GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

BMMachine

py2006 wrote: »

Not necessarily, as it would still be the same script, director, production etc. Wiig and McCarthy are fairly decent. Not sure about the other two.

"also not feig directing" which would mean a different script and production.

and no, melissa mccarthy is sh*te

AnonoBoy

BMMachine wrote: »

nope, its rubbish.

You thinking it's rubbish doesn't change the fact that it was very successful.

frostyjacks

I'm not a fan of this SNL brand of humour. It's too smug, too knowing.

AnonoBoy

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not a fan of this SNL brand of humour. It's too smug, too knowing.

Totally different to Bill Murray's smug, knowing brand of SNL humour!




Ah no - I'm with you, I don't think this looks great at all.

S.M.B.

BMMachine wrote: »

"also not feig directing" which would mean a different script and production.

and no, melissa mccarthy is sh*te

But Ivan Reitman is the one producing the movie and played a bigger factor in the script and production than Feig?

What more could the fans ask for?

Apart from a replica or the franchise to be locked away forever.

I'm still baffled by all this to be honest.

pixelburp

SNL is one of those cultural elements of America I've simply never got: I understand it's about a bazillion years old at this stage, and, like other comedies such as The Simpsons has outlived its glory years, but the comedy has always seemed broad to the point of non-existent. Sketches delivered hurriedly and often flat as a pancake by awkward guest-stars. Dunno, just don't see how the show continues to exist.

Tony EH

iguana wrote: »

Has it backfired? The movie hasn't been released yet and a an awful lot of reviews of the trailer are good. A lot of people online think it looks great and are excited by it. I don't think it looks great but trailers aren't always a great way to gauge the film and even if the trailer is an accurate representation of the film that doesn't mean it will flop just because it doesn't match my tastes. I didn't like bridesmaids but afaik, it did pretty well. I hated Transformers but it was far from a flop and spawned a whole load of sequels. So I'm copped on enough to know that me not liking something doesn't equal it being a failure.

IMO it's backfired terribly yes.

Also, I am seeing WAAAAAY more of a negative reaction to this than a positive one. The official trailer is just a day old and already has garnered a tremenous amount of negative votes on YouTube in a fashion I can't recall seeing before.

I think the negative reaction everywhere is topping out over the positive, of which a large amount simply seems to be a reaction itself against the amount of negative reaction to the film.

In addition, films don't have to be good to be successes. 'Transformers' proves that spectacularly. They also don't have to be successful to warrant a sequel either. Breaking even is often good enough. i wouldn't be surprised if this thing did actually do ok, by hoodwinking unsuspecting and undiscerning movie goers at the BO.

In any case, EVERYTHING about this stinks of a lazy cash in on a famous title and the trailer has done nothing to allay those suspicions.

I'll be more than happy to eat my hat if I turn out to be wrong. I was when 'Mad Max' turned out to be great, when everything about it looked dodgy.

I think my headgear is safe this time around though.

BMMachine

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You thinking it's rubbish doesn't change the fact that it was very successful.

you are confusing popularity with quality

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

SNL is one of those cultural elements of America I've simply never got: I understand it's about a bazillion years old at this stage, and, like other comedies such as The Simpsons has outlived its glory years, but the comedy has always seemed broad to the point of non-existent. Sketches delivered hurriedly and often flat as a pancake by awkward guest-stars. Dunno, just don't see how the show continues to exist.

Because some Americans have an over enthusiastic approach to entertainment. They can be too positive about something, choosing to ignore the failings in a given item, rather than address it.

I'm not sure why that is, but it exists nonetheless.

It can be a good thing sometimes, but often it just lets mediocrity pass as successful.

I've been to some comedy gigs over there in different states and the reception to unfunny material is remarkable. And yes, I know comedy is a highly subjective sphere, but there are limits.

I'm with you on SNL though. I have never understood it. Some stuff works on occasion, but that should would have been dead years ago if it was on the BBC.

As for 'Ghostbusters' (1984), that isn't a laugh out loud comedy fest either and a lot of the humour barely raises a chuckle at best. But it works, because the film presents itself in a fairly modest way with and doesn't outstay its welcome.

It's still beyond me how successful it became. I remember 1984 as the year of 'Ghostbusters' and 'Gremlins'. They were the must see films when I was a little school kid. Although I personally prefered 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'.

timmyntc

Tony EH wrote: »

The, frankly stupid, all woman gimmick is just that. A gimmick, used to make a quick buck, before this nonsense is confined to the "shouldn't have happened" bin, along with the remake of 'The Wicker Man' et al.

Not the bees!










....I enjoyed the Wicker Man remake for its comedy value

Tony EH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1GadTfGFvU

razorblunt

That was a pretty awful trailer. Admittedly I'm a Ghostbusters fan and had low expectations anyway but it was just ... meh.
Didn't make me angry ... it just mad me disappointed.

I know as soon as Melissa McCarthy got slapped she was going to say "that's going to leave a mark".
It's almost a staple of a comedy forcing things, similar to how someone said SNL and The Simpsons outstay their welcome, they try to push the funny.

"that stuff gets in every crack ... it's not good"
"the hats too much right? ... was it the wig or the hat"
Not exact quote but you get the gist.

Skerries

somebody has edited the video to get rid of all the crappy exposition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0

Riesen_Meal

Skerries wrote: »

somebody has edited the video to get rid of all the crappy exposition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0

Just came here to post it, made me happy for a minute, then I remembered the original trailer....

iguana

Tony EH wrote: »

i wouldn't be surprised if this thing did actually do ok, by hoodwinking unsuspecting and undiscerning movie goers at the BO.

But if that happens it hasn't backfired. The purpose of the movie is to make money and sell merchandise. If it does that, and it well might, it's job done as far as the studio is concerned. Nobody involved in making it will think it's a stunt that backfired if they make a decent profit, no matter how scathing the reviews. I don't think it looks great, I don't like McCarthy's brand of comedy but I don't automatically think it's going to flop. I think it's too up in the air at the moment.

As for the original, I love it. And I even like number 2 just fine, in fact the courtroom scenes in 2 are some of my favourite from either movie and the idea to have their triumph at the end of the first one turn to dirt by the start of the sequel was bold. But the original has some serious issues, most notably the way Zeddmore's character was shredded at the last moment and some of the sex stuff in it is just weird and bizarre. What makes it great is the cast's chemistry, some fantastic one liners, mainly from Murray, the theme tune and to be totally honest, how it makes those of us in our 30s and 40s feel about our childhoods. This reboot could be awful but for all we know there are a bunch of 6 year olds out there now who come 2046 will remember this reboot as fondly as we remember the original, not because it's especially good but because of how awesome they feel watching it.

conorhal

Well I watched the trailer and I have to admit it made me smile and I felt an unsurprising twinge of nostalgia, too much nostalgia in fact as I began to wonder, isn't this all a bit too familiar? Ghostbusters seems to be going the route of Starwars, a straight-up remake with endless fan references and call backs to the original to sell a second rate clone to the fans by banking heavily on nostalga.

Scientist Geeks set up a ghost busting outfit -check
Early on they test their theories on a library ghost -check
Sombody's gathering and concentrating spiritual energy in a New York art deco building somewhere - check
Seems it results in a giant phantom waking through the streets of Manhattan - Check
People get slimed, slimer shows up, Ecto1 is reborn, everything old is new again Check.Check. Check.

I'll be unsurprised if sombody turns into a dog....

Mickeroo

I think that Fancut trailer is just further evidence that the art of the trailer is dead, the official one is just your standard "show the whole film in 2 minutes".

faceman

Tony EH wrote: »

I've been to some comedy gigs over there in different states and the reception to unfunny material is remarkable. And yes, I know comedy is a highly subjective sphere, but there are limits.

This comes up a lot and I used to agree but now I understand it better. I've performed comedy many times in the US, both East and West Coast. The US has a different culture and British style comedy that we're used to is quite different to a traditional US sitcom.

To flip it, Father Ted does not travel well. I've had people tell me it was one of the worst things they've seen. But then again they've no context to an Irish sense of humour and why as satire Father Ted works for us locals.

It's not that any particular country's comedy is superior or inferior to another's. Tastes and cultures are different.

wrote:

As for 'Ghostbusters' (1984), that isn't a laugh out loud comedy fest either and a lot of the humour barely raises a chuckle at best. But it works, because the film presents itself in a fairly modest way with and doesn't outstay its welcome.

Completely agree. It's a very dry comedy. This new trailer reeks of cheap slapstick and gross out comedy. Teenagers will love it.

BoJack Horseman

Terribly made trailer.

Full of that loud 'thuding/punchy' sound effect that infests all trailer.... which kind of works in a deadpool trailer, but was terrible in this.

Aside from that the film itself looks poor.
ISIS is funnier than Kate McKinnon.

AnonoBoy

BMMachine wrote: »

you are confusing popularity with quality

No I'm not. I never said it was a film of any quality.

It's just that you seemed to be denying that it was very popular and successful which is silly because it clearly was.

Tony EH

iguana wrote: »

But if that happens it hasn't backfired.

You're missing the point. The central gimmick has backfired in that it's gone a long way to generate a lot of negative reactions. And I'm not talking about the "feminist" nonsense from the more challenged parts of webland. People, rightly, feel that it's forced and unnecessary. In fact, nobody that I've talked to thinks it's a good idea. Men or women. When something is shoehorned in that, people start rolling their eyes. They see through it.

iguana wrote: »

The purpose of the movie is to make money and sell merchandise. If it does that, and it well might, it's job done as far as the studio is concerned.

They're not films I am interested in. Neither is that type of mindset. It's one that rewards mediocrity and leads to a dumbing down across the board...

...and Adam Sandler careers.

iguana wrote: »

Nobody involved in making it will think it's a stunt that backfired if they make a decent profit, no matter how scathing the reviews.

And thus the problem with a huge percentage of Hollywood films.

We really need the 70's to happen again.

Goldstein

Bombs away.

buckfasterer

Given how good special effects are these days, this should be amazing. But no, its going to be ruined by Hollywood trying to be cool and different putting 4 women as the main characters. Nothing against 4 women, your just comparing it to the original. Its like they remade Godfather and it was renamed Godmother :eek:

Tony EH

faceman wrote: »

This comes up a lot and I used to agree but now I understand it better. I've performed comedy many times in the US, both East and West Coast. The US has a different culture and British style comedy that we're used to is quite different to a traditional US sitcom.

To flip it, Father Ted does not travel well. I've had people tell me it was one of the worst things they've seen. But then again they've no context to an Irish sense of humour and why as satire Father Ted works for us locals.

'Father Ted' is awful in places and the comedy doesn't always work. Morgan's timing, especially, can be off by a country mile. I'd well understand that 'Father Ted' wouldn't do it for a lot of people, I seen it first hand. In fact, I think 'The IT Crowd' was a far superior production in every single way.

But, I'm not just talking about comedy. In other areas of entertainment, American audiences display a, frankly, bizarre level of over-enthusiasm.

faceman wrote: »

It's not that any particular country's comedy is superior or inferior to another's. Tastes and cultures are different.

Agree completely.

faceman wrote: »

Completely agree. It's a very dry comedy. This new trailer reeks of cheap slapstick and gross out comedy. Teenagers will love it.

It looks terrible and that's my absolute honest assessment of it. It looks soulless and without any kind of originality. A vehicle designed to reap reward on a title and idea that it doesn't deserve.

buried

At least we can be thankfull that, unlike the 1984 film, you can bet 10 times your mortgage that in 30 years time nobody will want to remake this souless $hite

iguana

Tony EH wrote: »

You're missing the point. The central gimmick has backfired in that it's gone a long way to generate a lot of negative reactions. And I'm not talking about the "feminist" nonsense from the more challenged parts of webland. People, rightly, feel that it's forced and unnecessary.

Shoe-horned in? Because the main cast members of a movie are made up of the majority gender of the country it's made in? I hate to break it to you but an awful lot of people think it's a great idea. The internet is full of people who absolutely hate the idea of this movie, either because they loved the original and don't want to see the ghostbusters recast as women or because they loved the original and hate Paul Feig movies (which is about how I feel about it). But this movie/ trailer is like Marmite and an awful lot of people are really excited about it and think the trailer looks great. Either because they are psyched to see women ghostbusters or because they actually really love Paul Feig movies. And hard as it is to fathom, an awful lot of people really do love Paul Feig Movies.

I had sort of being holding out a shred of hope that Feig would be channeling his Freaks and Geeks era self in the making of this movie. There was a point when Linda Cardellini was rumoured to be in consideration for this. That's a movie I'd be really looking forward to. This one, I'm not. I'll watch it, maybe even in the cinema but I doubt I'll enjoy it anywhere near as much as the originals. But I don't think it will be a failure as Feig/McCarthy/Wiig etc are really popular and as well as that lots of little kids will bug their parents to take them.

Tony EH

iguana wrote: »

Shoe-horned in? Because the main cast members of a movie are made up of the majority gender of the country it's made in? I hate to break it to you but an awful lot of people think it's a great idea.

I haven't seen that. Not by a long shot. And by "shoe horned in", I mean that it's an awfully laboured gimmick. Forced and uncomfortable.

Look, I couldn't care less who's in it. They could have cast it with CGI dogs for all I care.

But it's still a gimmick.

iguana wrote: »

The internet is full of people who absolutely hate the idea of this movie, either because they loved the original and don't want to see the ghostbusters recast as women or because they loved the original and hate Paul Feig movies (which is about how I feel about it).

Agreed. But Interwebland is a place that's chock a block with hate. Make up your own mind.

Go and see it if you want to, or don't.

I won't.

iguana wrote: »

But this movie/ trailer is like Marmite and an awful lot of people are really excited about it and think the trailer looks great. Either because they are psyched to see women ghostbusters or because they actually really love Paul Feig movies. And hard as it is to fathom, an awful lot of people really do love Paul Feig Movies.

I don't see that either. Most of the "positivity" seems to be stemming from a reaction to the negativity. Sure there are probably some out there that think this will be good fare. But there's absolutely nothing to warrant such a thought, or to back it up, from what we've seen so far.

Boo Radley

Serious question: I see people saying it's gimmicky having women cast as the Ghostbusters, but would it be any less gimmicky if they were men but different characters (even if only by name) to the originals?

Ghostbusters aren't a real thing, and aren't inherently male. So the women being gimmicky argument is a load of sh¡te. Gimmicky might be 1-Direction being Ghostbusters.

I'm willing to give it a chance. If it's a turd it's a turd, if it's fun then that's good news. Let's not sh¡t the bed just yet.

(Oh and pssssst, the originals will still exist untouched. Remember how Total Recall was remade and was so bad most folk don't even remember it and the original is what comes to mind when it's mentioned? So yeah, there's that.)

silverharp

the feminists are happy with it :pac: . In the hope that Hollywood stops jumping on every bandwagon, I hope it flops. Without any prompting from me my 11 year old son said the trailer didnt look good so there might not be much parental pester power for this one.

they couldnt even get the trailer right, there werent 4 scientists in the original movie

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/03/03/ghostbusters-trailer-destroys-patriarchy-melissa-mccarthy-paul-feig-kristen-wiig-leslie-jones-kate-mckinnon-chris-hemsworth/81258406/

5 times the new 'Ghostbusters' trailer destroyed the patriarchy.......

spacecoyote

Have to agree with some prior posters

I've no qualms with the cast, the biggest fall down of this is its tone.

I remember as a kid being scared out of my skin & hiding behind the sofa at the library scene. It's one of the lasting memories of movies from my childhood.

This doesn't seem to have any of the scares or even a hint of them. The ghosts might not look terrible, but they certainly don't look scary in any way.

The Nickelodeon comparison is probably the fairest one to my mind.

None of the jokes landed for me to be honest. I actually didn't even manage a smirk.

Much as the idea of not seeing a Ghostbusters movie in the cinema seems absurd to me, I really think I'll be skipping this one