GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

e_e

BMMachine wrote: »

Thunderf00t is not a credible source for anything ever. A misogynist disguising himself as an intellectual. He provides nothing but a negative impact on the world and is a horrible little man.

The exact type of cretin I feared would be all over Ghostbusters like a rash

Thank you, thunderf00t is a creepy asshole and one of the biggest bull**** merchants on YouTube. As with the reactionary outcry against Fury Road and The Force Awakens I feel obliged to buy a ticket just to stick it to his type. :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E0p0GQCAM8

As for Ghostbusters other than the new cast the trailer felt like just a standard Hollywood comedy: badly edited, loud and incoherent. Spy was good fun though and it's not like a good movie has never had an awful trailer. I'll see this film just out of sheer curiosity.

constitutionus

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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.

one that springs to mind for me is "Rango".

i had NO idea going in i was getting a spagetti western. the trailer had hints but it came of more as an animated version of "leaving las vegas".

You guys honestly think that the GB trailer is going out of its way to mislead?

Usually the misleading trailers are selling a product to maximise audience, as the core material is not a huge draw. Somehow doubt that this is the case here.

This film is no 'The Grey'

Oh and when it comes to 'Cabin in the Woods' that was a greatly kept secret which did not, at all, detract from the film

Especially as

It was being done to prevent demons actually coming to earth

ShakerMaker91

can you imagine if they decided to reboot Thelma and Louise but had two lads called Tommy and Louie play the main roles people would be asking why have they unnecessarily gender swapped the main characters when there was no need to do it... the exact same criticism applies to Ghostbusters

pixelburp

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

can you imagine if they decided to reboot Thelma and Louise but had two lads called Tommy and Louie play the main roles people would be asking why have they unnecessarily gender swapped the main characters when there was no need to do it... the exact same criticism applies to Ghostbusters

No it doesn't. Thelma and Louise had a thematic reason for its main characters being female. It was threaded into the story. Ghost busters doesnt. Is the gender some strict definite, that ghostbusting is a tale whose relevance and themes can only be properly expressed with a cast of men?

The gender swap is a total gimmick and then some, but it doesn't negate any component of the story, plot, theme or characterisation. It's flipping ghost pest control ffs.

AnonoBoy

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

can you imagine if they decided to reboot Thelma and Louise but had two lads called Tommy and Louie play the main roles people would be asking why have they unnecessarily gender swapped the main characters when there was no need to do it... the exact same criticism applies to Ghostbusters

It really sounds like you haven't seen Thelma and Louise.

On a side note. Reaction videos? I honestly couldn't care less about reaction videos. There's something so "me! me! me!" about them. "Not only do I want to give my opinion but I want to show you my face while I'm watching the video that I'm going to pass inane comments on. I NEED YOU TO SEE ME ALWAYS!"

I feel like I'm too old for the internet today.

e_e

AnonoBoy wrote: »

On a side note. Reaction videos? I honestly couldn't care less about reaction videos. There's something so "me! me! me!" about them. "Not only do I want to give my opinion but I want to show you my face while I'm watching the video that I'm going to pass inane comments on. I NEED YOU TO SEE ME ALWAYS!"

I feel like I'm too old for the internet today.

Red Letter Media did a hilarious parody of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6seIQ8rLp8

silverharp

Anyone spot there is a continuity error .31 seconds . you would think they would check the trailer at least

AnonoBoy

silverharp wrote: »

Anyone spot there is a continuity error .31 seconds . you would think they would check the trailer at least

Good lord!

A continuity error in a trailer? A new level of nit picking has been reached.

What's the error? Not that continuity errors aren't in every film of course.

Anyone check out McKinnon's facial expressions, in the trailer? They are bat**** crazy.

silverharp

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Good lord!

A continuity error in a trailer? A new level of nit picking has been reached.

What's the error? Not that continuity errors aren't in every film of course.

Relax, don't be so defensive , I know most films have them but its amusing that they have one on their trailer.

AnonoBoy

silverharp wrote: »

Relax, don't be so defensive , I know most films have them but its amusing that they have one on their trailer.

I find it funny because trailers show very cut down versions of scenes so normal continuity doesn't apply.

So pointing out continuity errors in trailers is frankly pointless and just shows a lack of understanding of continuity.

What's the 'error' as a matter of interest?

Mr E

International trailer, now with more Hemsworth. A few new gags too. Still looks like great fun (sorry, haters).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32W9GpKB8mA

py2006

Mr E wrote: »

International trailer, now with more Hemsworth. A few new gags too. Still looks like great fun (sorry, haters).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32W9GpKB8mA

Slightly better I guess. Worried that that all the gags have been seen.

Sad Professor

e_e wrote: »

Red Letter Media did a hilarious parody of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6seIQ8rLp8

I think this Funny or Die parody comes closer to capturing the levels of geek outrage to the trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD-4C_npULg

ancapailldorcha

BMMachine wrote: »

Thunderf00t is not a credible source for anything ever. A misogynist disguising himself as an intellectual. He provides nothing but a negative impact on the world and is a horrible little man.

The exact type of cretin I feared would be all over Ghostbusters like a rash

Would he really be a misogynist? I've only seen a few of his videos including this one and never got that impression.

johnny_ultimate

Folks if you want to talk about thunderf00t the Atheism and Agnosticism forum is a better bet, it's dragging this thread off-topic.

Mr E

Mr E wrote: »

International trailer, now with more Hemsworth. A few new gags too. Still looks like great fun (sorry, haters).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32W9GpKB8mA

Not loving the comedy at all but that's a better trailer.
I do like the apparent proton punch a lot

Bacchus

That trailer is slightly better, though I still find Leslie Jones annoying (further evidence of her just shouting her way through the movie and using the colour of her skin as a punchline).

Also, LOL at the updated text at the start... it's now "30 years ago, four friends..." as opposed to "four scientists". At least someone on the production is listening to the feedback

pixelburp

I'm guessing the central gag of Hemsworth's character is that he's the quintessential Himbo / boytoy figure; first time I've heard him speak in a film with what I presume to be his natural accent!

Second trailer in though and I'm still hating Leslie Jones' character. She's a big black woman! Hilarious! She just full o' sass! :rolleyes:

Tony EH

Mr E wrote: »

International trailer, now with more Hemsworth. A few new gags too. Still looks like great fun (sorry, haters).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32W9GpKB8mA

Still shite.

:P

ancapailldorcha

I think I've had enough of samey Hollywood films at this point so I'll be giving this a miss. Spy did nothing for me and this looks like more of the same.

Nody

Bacchus wrote: »

Also, LOL at the updated text at the start... it's now "30 years ago, four friends..." as opposed to "four scientists". At least someone on the production is listening to the feedback

Except two problems; first of all new universe so 30 years ago there were no ghosts and no 4 friends or scientists who did sod all. Secondly they where 4 scientists as the game between movie 1 and 2 confirmed he had a PHD among other things and it was stated the game was considered canon but most whiners don't know that :P.

Deleted User wrote:

I do like the apparent proton punch a lot

Was part of the original trailer as well

ricero

Looks dreadful hope it flops and hollywood learns a lesson

Nody

Nody wrote: »

Except two problems; first of all new universe so 30 years ago there were no ghosts and no 4 friends or scientists who did sod all. Secondly they where 4 scientists as the game between movie 1 and 2 confirmed he had a PHD among other things and it was stated the game was considered canon but most whiners don't know that :P.

Was part of the original trailer as well

Canon but no notification as to field, when bestowed or if honorary?

Yeah but this trailer didn't piss me off so much so I was at least able to enjoy snippets

Corholio

The problem about all the so called 'nerd outrage' is that all honest criticism to the trailer will be bundled in with that and treated as such. It IS actually ok to not like a trailer and to be pessimistic about a film. Of course everyone should wait until the final film to give a proper verdict but as bad as a lot of the 'outrage' has been so has the dismissal of criticism just because a lot of people have got a bit over annoyed.

Links234

Corholio wrote: »

The problem about all the so called 'nerd outrage' is that all honest criticism to the trailer will be bundled in with that and treated as such. It IS actually ok to not like a trailer and to be pessimistic about a film. Of course everyone should wait until the final film to give a proper verdict but as bad as a lot of the 'outrage' has been so has the dismissal of criticism just because a lot of people have got a bit over annoyed.

I'm not hugely enthusiastic about this at all. I'm not sure we needed a new Ghostbusters, the only Paul Feig movie I've seen previously was Bridesmaids and I liked that, but it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about the movie, and after watching the trailers, seeing how much of a horrible stereotype Leslie Jones' character is a pretty big downside. So yes, there is legitimate, honest criticism and a lot of people who dislike the prospects of the movie for valid reasons.

But lets not pretend that a load of people didn't decide they were going to hate this just because the main characters are women. We've literally had someone in this very thread say they'd refuse to take their son to see it for that reason.

BMMachine

another funny thing about how shallow this whole thing is...
The whole Hemsworth thing. Like, in the first you had Jenine who had that great New York accent and was just a kinda work a day secretary with a little New York attitude. She was hardly there as any sort of sexual icon or anything like that.
But now in the new one, its like "lets get a hot male secretary!". Normally, I could not give a f*ck about things like this in any movie, you just take it for what it is, but for me Feig is such an overrated full of crap director that to me it shows exactly what hes interested in - money. To me, hes not about sexual politics and a positive message, rather he uses those ideas to shield the awful humour in his films and cheapness of what hes actually about.

BMMachine

Links234 wrote: »

But lets not pretend that a load of people didn't decide they were going to hate this just because the main characters are women. We've literally had someone in this very thread say they'd refuse to take their son to see it for that reason.

oh thats exactly true. not liking this film automatically puts you standing beside bigots and misogynists. Probably why there is such a huffaw about it in the first place. People don't like it and also don't like a lot of the people that don't like it
and for the record Paul Feig is and always has been 100% full of crap. Awful director who hit it lucky with bridesmaids (lil bit overrated though) and who can't even get the tone and feel right for what a ghostbusters film should be (Max Landis makes a great point on this)