GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Feig is a lightweight with a single format for these films. It struck paydirt with Bridesmaids and has repeated it into this.

Means that the horror was never going to be looked at. GB was never a horror film mind but had great gorror scenes, as you state

The line, "I don't know if it was a race thing or a woman thing" in that trailer bothered me, because it just seems unnecessary. I cannot remember once ever their making reference to Winston's race in the original movies.

Where the original Ghostbusters excelled was their use of practical effects with a lot of it. This.. this just seems like a cross between the Haunted Mansion attraction ride at Disneyland and Scott Pilgrim vs the World.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_KuLEjkF1E

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

The line, "I don't know if it was a race thing or a woman thing" in that trailer bothered me, because it just seems unnecessary. I cannot remember once ever their making reference to Winston's race in the original movies.

Yeah but Winston struggled to be more than the token black dude in the background.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah but Winston struggled to be more than the token black dude in the background.

Was meant to be Eddie Murphy no? They eviscerated the character after he said no

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

Was meant to be Eddie Murphy no? They eviscerated the character after he said no

According to Aykroyd, but I don't believe him. Winston as originally written was an ex-marine with a PhD, etc. Eddie Murphy doesn't exactly spring to mind. I personally believe Winston was written as white. But then they decided they needed a black dude everyman, cast Hudson and re-wrote Winston to give Murray more screen-time. Hudson wasn't famous, wasn't one of the writers, wasn't the star, so he pulled the short straw.

conorhal

Sad Professor wrote: »

According to Aykroyd, but I don't believe him. Winston as originally written was an ex-marine with a PhD, etc. Eddie Murphy doesn't exactly spring to mind. I personally believe Winston was written as white. But then they decided they needed a black dude everyman, cast Hudson and re-wrote Winston to give Murray more screen-time. Hudson wasn't famous, wasn't one of the writers, wasn't the star, so he pulled the short straw.

As I understand it from the commentary Winston was a late creation. The original concept for Ghostbusters was that there were like a supernatural janitorial service in world where ghosts were an everyday nuisance. They were supposed to be jaded ordinary working stiffs that did pest control. Then the concept changed to a bunch of scientists and they felt they needed a character that fulfilled that original criteria and could act as an audience proxy to ask those questions that inevitably lead to a ream of exposition that explained the mcguffins and the plot, hence Winstons walking tour of the Ghostbusters HQ and how everything works. You get the same thankless character in pretty much every sci-fi or high concept movie ever made.

Bacchus

conorhal wrote: »

5) The horror element that was so critical to what made the first film work seems to have been bungled or it's absent.
The likes of Ramis and John Landis and Sam Raimi in the 80's could adeptly and effortlessly switch between terror and humor in the same scene, Feig clearly lacks this skill. Who didn't crap themselves as the devil dog hunted down Eugene in Central Park and then laugh as everybody in Tavern on the Green casually went back to eating their overpriced entres when it took him out as if nothing happended. That scene had horror, pathos, humor and social commentary. This 'reimagining' looks seriously disposable. Selfies with a ghost? Seriously?

That's a big part of it for me too. Ghostbusters (and the sequel) wasn't just funny, it also scared the crap out of me as a kid. Even the Staf Puft Marshmallow Man started as a funny joke but got pretty horrifying quickly... before being used again as a joke with marshmallow exploding everywhere.

The painting in Ghostbusters II is still up there with the creepiest movie memories of my childhood.... the eyes, just following you around... *shudder* not to mention the bath scene, I nearly leapt behind the couch. I will be genuiely surprised if this remake produces a moment anywhere near that level of horror, nevermind diffusing it in a heartbeat with comedy juxtaposition.

Bacchus

conorhal wrote: »

As I understand it from the commentary Winston was a late creation. The original concept for Ghostbusters was that there were like a supernatural janitorial service in world where ghosts were an everyday nuisance. They were supposed to be jaded ordinary working stiffs that did pest control. Then the concept changed to a bunch of scientists and they felt they needed a character that fulfilled that original criteria and could act as an audience proxy to ask those questions that inevitably lead to a ream of exposition that explained the mcguffins and the plot, hence Winstons walking tour of the Ghostbusters HQ and how everything works. You get the same thankless character in pretty much every sci-fi, high concept movie ever made.

To be fair, they're not always a "thankless character". Yes, you need that kind of character so that the audience can relate to the story... and to allow the script bring in exposition without directly talking to the audience. However, often that character is the main protagonist...
Neo in The Matrix
Luke in Star Wars
Ripley in Alien
Sarah Connor in Terminator
Marty in Back to the Future
Cooper in Interstellar

... and so on. They're all fairly ordinary characters launched into extraordinary circumstances. Winston though was a bridge for the audience to connect with and got half the screen time of the others... but it worked.

conorhal

Bacchus wrote: »

To be fair, they're not always a "thankless character". Yes, you need that kind of character so that the audience can relate to the story... and to allow the script bring in exposition without directly talking to the audience. However, often that character is the main protagonist...
Neo in The Matrix
Luke in Star Wars
Ripley in Alien
Sarah Connor in Terminator
Marty in Back to the Future
Cooper in Interstellar

... and so on. They're all fairly ordinary characters launched into extraordinary circumstances. Winston though was a bridge for the audience to connect with and got half the screen time of the others... but it worked.

Well that's true, but if a switch had occured at the script stage so that the main protagonist of The Matrix was Morphius or Ben Kenobi in Starwars then you'd need a Winston.

Bacchus

conorhal wrote: »

Well that's true, but if a switch had occured at the script stage so that the main protagonist of The Matrix was Morphius or Ben Kenobi in Starwars then you'd need a Winston.

Which is why the main protagonist is usually an average guy/girl so that the audience makes the journey with them. TBH, Ghostbusters already had multiple surrogates for the audience in Venkman, Dana and Louis. We mostly follow the story through them. Winston wasn't actually necessary for explaining the plot details really but he added an extra dimension to the team... the "any man can be a Ghostbuster" angle.

Mr E

Finally a good trailer! Not one joke falls flat, and it doesn't have the AWFUL "is it a race thing or a lady thing?" line.

International Trailer #2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qru-RpA54II

Sadly that line is going to be in the movie regardless.

py2006

I wonder if they did a reshoot/changes after the backlash from the original trailer.

Sad Professor

py2006 wrote: »

I wonder if they did a reshoot/changes after the backlash from the original trailer.

Reshooting the movie to replace the women with dudes would be very expensive.

Osmosis Jones

Yeah the race/lady line is in the second US trailer anyway.

This is a better trailer, but it still doesn't look like a good movie. It just feels like they're borrowing a beloved property to make money, it feels cold and heartless.

py2006

Sad Professor wrote: »

Reshooting the movie to replace the women with dudes would be very expensive.

I wasn't suggesting that. I meant adding scenes/removing scenes or re doing certain scenes etc

Sad Professor

py2006 wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that. I meant adding scenes/removing scenes or re doing certain scenes etc

Sorry, I know you weren't. I meant in terms of the backlash as a whole that's what they would have had to do.

ShakerMaker91

I think from the second trailer its obvious what kind of film Paul Fieg wanted to make: basically a bridesmaids meets the haunted mansion type mash up with the Ghostbusters license veneered on top

I still cant believe Sony gave him Ghostbusters as they surely must have known what he was going to do with it which was basically make it a clone of all his other films

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Sadly that line is going to be in the movie regardless.

It's gas. Everyone talking about how "good" a new trailer is because it's slightly less awful than what came before.

All the other crap we've seen in other areas is still going to be in this soulless drivel.

WoolyJumper

I think its gas how much hate there is for this movie to the point were its the most down voted trailer on youtube when its far from the worst movie ever made. After seeing the second trailer I think it looks quiet good. The problem is people have decided they hate this movie regardless, whether its good or whether it will be just middle of the road. It's gotten far more hate than is warranted. Question is why is that? There have been far worse remakes of much better movies in the past.

Grayditch

I was interested when I saw the cast. I knew it was a good possibility it was going to be very funny, but the jokes in the ads are appalling. I'll be giving this a miss, looks very much like one of the many remakes on the bad side of things.

Tony EH

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I think its gas how much hate there is for this movie to the point were its the most down voted trailer on youtube when its far from the worst movie ever made. After seeing the second trailer I think it looks quiet good. The problem is people have decided they hate this movie regardless, whether its good or whether it will be just middle of the road. It's gotten far more hate than is warranted. Question is why is that? There have been far worse remakes of much better movies in the past.

Because, from what we've seen already, it looks terrible.

It's not rocket science.

BMMachine

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I think its gas how much hate there is for this movie to the point were its the most down voted trailer on youtube when its far from the worst movie ever made. After seeing the second trailer I think it looks quiet good. The problem is people have decided they hate this movie regardless, whether its good or whether it will be just middle of the road. It's gotten far more hate than is warranted. Question is why is that? There have been far worse remakes of much better movies in the past.

2 reasons-
* Some people have standards

* Some people hate seeing women doing things they think men should


unfortunately the two aren't related

FunLover18

BMMachine wrote: »

2 reasons-
* Some people have different standards

* Some people hate seeing women doing things they think men should


unfortunately the two aren't related

FYP

Sad Professor

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I think its gas how much hate there is for this movie to the point were its the most down voted trailer on youtube when its far from the worst movie ever made. After seeing the second trailer I think it looks quiet good. The problem is people have decided they hate this movie regardless, whether its good or whether it will be just middle of the road. It's gotten far more hate than is warranted. Question is why is that? There have been far worse remakes of much better movies in the past.

Yeah it's a bit of a mystery why this film in particular has provoked so much outrage. Hollywood has been doing bad remakes and reboots for years. Devin Faraci wrote an article suggesting it's soft sexism. It's part of it, but I think it goes deeper than that. There's a crisis in movie nerdom brought on by the realisation that nerds no longer have cultural ownership of traditional geek franchises. Ghostbusters doesn't belong to them and whether they go see it or not makes no difference because it's not aimed at them. Hollywood is just exploiting the brand name to make a female-centric comedy for fans of Bridesmaids. This is infuriating for movie nerds, not necessarily because they are sexist, but because they feel powerless to do anything about it.

pixelburp

I think there's a groundswell of noisy anti-SJW/PC types lurking around the internet who have become increasingly emboldened by the media's reporting of their Neanderthal antics (eg. Gamergate), whereas previously they would have been ignored while the world kept spinning & moving on from their world.. Somehow, Ghostbusters has grown into a bit of a rallying cry for their perceived cause; that the cultural dominion of the straight-white-male is no longer absolute. The poor pets. What a world we live in a world where those pesky feminists have even managed to take over our fictional, traditional blue-collar jobs! :rolleyes:

Not that I think this Ghostbusters film looks good: those two new trailers have done nothing for me, and the humour looks as awkward and half-baked as ever. It's not uncommon for trailers to use different takes than the final product, so I really hope this is the case here because some of the line-readings in these trailers are really bad. And it's not like the cast don't know how to rattle off a funny or two - they're all funny women.

silverharp

it just looks like a bad movie compared to the original. Star Wars is female led and no backlash , there have been reboots like the Karate kid or Robocop and they were so so movies and probably nobody cared that much for the originals anyway. here they have taken a movie where it looks like the fans wanted at least a passing of the torch from the originals in some way and they are not getting it plus the style of humor is more slap stick and the special effects look weak

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I think there's a groundswell of noisy anti-SJW/PC types lurking around the internet who have become increasingly emboldened by the media's reporting of their Neanderthal antics (eg. Gamergate), whereas previously they would have been ignored while the world kept spinning & moving on from their world.. Somehow, Ghostbusters has grown into a bit of a rallying cry for their perceived cause; that the cultural dominion of the straight-white-male is no longer absolute. The poor pets. What a world we live in a world where those pesky feminists have even managed to take over our fictional, traditional blue-collar jobs! :rolleyes:

Not that I think this Ghostbusters film looks good: those two new trailers have done nothing for me, and the humour looks as awkward and half-baked as ever. It's not uncommon for trailers to use different takes than the final product, so I really hope this is the case here because some of the line-readings in these trailers are really bad. And it's not like the cast don't know how to rattle off a funny or two - they're all funny women.

This would make more sense if there also wasn't a load of female YouTube reviewers also calling out this totally unsubtle Girl Power resurgence as too in your face.
They want women to organically be part of the team (as they should be) as opposed to any fair or unfair perceived message.

It's a pity because Wiig is funny, in a slight cringe way, which would have lent to this.

Don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid had the team been mixed genders and colours.
Still think that these trailers (and the emails which leaked) would still have been hated though. They really are pants.
The originals worked for me because they mixed tone from horror to slapstick to deadpan wit in a single scene. This is forcing the comedy

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

it just looks like a bad movie compared to the original. Star Wars is female led and no backlash , there have been reboots like the Karate kid or Robocop and they were so so movies and probably nobody cared that much for the originals anyway. here they have taken a movie where it looks like the fans wanted at least a passing of the torch from the originals in some way and they are not getting it plus the style of humor is more slap stick and the special effects look weak

Star Wars screwed up though by pushing Finn as the lead, prerelease, to the point where people are expecting more from him.
But it completely worked with Rea no problem. Hunger games was an "original" IP, not at all Battle Royalle again perfectly well female led.

80s Robocop was loved but yeah more of a cult following IMHO but the reboot has been slated far more than it deserved.
Karate Kid didn't get enough crap. It's kung-fu and in China as opposed to Karate in LA, led by Smith Jr

Much of the nerd rage aimed toward the film, to me stems from the fact that the nerds and fanboys won but now they have no idea what to do. Right now and for the foreseeable future most cinemas are going to be showing little more than generic comic book fare and fan boy favorite adaptations which will have the Internet up in arms over the simple fact that someone has dared to touch a beloved classic that in reality isn't all that great a film. I liked Ghostbusters, it's a fun film that I loved as a kid and can still enjoy as an adult but can see the films many flaws. Same goes for most films from my youth, they hold up well but so much of it is nostalgia and sadly so many can't pick up on that simple fact.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Much of the nerd rage aimed toward the film, to me stems from the fact that the nerds and fanboys won but now they have no idea what to do. Right now and for the foreseeable future most cinemas are going to be showing little more than generic comic book fare and fan boy favorite adaptations which will have the Internet up in arms over the simple fact that someone has dared to touch a beloved classic that in reality isn't all that great a film. I liked Ghostbusters, it's a fun film that I loved as a kid and can still enjoy as an adult but can see the films many flaws. Same goes for most films from my youth, they hold up well but so much of it is nostalgia and sadly so many can't pick up on that simple fact.

Huge flaws (especially GB2) but on balance great flicks. This reboot "looks" like a one dimensional comedy vehicle, hope that I'm wrong as none of this is the actors fault.

johnny_ultimate

There's no escaping the fact that the visceral, extreme nature of the 'backlash' has been driven by the fact women are the leads. Before I get poked with pitchforks, I will stress there are legitimate concerns beyond that - that the trailers fail to inspire much confidence primary among them. But there have been bad trailers before, and there have been unnecessary remakes of classics before (not a goddamn peep about Terry Gilliam having the tenacity to remake La Jette :pac:). There's even been a pretty weak Ghostbusters film before! The sheer hysteria on display over this one in particular has undoubtedly been driven by the gender swap, and that has mixed with the general... cautiousness about the end product expressed by more reasonable critics (many of whom have expressed their opinions in this here thread) to create something that is a whole new level of wild, baffling internet outrage.

But yeah, if nothing else, it does provide something of an insight into contemporary fan culture that somebody more academically inclined than I am should do a thesis on. Hollywood has succeeded hook, line and sinker in making borderline zealots out of some franchise fans, and they've also triumphed in peddling refined nostalgia. With this film, though, the status quo has been shattered, and turned what is a mostly harmless if inherently cynical big-budget reboot, like so many others before it, into a mini culture war. As somebody who really couldn't care less about this film one way or the other (apart from my beyond false hope that it will be brilliant, just to watch the world burn) I look forward to observing the continuing madness.

Oh, and this will still make ****loads of money, thus proving the disparity that exists between web outrage and box office returns.

silverharp wrote: »

Star Wars is female led and no backlash

Actually, it did - for having female and black characters - albeit from a particularly horrid, reactionary minority. They made enough noise to draw attention to themselves, but thankfully they were largely ignored as the bigoted jackasses they were.

WoolyJumper

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's no escaping the fact that the visceral, extreme nature of the 'backlash' has been driven by the fact women are the leads. Before I get poked with pitchforks, I will stress there are legitimate concerns beyond that - that the trailers fail to inspire much confidence primary among them. But there have been bad trailers before, and there have been unnecessary remakes of classics before (not a goddamn peep about Terry Gilliam having the tenacity to remake La Jette :pac:). There's even been a pretty weak Ghostbusters film before! The sheer hysteria on display over this one in particular has undoubtedly been driven by the gender swap, and that has mixed with the general... cautiousness about the end product expressed by more reasonable critics (many of whom have expressed their opinions in this here thread) to create something that is a whole new level of wild, baffling internet outrage.

But yeah, if nothing else, it does provide something of an insight into contemporary fan culture that somebody more academically inclined than I am should do a thesis on. Hollywood has succeeded hook, line and sinker in making borderline zealots out of some franchise fans, and they've also triumphed in peddling refined nostalgia. With this film, though, the status quo has been shattered, and turned what is a mostly harmless if inherently cynical big-budget reboot, like so many others before it, into a mini culture war. As somebody who really couldn't care less about this film one way or the other (apart from my beyond false hope that it will be brilliant, just to watch the world burn) I look forward to observing the continuing madness.

Oh, and this will still make ****loads of money, thus proving the disparity that exists between web outrage and box office returns.



Actually, it did - for having female and black characters - albeit from a particularly horrid, reactionary minority. They made enough noise to draw attention to themselves, but thankfully they were largely ignored as the bigoted jackasses they were.

I think a lot of people have already decided they don't like it so at this point for them it will make no difference whether its good it or not. Even if it was critically acclaimed you would still have people claiming its that worst movie ever. For what its worth I don't think it will be bad or particularly amazing. I'll watch, probably enjoy it and get a few laughs from it but nothing more than that. At the same time I never thought the original was a master piece so maybe it's because I don't have the same connection or nostalgia around the original. Either way from the trailer the movie looks fine, its a C+ but people are reacting like its the devil incarnate coming to steal their childhood and I just don't get it.

Grayditch

It is a bit harsh the way upon it's release, all original copies of Ghostbusters will be wiped from their formats and all memories of the original will fade from memory almost instantly. That's what people are probably angry about. The way that always happens.

Heckler

Ah look, I was 11 when the original came out. I saw it in a cinema where they showed Bugs Bunny cartoons before the main movie, you could still smoke and there was no such thing as emergency lights. When the main movie came on it was pitch dark.

The opening scene in the library I nearly shat myself. Still a great jump scare.

The movie was iconic for so many people. Venkman was an outstanding character.

From the outfits to the eyesearing neon ghosts and the brutal humour it just looks terrible.

Yes its true. This man has no dick.

This one is never coming close.

e_e

Grayditch wrote: »

It is a bit harsh the way upon it's release, all original copies of Ghostbusters will be wiped from their formats and all memories of the original will fade from memory almost instantly. That's what people are probably angry about. The way that always happens.

First they took our video games, now it's our Ghostbusters!!!

I'm so rational. :mad:

Grayditch

e_e wrote: »

First they took our video games, now it's our Ghostbusters!!!

I'm so rational. :mad:

Just remembered I'll have to forget Ghostbusters on the C64. I mean it was terrible... Actually maybe I won't miss that memory so much.

Grayditch

Grayditch wrote: »

It is a bit harsh the way upon it's release, all original copies of Ghostbusters will be wiped from their formats and all memories of the original will fade from memory almost instantly. That's what people are probably angry about. The way that always happens.

More like
Viewer: "I like the IP, I hope that they make more in the same tone/strucutre so that I may continue to enjoy new stories in the universe"

Studio Exec: We're rebooting; scrapping the characters, tone, horror, wit, and look while ramping up the slapstick

Viewer: FFS (angry face)

FunLover18

Heckler wrote:

The movie was iconic for so many people. Venkman was an outstanding character.

I don't know what rating this movie will have, more than likely a 12A but there's every chance this movie is going to be iconic for some of the younger generation. I'm sure in the 80s there was some old fuddy duddy who thought the original was **** as well.

Grayditch

Just don't put any hopes in reboots/remakes. Ever. They're hardly ever good. It makes life a lot easier. Don't get me wrong. Watch them, but don't stress yourself over them. They're gonna happen. Release control!

In return you get the nice odd surprise like (for me) Vacation and Robocop, Judge Dredd.

e_e

Deleted User wrote: »

More like
Viewer: "I like the IP, I hope that they make more in the same tone/strucutre so that I may continue to enjoy new stories in the universe"

Studio Exec: We're rebooting; scrapping the characters, tone, horror, wit, and look while ramping up the slapstick

Viewer: FFS (angry face)

This is more of a misguided response to the appalling marketing than the movie itself though.

If I was to judge solely based on a trailer I would have actively skipped Everybody Wants Some!!, Eye in the Sky and Deadpool, all films I enjoyed in the past few months.

e_e

e_e wrote: »

This is more of a misguided response to the appalling marketing than the movie itself though.

If I was to judge solely based on a trailer I would have actively skipped Everybody Wants Some!!, Eye in the Sky and Deadpool, all films I enjoyed in the past few months.

Trailers are there to entice, they are failing.

The Sony leaks have not helped the cause either in fairness

Grayditch

I think Kingsman had the most underselling trailer in years.

Ghostbusters still might be good, but a bad trailer will influence whether I go see it in the cinema or not.

Tony EH

Grayditch wrote: »

It is a bit harsh the way upon it's release, all original copies of Ghostbusters will be wiped from their formats and all memories of the original will fade from memory almost instantly. That's what people are probably angry about. The way that always happens.

While this obviously won't happen, bad/failed remakes and reboots poison the well of the original as were, for a lot of people.

Granted, when something is rebooted well, like the Apes series, most people are fine.

But, when it's an obvious name rape of a beloved item, people are going to get pissed off.

This effort looks like it's falling into the latter category, from what we've seen so far.

Osmosis Jones

e_e wrote: »

This is more of a misguided response to the appalling marketing than the movie itself though.

If I was to judge solely based on a trailer I would have actively skipped Everybody Wants Some!!, Eye in the Sky and Deadpool, all films I enjoyed in the past few months.

As viewers we are totally entitled to judge the movie off the promotional material we're given, shouldn't have to pay to watch a movie just to form an opinion, at that stage it's too late and the studio have my money anyway.

johnny_ultimate

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

shouldn't have to pay to watch a movie just to form an opinion

Have highlighted the pertinent bits there.

You really should watch a film before forming an opinion on whether it's any good or not. I'm surprised I'm even typing that sentence.

You can say a trailer is a bad trailer, and that it doesn't make the film look particularly good. But it is impossible and slightly mad to form a definitive opinion on the film itself based on a trailer.

FunLover18

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

As viewers we are totally entitled.

There are of course people with legitimate concerns but this sums up the arguments of the people against this movie perfectly imo.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Have highlighted the pertinent bits there.

You really should watch a film before forming an opinion on whether it's any good or not. I'm surprised I'm even typing that sentence.

You can say a trailer is a bad trailer, and that it doesn't make the film look particularly good. But it is impossible and slightly mad to form a definitive opinion on the film itself based on a trailer.

I can form a definitive opinion on PAYING (that's the really important word that you left out) in a cinema or waiting for Rental/Netflix based on marketing /reviews.
With kids I can not afford to waste my very limited entertainment time on something which everything points to being crap

OttoPilot

Does anyone else find the Leslie Jones character stereotypical and slightly racist?

FunLover18

FunLover18 wrote: »

There are of course people with legitimate concerns but this sums up the arguments of the people against this movie perfectly imo.

It's not a free service. If you have to pay then you are entitled to something