GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

py2006

FunLover18 wrote: »

Doesn't it?

No it does not. Don't get me started!!!!!


Back on topic....

BMMachine

py2006 wrote: »

No it does not. Don't get me started!!!!!


Back on topic....

oh no, please, do start. Much like anonoboy enjoys people getting annoyed by terrible comedians, i enjoy listening to the flustered gobbledygook of people that are anti-feminist. so by all means, do tell us why feminism is stupid and why thunderf00t isnt a bigoted misogynist

py2006

BMMachine wrote: »

oh no, please, do start. Much like anonoboy enjoys people getting annoyed by terrible comedians, i enjoy listening to the flustered gobbledygook of people that are anti-feminist. so by all means, do tell us why feminism is stupid and why thunderf00t isnt a bigoted misogynist

Start a thread in a relevant forum and I will address the first part.

Anyway, Ghostbusters...

BMMachine

S.M.B. wrote: »

Is Melissa McCarthy even that loud? And does she do that much physical comedy?

yes and yes

I've never watched Mike and Molly so maybe that's where she gets the reputation but I've enjoyed most things I've seen her in.

dont. its proper shite

She's got pretty decent comic timing and I think she could do really well for herself if she distanced herself from this persona.

what is that anyway? always here it thrown out about her but no one else, almost seems like its a needed defense/justification for her hype. theres nothing to her, shes above Kevin James and Sandler but not by much. an actively annoying celebrity. heck, her cousin is Jenny McCarthy - an absolute lemon of a person if ever there was one

AnonoBoy

BMMachine wrote: »

yeah i can't stand sh*t things being overrated then being looked at as an alien if I say so.

Marvel movies (the use of the phrase 'Marvelverse' or 'MCU') - a bunch of 4/10, 5/10 movies hyped to f**k
Deadpool - awful movie with a good character
Melissa McCarthy - covered. loud and annoying isn't funny, if you think it is - sort yourself out
Adele - christ. the Queen of Overrated
any bands like Mumford and Sons and the like - crap on a stick, somehow told they are acceptable. Nickleback levels yet they are the only ones that cop any heat for being awful.
what else annoys the piss out of me.... oh, buses... and slow drivers sitting in the fast lane like a giant egg f**k.
'Reimagining' old films like Total Recall and Robocop (oh and hey, ghostbusters. thats two!).
The Amazing Aethiest and Thunderf00t - social cancer who should be beaten, bullied and burned.
ummmm, im sure theres more.

so there ya go, take your pick there. thats your enjoyment

I'm with you on an awful lot of these things.

I really am. Didn't want to appear like I'm taking the p*ss out of you but I do love a good curmudgeon, makes me feel like I'm not alone!

BMMachine

py2006 wrote: »

Start a thread in a relevant forum and I will address the first part.

Anyway, Ghostbusters...

you brought thunderf00t into it. if you are going to bring a sack of crap into a thread at least back it up.

py2006

BMMachine wrote: »

you brought thunderf00t into it. if you are going to bring a sack of crap into a thread at least back it up.

No idea what you are talking about. Please talk about the movie.

BMMachine

py2006 wrote: »

No idea what you are talking about. Please talk about the movie.

please talk about thunderf00t. he made a video related to the movie and was brought into this thread. you seem to think hes a worthwhile person who isn't really at his core a snivelling piece of crap. you think his stances on feminism (a big theme of the new Ghostbusters, like it or not) are worthwhile and dont make him a misogynist - something that will come up often with this Ghostbusters film - so please, do indulge us as to why.. and yes, it is related to the film as a large portion of the backlash against it will be by people like him and his fans

S.M.B.

BMMachine wrote: »

what is that anyway? always here it thrown out about her but no one else, almost seems like its a needed defense/justification for her hype. theres nothing to her, shes above Kevin James and Sandler but not by much. an actively annoying celebrity. heck, her cousin is Jenny McCarthy - an absolute lemon of a person if ever there was one

What's comic timing? And you think it's something that's only ever used as a means of justifying McCarthys hype?

In saying that, I think Sandler has decent comic timing too. He's just decided to make a career of making unfunny movies with a bunch of his mates for ****loads of cash.

BMMachine

S.M.B. wrote: »

What's comic timing? And you think it's something that's only ever used as a means of justifying McCarthys hype?

In saying that, I think Sandler has decent comic timing too. He's just decided to make a career of making unfunny movies with a bunch of his mates for ****loads of cash.

honestly, its the only time I ever hear it in reference to how good a comedian is. I know what timing is, the old joke - "whats the essence of comedy" and such.
and hey, those same criticisms can be levelled right back at McCarthy.

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfhXxdHv-qE

py2006

Along with McCarthy and Wiig I think Sarah Silverman and Amy Poehler would have been a better choice.

biko

Trailer looks good. I saw a fan-made one that was even better than the real trailer.

FunLover18

Happy international women's day everyone!!

AnonoBoy

biko wrote: »

Trailer looks good. I saw a fan-made one that was even better than the real trailer.

Someone posted it a few pages back alright. Much bettter edit for sure.

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCYL4C7sm5A

Getting away from the casting. Anyone actually enjoy the trailer?
For me it fell flat. Pacing far too slow and no humour for me.
Ghosts, while well defined and animated, were too clean, bright, and cartoony

constitutionus

yeah looks shyte TBH.

weirdly reminds me more of the cartoon series than the movies.

too "polished" or "bright/colourful" or something.

i know the original wasnt exactly grit central but as others had pointed out it had some genuine horror moments.

the lady in the library for instance at the beginning of the first is actually terrifying .

and new york didnt look half as "Clean" as portrayed here.

im not sure going by the tone set in this trailer that ANY of that will be in this reboot, and IMO it is one of the core aspects of a ghostbusters film . its the humour balancing the horror tropes that makes em work. TBH there were moments which screamed "This is made for 3D isnt it?" at me in the trailer .

i dunno. i guess ill go on a wednesday when its free popcorn and coke day in me local and will only cost me a tenner but the hope meter isnt exactly buzzing.

its STILL possible its suffering from "crap trailer" syndrome. god knows marketeers have killed films in the past with em.

py2006

Can anyone think of an example were a trailer was disappointing and didn't do the actual movie justice?

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

Can anyone think of an example were a trailer was disappointing and didn't do the actual movie justice?

Loads of examples, off the top of my head Bridge to Terabithia, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Gattaca, Hellboy and then there are the trailers which completely mis-sell a film such as the trailer for The Grey which made it out to be an action film.



And in relation to the whole Ghostbusters wasn't a kids film, yes it was. It was a film marketed at kids and while it has some quite adult content so did most 80s kids films. Death was a central part to so many of the great kids film of the decade and Ghostbusters sits alongside Gremlins, Return to Oz, Transformers the Movie and so many others as kids films that are far darker and more mature than many adult films. We saw something of a return to that with last years rather dark and brilliant The Good Dinosaur from Pixar which would have felt right at home alongside those films.

The new version of Ghostbusters looks like something kids will lap up, much like with the most recent Star Wars film (which I have yet to see), this is a film for kids that will no doubt pander to the adults who were kids when they first saw it. But at the end of the day, if kids enjoy it and in years to come have an affinity for it then the filmmakers will have done their job.

Arghus

The trailer is nowhere near as bad as people have been making out. Yes, it wasn't exactly sidesplitting but I found it to be pretty much on par with the standard Hollywood comedy trailer. Yesterday I had to sit through trailers for two upcoming attractions - My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 and Central Intelligence - now THEY were awful trailers! This looks like a potential masterpiece in comparison to those two!

We don't know how these jokes are going to play in the context of the movie. Also, as many posters have said, trailers often do a great-job at giving a false impression of the finished film.

The level of hate towards the film is over the top. People are just itching, dying for it to be terrible and every bit of information about it is being dissected and crapped on. Maybe we should wait until the film is out before we pass judgement?

frostyjacks

constitutionus wrote: »

yeah looks shyte TBH.

weirdly reminds me more of the cartoon series than the movies.

too "polished" or "bright/colourful" or something.

i know the original wasnt exactly grit central but as others had pointed out it had some genuine horror moments.

the lady in the library for instance at the beginning of the first is actually terrifying .

and new york didnt look half as "Clean" as portrayed here.

im not sure going by the tone set in this trailer that ANY of that will be in this reboot, and IMO it is one of the core aspects of a ghostbusters film . its the humour balancing the horror tropes that makes em work. TBH there were moments which screamed "This is made for 3D isnt it?" at me in the trailer .

i dunno. i guess ill go on a wednesday when its free popcorn and coke day in me local and will only cost me a tenner but the hope meter isnt exactly buzzing.

its STILL possible its suffering from "crap trailer" syndrome. god knows marketeers have killed films in the past with em.

The brightness and the way some of the special effects were shooting around the screen made me think it was 3D, or at least they toyed with the idea of doing it retrospectively. I would have enjoyed a 3D Ghostbusters, it's the sort of film that would be ideal for that format.

The New York of years ago was a really grimey, rough looking place from the movies of that time...King of New York, Taxi Driver etc. Giuliani really cleaned it up when he was in office.

Nody

Arghus wrote: »

The trailer is nowhere near as bad as people have been making out.

Yes it actually is; between factual errors, the "jokes" etc. I've only found one single reaction video who was actually positive and the level of positivity was basically "Well it's not a total crap movie like everyone says". I've yet to find anyone state they think it will be a great success or expect follow up movies from it. When your trailer gets over 300k negative votes vs. 150k positive you know you've fecked up somehow because 300k people are not all pissing on it because "it's the thing to do".

Yes, it wasn't exactly sidesplitting but I found it to be pretty much on par with the standard Hollywood comedy trailer.

Let's see, Deadpool? Funny. Kingsman? Good. Kung Fu Panda 3? Good. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Good. TMNT 2? Good. The difference? They actually realize they have a heritage to be used and followed. This trailer is like the Pixel movie; complete disregard for any material and only used as an excuse to put people together and tried to turn it into a slapstick comedy. The cast being female or male has nothing to do with it; the simple fact is the script (as far as it has been shown) is simply terrible. Heck even the 20s recut would have people excited at least but all they ended up with was a hack job showing their total disregard for the legacy of it being comical horror and simply going all comical and not in a good way...

Btw; here is the top reaction video to the trailer in views having 1/10th of the views of the original trailer with Angry Joe which sums up a lot of people's opinion.

Arghus

Nody wrote: »

Yes it actually is; between factual errors, the "jokes" etc. I've only found one single reaction video who was actually positive and the level of positivity was basically "Well it's not a total crap movie like everyone says". I've yet to find anyone state they think it will be a great success or expect follow up movies from it. When your trailer gets over 300k negative votes vs. 150k positive you know you've fecked up somehow because 300k people are not all pissing on it because "it's the thing to do".

Let's see, Deadpool? Funny. Kingsman? Good. Kung Fu Panda 3? Good. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Good. TMNT 2? Good. The difference? They actually realize they have a heritage to be used and followed. This trailer is like the Pixel movie; complete disregard for any material and only used as an excuse to put people together and tried to turn it into a slapstick comedy. The cast being female or male has nothing to do with it; the simple fact is the script (as far as it has been shown) is simply terrible. Heck even the 20s recut would have people excited at least but all they ended up with was a hack job showing their total disregard for the legacy of it being comical horror and simply going all comical and not in a good way...

Btw; here are the top reaction video to the trailer in views having 1/10th of the views of the original video with Angry Joe which sums up a lot of people's opinion.

Like I said, maybe we should wait until the film is released before we pass judgement on the finished product.

Edit: I see you're talking about the "simple fact" of the poor quality of the script... Really? You can figure that all out just from the trailer. You also describe it as a "hack-job". Do you posess a time-machine? Have you seen the film? Those judgements of yours seem very definite about what is out there now.

Nody

Arghus wrote: »

Like I said, maybe we should wait until the film is released before we pass judgement on the finished product.

The trailer is suppose to make me want to go see the movie; this trailer has made sure short of everyone standing up and saying it's the best possible means I'll not bother to watch it even when it makes Netflix. That is a complete failure of a trailer and waiting for the movie is not going to change that.

Also can anyone please tell me to whom is this trailer suppose to entice to go watch it? It's a reboot and no connection for the people who saw the originals, for today's youth I can't really see anything that would make a 15 year old go "Wow I so want to see that" over the latest action/marvel/what ever movie as it does not have the A stars in it etc.

A trailer is meant to convey the tone of the film, to attract the audience. It's fair game to discuss it

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A trailer is meant to convey the tone of the film, to attract the audience. It's fair game to discuss it

Of course it is and that's what we're doing. Or is discussion just for those that don't like it?

johnny_ultimate

Here's the trailer for Cabin in the Woods:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsIilFNNmkY

In terms of representing the film, it's absolutely awful, as it gives no major indication of the 'other' side of the story which makes the whole thing what it is. Yet in a weird way I'd almost say it's an effective trailer, in that by cynically misrepresenting the film as a straight horror film it likely helped attract an audience it would have been more difficult to sell the 'reality' of the film to. (one could argue it also withholds its 'surprise' to good effect, too - if there is something really special or unique in a film holding it back can be a good idea).

Similarly, here's the UK DVD cover for the masterpiece Upstream Colour:



This is actively misleading, selling an experimental arthouse film as a horror film. Yet for the distributor it makes a twisted sort of sense, as it's something a casual buyer might pick up if they see it on the DVD shelf with accompanying rave reviews. I'm not approving of it, but I see the twisted commercial logic behind it.

Basically, trailers and marketing materials often give no indication of the final quality or even tone of the film. Their goal is first and foremost to sell a film to a wide audience. And let's be honest: if there is more nuanced, intelligent humour or tonal nuances (which there absolutely might not be) in the new Ghostbusters film that's not necessarily something you can easily sell in 120 seconds, nor is it something a broad audience (and given you are posting on a film message board on an Irish website, you are not this trailer's target demographic) will respond to.

A film isn't its marketing material: a film is itself. There's certainly good cause to be cautious about the new Ghostbusters, but the hysteria on display over an advertisement seems completely OTT to me. If the film is ****, it's ****, that's far from an impossibility (nor is it an impossibility that it's actually good fun, given Feig's track record for making fun comedies - I've seen a few writers point out the trailers for Spy and Bridesmaids weren't representative of final quality). But it will be evident soon enough whether the finished product is up to much, and it'll be the film itself that assessment is based on. Better films than Ghostbusters 2016 (it is pretty safe to say this isn't going to be a paradigm-shifting masterpiece) have had ****tier trailers, after all.

McLoughlin

I guess an animated film might please some people
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/03/08/animated-ghostbusters-feature-adds-clash-of-clans-director/

Oasis1974

Damn its the glass have empty with me as-well complete stinker coming our way I'm thinking. Didn't we do the girl power thing in the 90s?