GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

johnny_ultimate

Quite like the aesthetic they've employed, playing up the neon ghost design and colour palette from the originals. Seems like a vibrant and energetic style that matches the tone quite well.

As enjoyable as the first film is, I wouldn't quite hold it in as high esteem as others - think it works best as a couple of prominent comedians having a laugh in a laid-back and knowingly silly film, with some memorable art design and an iconic theme. It's certainly not 'untouchable' by any stretch, and while I'm far from the biggest fan of most of the people involved in this, I think it would struggle to be an affront to the franchise either, given the directions it has already gone (from animated spin offs and video games to a decent but uninspired sequel).

The_Valeyard

One is not impressed

Basq

For what it's worth, I didn't think the ghost effects looked particularly well..

... I'd call them overly bright and video-game-ish.

C'mon... this:



or this:

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Literally cannot get over how utterly ****e that looks. I made myself go in with an open mind, and it made me chuckle ONCE.
In two and a half minutes, with a promotional trailer, I laughed (mildly at that) once.

The wig gag? Yep, only chuckle for me!

FutureGuy

This looks like a ton of fun and this is from a huge fan of the first film and the cartoon. The second film was crud so if this is better, then great news!

I'm looking forward to it anyways.

I have honestly never seen such preemptive hate for any sequel/remake. The second it was announced that four women would be ghostbusters, the internet had a collective sh!t.

Give it a chance ffs.

EDIT: FCUKING love Slimer

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't think it's harsh to call the trailer a massive mixed-bag: there were little moments that definitely made me laugh, such as the mis-timed 'Lets Go' or the gags with wig heads, but the rest looked like bad slapstick, intermingled with some pretty embarrassing racial stereotyping.

As soon as I saw a still of Jones' "character", I knew EXACTLY what she was going to be like. So there were no surprises there.

If the trailer is anything to go by, this will suck big time. Which, also won't be a surprise.

Like JU, I'm not as big a fan of the 1984 film and think it's hideously overrated by some. But, it was a decent little film that managed to over achieve to a ridiculous degree and it's success was an accident. No more. That success, though, has had Hoolywood execs drooling for 30 years, as they've tried to emulate it. But, that's simply something you just cannot do.

And, going by that trailer...they still haven't.

johnny_ultimate

I think the library scene in the original is my favourite sequence of the series, humour, tension and wonderful art design plus the most endearingly creepy ghost of the lot. Outside that though I think they were always happy to embrace the sillier stuff too - whether through stop motion monsters, a giant marshmallow man or of course Slimer :pac:

Not a whole lot to be gained from the brief glimpses in the trailer, but definitely if they embrace the vividly bright colours in evidence there without going too far down the CG valley it looks like it could be a suitable match for the OTT tone they look to be channelling. Add some playful creepiness and you're away.

Greyjoy

Basq wrote: »

For what it's worth, I didn't think the ghost effects looked particularly well..

... I'd call them overly bright and video-game-ish.

Not just the technical comparison between the two ghosts but the difference in the tone depressed me. In the original the library ghost transforming from old lady to monster is a genuine 'scare' moment but in this new film the ghost just....vomits goo all over Kristen Wiig. There's no shock value, it just comes across as childish.

pixelburp

FutureGuy wrote: »

This looks like a ton of fun and this is from a huge fan of the first film and the cartoon. The second film was crud so if this is better, then great news!

I'm looking forward to it anyways.

I have honestly never seen such preemptive hate for any sequel/remake. The second it was announced that four women would be ghostbusters, the internet had a collective sh!t.

Now hang on there, don't go taking all of us who are less than wowed by the trailer, and lumping us in with the ... knuckle-draggers... who felt Ghostbusting wasn't a job for a woman. It's quite possible some of us aren't wearing our nostalgia goggles you know, and just don't think much of the trailer, regardless of the legacy. You say 'give it a chance', but then you just dismiss those who just did that - that's what a trailer's for after all

The Black Oil

I thought it was alright. I could have predicted the sheer number of dislikes on that Youtube video before this thing went into production. Some of it genuine annoyance, some of it just intolerance, really. It's Ghostbusters for a new century and might work in that context. As a promo piece to get a sense of the characters it's fine. Of course, whether they'll be compelling is another question. I don't know these actors at all, btw.

Duggy747

Looks ok, not a complete shítshow and I don't understand the hatred I've seen elsewhere about the concept of possession at the end..........did they forget about what happened to Sigourney and Rick Moranis? :pac:

But it just looks like they took the concept of Ghostbusters, made everything opposite (Ambulance to hearse, male to female crew, female receptionist to male) and dialed everything up to 11 to almost cartoonish, flanderised levels.

Ghostbusters 2 had some moments (One of the days I'll be getting a huge poster of Vigo's painting done up ) but it ultimately was shíte compared to the 1st film, so that's this film's bar for me to reach.

johnny_ultimate

Duggy747 wrote: »

I don't understand the hatred I've seen elsewhere about the concept of possession at the end

Hi there, welcome to the Internet, you must be new here!

buried

OU812 wrote: »

Looks like the same movie all over again, with marginally less charm...

Lot of that going around lately. Just Another lame hollywood re-hash franchise of a modern popular classic. I'll be ignoring that it even exists.
Bet you all that "Gremlins" is next on the list

teddykrueger

I was approaching this with an open mind as a big fan of the original, but having watched that trailer, it looks terrible.

Tonely, it looks way too zany.

Nerdlingr

Greyjoy wrote: »

Not just the technical comparison between the two ghosts but the difference in the tone depressed me. In the original the library ghost transforming from old lady to monster is a genuine 'scare' moment but in this new film the ghost just....vomits goo all over Kristen Wiig. There's no shock value, it just comes across as childish.

That library scene in the first movie scared the sh*te out of me as a kid (I still remember it to this day) and it was all the better for it!!! This looks like its just pandering too much to the kids with the bright coloured ghosts and puking slime. Such tender lols. At least the diversity issue of black actors not getting good roles is met here. A sassy black woman. How original.

Bacchus

buried wrote: »

Bet you all that "Gremlins" is next on the list

I'd actually like to see Gremlins given another go. The originals are cult classics but far from perfect and the iconic character is a teddy that can be easily be reused (as opposed to having to recast actors to emulate iconic roles from the originals). The sequel in particular embraced the silliness far too much. There's a lot of potential IMO to do a Gremlins right and come up with a new take on it.

For me the initial problem with the Ghostbusters remake was that it's just trying to stick as close to the formula as possible of the original and threw in a gender twist to make it appear like a fresh take. It's just seemed so lazy to me. That's got nothing to do with it being women. It's just that everyone was straight away trying to figure out who was Egon, who was Ray and who was Venkman. I think everyone could tell who Winston was. Right off the bat, the whole thing was lazy. There doesn't look to be anything original in this and from the trailer it looks like a CGI riddled kids movie devoid of the blend of horror and dead pan comedy that made the originals great.

That clip in the trailer of the ghost vomiting goo on Wigg sums it up for me. For a start, it's another example of them making a carbon copy of the original but with the gender twist to make it "original". Second, it shows that they have another differentiator and it's not a good one. The equivalent scene in the original blended tension, character and humour, this rehash was from the Nickelodeon school of comedy.

buried

Bacchus wrote: »

I'd actually like to see Gremlins given another go. The originals are cult classics but far from perfect and the iconic character is a teddy that can be easily be reused (as opposed to having to recast actors to emulate iconic roles from the originals). The sequel in particular embraced the silliness far too much. There's a lot of potential IMO to do a Gremlins right and come up with a new take on it.

Whatever potential there might be, modern Hollywood producers would make a balls of it. Remember the pub scene? A modern day Hollywood remake would have that scene in a wi-fi juice bar

Tony EH

...and it'll be a CGI disaster.

The charm of 'Gremlins' is the puppetry.

Just leave it the fuck alone please, you greedy, money sucking, dirtbags.

iguana

It's hard to tell too much about the tone of the film from the trailer tbh. For all we know the bulk of the slimey silliness was in the trailer and the movie is full of low key moments like the wig prank. I generally dislike Melissa McCarthy's post Gilmore Girls work but she didn't seem too objectionable in this trailer.

That said the offensive shouty black woman stereotype Jones seems to be playing is a really, really bad sign. My guess is that McKinnon and possibly Hemsworth, based on past performance as he's barely in the trailer, will be the best parts of the movie. Whether or not they elevate it enough to make up for what Jones' character appears to be is anyone's guess.

Bacchus

buried wrote: »

Whatever potential there might be, modern Hollywood producers would make a balls of it. Remember the pub scene? A modern day Hollywood remake would have that scene in a wi-fi juice bar

Oh that's very true. I'd still love to see Gremlins given to a good director who's objective isn't to add more PG comedy and mimic the original with CGI gremlins. IMO, it'd have a better chance of doing something fresh with the premise than other bigger 80s brands like Robocop, Ghostbusters, Terminator, etc. Anyway, this is way off topic

You never know though, with the success of Mad Max and Deadpool, being original might be back in vogue with the Hollywood money men

py2006

Bacchus wrote: »

I'd actually like to see Gremlins given another go. The originals are cult classics but far from perfect and the iconic character is a teddy that can be easily be reused (as opposed to having to recast actors to emulate iconic roles from the originals). The sequel in particular embraced the silliness far too much. There's a lot of potential IMO to do a Gremlins right and come up with a new take on it.

As long as they aint cg Gremlins.

paulieeye

HAHAHA the black woman is shouting HAHAHAHAHA

buried

paulieeye wrote: »

HAHAHA the black woman is shouting HAHAHAHAHA

That bit where the black woman roars "I DONT KNOW NUTTIN ABOUT THAT SCIENCE, BUT I DO KNOW THE STREETS" is a utter cringey disgrace

Basq

Is it just me or has the phrase "that's gonna leave a mark" been over-used lately? Just seems to crop up in a fair share of comedies nowadays.

py2006

Still not removing the '3' from the thread title...

humanji

Basq wrote: »

Is it just me or has the phrase "that's gonna leave a mark" been over-used lately? Just seems to crop up in a fair share of comedies nowadays.

I think you're just too old for this sh*t.

py2006

Oooh I finally influenced a moderater. Me special ;-)

Frank Bullitt

No Bill Murray, no Harold Ramis, no Dan Aykroyd, no Ernie Hudson = not Ghostbusters.

I see this as a film trying to step over a movie of my childhood. And for that, it can go and get ****ed.

Aside from the CGI (which in this day and age, has no excuse for not being great) this looks awful. Ill be skipping t and watching the REAL Ghostbusters at home, multiple times.

py2006

Gintonious wrote: »

No Bill Murray, no Harold Ramis, no dan Aykroyd, no Ernie Hudson = not Ghostbusters.

I see this as a film trying to step over a movie of my childhood. And for that, it can go and get ****ed.

Aside from the CGI (which in this day and age, has no excuse for not being great) this looks awful. Ill be skipping t and watching the REAL Ghostbusters at home, multiple times.

Meh, I will go see it and most likely agree with you afterwards...

Frank Bullitt

py2006 wrote: »

Meh, I will go see it and most likely agree with you afterwards...

Ill settle for that. You can watch it for me.

teddykrueger

py2006 wrote: »

Meh, I will go see it and most likely agree with you afterwards...

Same. Though I probably won't 'go' to see it.

I'll watch it and hate it.

Now where is the meme of the Emperor from ROTJ...