Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

That doesn't hold so strongly. Think of the context involved. They've more resources now than before to see that it won't be as good as heralded as the first JP when they're older. Sure. They'll all love it and be fond but will it really hold? Doubt it. Older films have been able to be held higher based on the culture evolution and the resources to maintain it so. Films today have it harder than before. Shit. Avengers has more going for it to stay remembered as a sigular film than JW does. Just cuz of what it does. Franchise or not.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

It's a completely different landscape. I hoarded my favorite movies and watch them constantly. But my options for entertainment were far more limited. My kids are 10 and 12 and while they enjoy movies (always want to see the newest Pixar flick, loved Civil War, etc.) they rarely rewatch anything. It's all about YouTube videos of people playing Minecraft or "did you know?" type clips about random topics. They just aren't "movie watchers" like my wife and I were at that age.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

You're lucky. I've seen "Frozen" over 100 times now and "Tangled" almost as many times.

And "Hotel Transylvania 2" three times this week.

Fuck.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

^ yeah well, my niece and nephew outright think Pixels is a better movie than Wreck-it Ralph.

My kid loves HT2, Wall-E, Wreck-it Ralph, and Inside Out. I guess I'm lucky it's not Frozen. :)

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I've actually become very fond of Frozen.

Or maybe it's just brainwashing.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

They were definitely more like that when they were younger. Now that they are picking their own entertainment, they've moved away from movies. It's all about the YouTube clips these days.

As in, I've only seen Frozen once and that was in the theater. And we own it. And I liked it. They just don't want to sit down and watch a 90-minute anything. Which is fine with me, actually. I didn't do what my parents liked to do and they don't have to do what I liked. But I can also see they won't have the same attachments to the movies of their childhood as I still do.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

My parents are still traumatized by the amount of times I watched "Yor, the Hunter from the Future," "Krull," and "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn."

I don't think they'll ever recover.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Oh man, I was right there with you on Krull. Hell of a lot of Beastmaster too.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Jesus. Some of you parents here are just bitches with your kids. Fuck that. My dad or mum would let me watch something once and have me move the fuck on. It's a shared household. None of that bullshit you lot let your kids pull. Fuck that.

You're a fucking adult. Take command. Jesus.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Says he with no kids. ;)

You're right, though. Fuck it. Me and the kid are gonna watch Human Centipede tonight, and if she doesn't like it she can go to bed with NO stories!

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Krull certainly isn't a classic, but I watched the hell out of it when I was a kid.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

1) Calm down
2) I have more than one TV
3) I didn't sit and watch the movie with them every time. I was often reading or working on another project, or in another part of the house watching what I want, or outside working in the yard, or 1 billion other things

As a parent, having uninterrupted time to accomplish the things you want to do is a really great luxury. My own parents worked on a lot of projects too, so when I was watching Ghostbusters for the 100th time, it's not like they were being denied the TV.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Is this bluelitespecial?

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

No, I am not the Angry Video Game nerd, I saw that on youtube, and thought about posting it here. But that video is very well done, and explains everything wrong with this movie, without it being about hating it for being a gender bender.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I'd say the Angry Video Game Nerd makes a more logical argument (though still flawed. I don't think getting Murray back in a jumpsuit to pass the torch was ever likely) than any of BLS'.

But the way he says "review" makes me want to discount everything he says.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

To hell with Dr Spock, Dr Snake is now my go to for parenting advice.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I'm convinced he's joking entirely. I mean... that Star Trek V thing... in the frame for the entirety of this video...

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I agree with them on that I am pissed we now have to refer to the REAL Ghostbusters movie as "The Original" or "The 1984 version". :grumble:-ohbfrank-

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Meanwhile, fans of monkey Ghostbusters have to cry their own bitter tears.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cast_photo.jpg

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Uh oh, don't post that in the Sequel/Reboot thread. He referred to SW:TFA as both.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Brad Jones(The Cinema Snob) on youtube has probably the best response on why he won't review this version of Ghostbusters, this is an awesome watch.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I loved watching the old Angry Video Game Nerd's videos. He voiced all my childhood anguish over crappy and unfair video games.

I agree with him on the ghosts seen in the trailer. "Haunted Mansion" was the first thing that came to my mind when seeing it.

His argument about having no connection the original film being "a shameless attempt to bank on the name" is pretty weak. 1983's Scarface and 1986's The Fly were remakes/reboots that were just as good, if not better than the originals, and used the same titles, and had NO continuity to the original films. And the studio is not taking advantage of title alone. Slimer, Ecto-1, the proton packs are all featured. The logo is the same, they have similar uniforms.

It's also funny that he argues that calling it something "stupid" like Ghostbusters: Re-energized or Ghostbusters: The Next Generation would have been better than simply calling it "Ghostbusters."

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Seems some people really give too much of a fuck in not giving a fuck to watch a film.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Was? WAS? It IS a classic! :mad:

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

That won't happen. It's only been like 9 months since the shitty Vacation sequel/reboot/shitpile and nobody has any doubts about what film is being referred to when you say something like, "I love Vacation, it makes me laugh every time I watch it.

This Ghostbusters will be instantly forgotten. Its reputation for being hated will probably be remembered longer than the film itself, and even then I give it 6 months, tops.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

:lol: The Star Trek V thing is just a standee he has because he has his basement set up like an old school rental store and just has various things like that.

I dunno I do kind of agree with what he's saying though. Sony is definitely banking on the name value the franchise has drawing in bigger crowds. Yeah it is a Ghostbusters film but the first trailer kind of made it seem like its a sequel which it really isn't and was sort of misleading.

I think all he meant is that it would have been better to differentiate it by calling it something slightly different or had it used a subtitle so it isn't called Ghostbusters again.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Yeah, but that's case with every remake. That alone doesn't discredit it's integrity. They do remakes because there's already an established fanbase/potential audience, or familiar with the title, so they don't have to spend extra advertising dollars on public awareness.
And it's not like Jem, where they take an 80s cartoon property about a pop singer with superhero granted powers by a sentient computer, and turn it into a conventional teen movie.
If it was about two women who are mediums and exorcise the dead spirits from people's homes, or if it as a drama about dealing with the ghosts of the pasts, and they called either of those films "Ghostbusters" then the AVN would have a point.

Agreed, but the rest of the trailer pretty much implies that these four women are the first ones to create the idea of a company that deals in busting ghosts.

Like I said, most people don't have a problem with Cronenberg's The Fly, or DePalma's Scarface. Why should the title of "Ghostbusters" for a remake of Ghostbusters be any different? And wouldn't using a subtitle like Ghostbusters: The Next Generation imply it's a sequel and not a remake?
And they can't call it something different, like Ghost Exterminators, or The Frighteners because they're clearly using the same things the original Ghostbusters used: no ghost logo, proton packs, Ecto-1, etc.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

To your last point, I would say that the difference is that Ghostbusters is much more well known and beloved than the examples you gave. Granted there probably are remakes I'm not thinking of that are as classic and use the same name but I get what James is saying. A subtitle isn't completely necessary but I think if it put out there in the title that it's not the exact same name it would have helped. I don't think a subtitle would have implied a sequel either as the only sequel in the franchise thus far is labeled with a number.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I'm not familiar with either, are the original films cult classics, huge successes or were highly regarded?

If not, it seems like an apples and oranges comparison.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Bad example with the original Scarface. But as far as the original "The Fly," starring Vincent Price, it was a commercial success, and became a cult classic. I have never seen the film in my life, but even I know about the "Help me...help me..." scene. My parents saw the original, remembered it fondly, and they also saw the remake, and I never remember them criticizing it anyway.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I wonder if the Angry Video Game Nerd was as riled up when Total Recall and RoboCop were remade, also with the exact same fucking title as the original movie. Oh wait, he wasn't, and actually liked the new RoboCop.

Now, he can say that because Ghostbusters is important to him, and that it was "supposed to" have a sequel for the last 30 years, that he thinks the new movie shouldn't be called Ghostbusters. However, that's some pretty self centered reasoning.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

This is true about GB being even more well known and beloved. Real Ghostbusters was awesome, and every kid I know was a fan, had the action figures, etc. But everything is going to become like that because of how merchandising is getting more and more crazy, and how pop-culture and nostalgia is constantly getting referenced with the advent of youtube and social media. I thought remaking the Karate Kid was blasphemy, with Jackie Chan beating up little kids, compared to the Yoda-sized Pat Morita taking on bullies three times his size. But the film did $$$ and a lot of people loved it.

As far as sequels using numbers go, many well known 80s franchises started with numerals, and ended up using subtitles.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Terminator: Salvation
Terminator: Genisys

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers
Halloween: H20

The Karate Kid III
The Next Karate Kid

I think it's pretty obvious that if a new film doesn't have a number or a subtitle, and it has the same name as a previous movie with a similar concept, usually it's a remake.

Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween, and Friday the 13th, were remakes in the mid-to-late 2000s, and I don't remember too many people complaining about lack of a secondary sub title.

And I'm glad that we never got a Ghostbusters III. The first film was special, and I would rather not see elderly versions of the 'busters. Ernie Hudson didn't age too much though, besides some gray.

@bluetoast
Good point. There were some people upset about remaking Robocop, but overall, I don't remember the lead up to the film being released having nearly as much criticism compared to what's being mentioned here (numbers, subtitles, etc). Maybe it's because, despite Robocop and Total Recall being science-fiction, they were considered mainstream, action films that virtually everyone liked. The original Ghostbusters, despite being highly successful, is almost talked about as a cult classic in some ways. Maybe because the main characters are scientists and nerds, and it borrows heavily from Lovecraftian lore, it speaks more directly to geeks and nerds and we want it's fandom to remain exclusive.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Truthfully in spite of his name he's not always actually angry. The Angry Video Game Nerd is just the character most people associate him with. Most of his film reviews he doesn't tear movies apart but reviews them as fairly as they deserve. He mentions in the video that Ghostbusters is a franchise he loves so that's the reason for the video in this case. Also he doesn't exactly trash talk this film either. Essentially he just doesn't think it looks good and is saying he won't see it. My guess is that he's gotten questions from his fanbase on his thoughts too.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Yeah I was just referring to him as his well known name, I know he's in James Rolfe normal mode in the above clip. I've seen some of his movie reviews. Doesn't change the fact that his rationale for the title of the movie was off. I'm not talking about his reasons for not seeing the movie based on the trailer, etc.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

I guess I understand what he means though and truthfully I agree with his stance that a lot of films are "name makes" in that they don't relate to the original films but are just using a name to capitalize on a pre-existing franchise. I get why it's done but it is irritating and especially like he mentions when you have some of the original cast still around and the fiasco it was to get a new film and after all this time they'll be showing up not as the parts they played but as random cameos is dumb. Also he makes good point I think in why the female cast has been such a focus of debate. The original film is so beloved that calling this new film the same thing but basically being entirely unrelated makes the fact that the cast members are female the only real thing to distinguish the two.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Yeah, but at this point he has to accept that there will never be a movie with the original guys in their original parts. If he thought that Ghostbusters as a franchise would be done with because Harold Ramis died, he's living in dreamland. The studio will move on, and those leaked emails showed the bad side of the negotiating process with respect to Ivan Reitman and Bill Murray.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

He acknowledged the troubled road the sequel has had though and it sounds like he's doing a follow up video on just that. I think he knew it wasn't happening but like a lot of us wanted it to. I think also he probably feels like it's insulting to put the original cast in but not really utilize them meaningfully.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

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
 

Hopefully he'll go in-depth and discuss the emails, since those actually go into pushing Reitman out and forcing Murray to act in it.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
 

Awesomely fun movie. And that leading man had such exquisite hair. I could just put on some Scissor Sisters and run my fing--- wait, what?