GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Mr E

Trailer #3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5YUUVKfVh4

Chip Whitley

I dunno, I'm looking forward to this, think I'm in the minority though. I like the casting, the ghosts look good to me and I like what they've done with the theme. I'd go see it for Kate McKinnon alone though, love that woman. Every trailer has put a smile on my face.

Hoping this will surprise some people.

Bacchus

That trailer looks a little bit better, certainly not the stereotype spewing trainwreck we saw in the previous trailers. Still one for BluRay release though IMO. The ghosts still feel overly used, wrecked by CGI and are super neon colourful.

BMMachine

different trailer, same crap humour.

when that ghost gets sick on wiig I imagine that being Paul Feig doing the same all over VHS tapes of the original films.

In other news, there is a Lethal Weapon tv show. Because crap people like crap things and crap things are popular so expect those crap standards to be layered over something good in order for people to be able to justify their crapness.

Looper007

I don't see this ending well for the ladies and Paul Feig, it was always going to have a uphill battle once they said they were having a all female cast. It was a brave move that doesn't seem to have paid off to well right now, it would have probably still have got hated on even if it was a male cast but not as bad as these trailers get.

Unless Critic's give it some of the best reviews and it turns the tide, I can't see this making big money but you never know maybe the non die hard Ghostbuster fans will turn out for it and I'm sure many who are thumbing it down will go see it once.

But it was always a bad idea from the beginning even touching a well loved classic.

BMMachine

If it was an all male cast I imagine it would be Seth Rogen and his cadre of morons laughing to themselves about how god damn funny they are so on the whole Im kinda glad its Feig + bad women comedians instead of Rogen + bad male comedians because at least this way misogynists get angry

There's already an All-Male Ghostbusters movie in the works, isn't there?

It doesn't bother me that it's an all women cast. More power to 'em. What bothers me is that 1) it just looks like a rehashing of the better movie(s) (because I really like Ghostbusters 2) that came before it, 2) despite the 32 years that was between the original and this, the graphics in the latter look almost worse than the former, 3) it looks like it won't have the humour, the wit, or the charm that was in the Akroyd/Remis script.

py2006

Not as bad me thinks...

syklops

Billy86 wrote: »

300cc's of thorazine.

Who the f*** brings that on a date!? :pac:

I assumed it was the standard sort of funny exaggeration that people do, and it fits Venkmans character perfectly. Like someone goes "I must have had a gallon of vodka last night". They didnt have a gallon because they'ed be dead. They maybe had half a bottle, but its just what people say. No-one actually eats a horse when they are hungry. They just say they would.

Billy86

syklops wrote: »

I assumed it was the standard sort of funny exaggeration that people do, and it fits Venkmans character perfectly. Like someone goes "I must have had a gallon of vodka last night". They didnt have a gallon because they'ed be dead. They maybe had half a bottle, but its just what people say. No-one actually eats a horse when they are hungry. They just say they would.

Even if was a half of that, it's still an insane amount. Christ, even if it was 10% of that it still begs the question... who brings a strong sedative on a date?

Ruxjit

That was so bad, I couldn't even finish the trailer

syklops

Billy86 wrote: »

Even if was a half of that, it's still an insane amount. Christ, even if it was 10% of that it still begs the question... who brings a strong sedative on a date?

You completely missed my point.

Billy86

syklops wrote: »

You completely missed my point.

Was the point that he had no thorazine? If so, how did he sedate her?

Links234

It's looking considerably better than in the first trailer.

Slydice

Well crap, it looks like they spoiled

that Hemsworth is the villian and Stay Puft Marshmallow Man will be in it

. I hope they haven't given away too much.

FunLover18

Slydice wrote: »

Well crap, it looks like they spoiled

that Hemsworth is the villian and Stay Puft Marshmallow Man will be in it

. I hope they haven't given away too much.

I think it's pretty clear that

Hemsworth is possessed. Also I thought it was the Stay Puft Man but I think it's a ghost like the one in the logo.

Here's a pic of the action figure for the big bad.

Slydice

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that

Hemsworth is possessed. Also I thought it was the Stay Puft Man but I think it's a ghost like the one in the logo.

Here's a pic of the action figure for the big bad.

Ah, cool about the baddie. Yeah, I saw

Hemsworth was possessed but the trailer makes it look like Possessed Hemsworth is gonna be the only baddie.

Could be a red herring

Bacchus

FunLover18 wrote: »

Also I thought it was the Stay Puft Man but I think it's a ghost like the one in the logo.

Nah, that's totally the

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

. He even has

little bow tie and hat on

.

Actually, no I think you're right. I looked at the pic of the big baddie toy you linked.... looks like that's who it is afterall. Looks an awful lot like

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

though. In which case, another case of showing complete lack of originality that has plagued the production (from what I've seen). All this "we're different, it's women now" is a smokescreen for what is looking like a straight up remake of Ghostbusters. Swap out Gozer's return generating high levels for paranormal activity with this movies "someones building a device to amplify paranormal activity" it looks very similar. They even have a scene with one of them going ape-sh*t in a restaurant trying to warn everyone.

Still though, that trailer was a slight improvement.

Bacchus

Bacchus wrote: »

Nah, that's totally the

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

. He even has

little bow tie and hat on

.

Actually, no I think you're right. I looked at the pic of the big baddie toy you linked.... looks like that's who it is afterall. Looks an awful lot like

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

though. In which case, another case of showing complete lack of originality that has plagued the production (from what I've seen). All this "we're different, it's women now" is a smokescreen for what is looking like a straight up remake of Ghostbusters. Swap out Gozer's return generating high levels for paranormal activity with this movies "someones building a device to amplify paranormal activity" it looks very similar. They even have a scene with one of them going ape-sh*t in a restaurant trying to warn everyone.

Still though, that trailer was a slight improvement.

The selfie part made me smile but even that looked so forced.

Them in the vortex looks straight out of a video game from the PS3.

Edit: I knew that the look and feel reminded me of something. PS3 game Folklore

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

There's already an All-Male Ghostbusters movie in the works, isn't there?

It doesn't bother me that it's an all women cast. More power to 'em. What bothers me is that 1) it just looks like a rehashing of the better movie(s) (because I really like Ghostbusters 2) that came before it, 2) despite the 32 years that was between the original and this, the graphics in the latter look almost worse than the former, 3) it looks like it won't have the humour, the wit, or the charm that was in the Akroyd/Remis script.

I'd add to that

4) For some bizzare reason the makers have chosen to ingore the prior films and the new film takes place in a universe where the original Ghostbusters don't exist. Why do that?
The 'rebooting' was the most offensive aspect of this to me.
When I heard about the movie I assumed that the women had bought into a Ghostbusters franchise. Which would have made sense since the original concept for Ghostbusters was that they were sort of an everyday supernatural janitorial service, working stiffs that mopped up supernatural garbage.
This would have provided Murry with an opportunity for a great Murry Cameo as slick salesman Venkman selling an overenthusiastic McCarthy an over priced franchise in a business that the bottom has dropped out of and just take it from there. Reboots and re-imaginings of beloved properties always feel like they're taking an inevitable dump on the original.


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?

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.