranoid sexist assholes who think something is being stolen from them, although a tiny handful have very specifically said things that mirror that.
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.
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.
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.
#390
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 20,052
Received 169 Likes
on
127 Posts
From: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
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.
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.
#391
DVD Talk Hero
#394
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
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.
#395
DVD Talk Hero
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.
#396
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
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.
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.
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.
does any of that stuff even matter?
#397
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 20,052
Received 169 Likes
on
127 Posts
From: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
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.
#398
DVD Talk Hero
#399
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
No, I just want to make my point clear when someone else misrepresents it to mean something that I didn't imply.
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 disagree. While Ghostbusters 2 wasn't nearly as laugh out loud funny as the original it was still fun. I enjoy G2 and seeing those characters in a new situation. I love those characters. The characters we're seeing in this one are abrasive and unfunny. They're unlikeable.
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.
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
does any of that stuff even matter?
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.
#400
DVD Talk Godfather
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.
The selfie stick thing was pretty funny.






