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.

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/

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

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.

I was just turning your quote into a Ghostbusters reference.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I laughed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.