Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[DigificWriter]

Hmm, that's strange the trailer was introduced that way. I still like it.

Like I said, Paul Feig revealed that they added the text mention of the previous films because test audiences had responded more favorably to the film when said mention was included in the trailer than when it wasn't.

I still personally disagree with the decision, but there's at least solid reasoning behind it.

 

[Aldo]

I'm now engaging people in discussion on the IMBD Ghostbuster board, I need help.

I had reservations about the trailer when I first watched it. But I gave it a second look and a lot of the stuff I didn't like the first time around didn't seem so bad.

I really think Kate Mckinnon is going to be the breakout actress of this film. McCarthy looks great too, but she's already established, so is Wiig, so it will be nice to see Mckinnon getting some recognition, she really is one of the standout's on SNL. Leslie Jones unfortunately appears to be saddled with the "loud American" role, so I'm not sure what I'll think of her character, but it's certainly not going to sink the movie for me by any means.

The best part is, it just feels like Ghostbusters to me, and I think that's the best compliment I can give to the trailer.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I love Brides Maids so much, I can hardly wait to see something with McCarthy, & and Wiig again. With Ghostbusters I'm happy have two great comediennes + spooky ghost stuff included, oh and Slimer is back so I'm ready to see this movie.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Looks fun to me. Looking forward to it!

 

[Zaku]

A little reminder to everyone that is trying to judge a movie from its trailer.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Just saying...

 

[Tosk]

The trailer was made specifically to try and convince you that the film is worth your time and money. The point of a trailer is to be judged.

 

[hux]

A little reminder to everyone that is trying to judge a movie from its trailer.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Just saying...

So you're saying we shouldn't judge a genuine trailer because deliberately bad made trailers also exist?

 

[Zaku]

Ok, a (real) example.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Drive in was a quite interesting movie. Drive is, for the most part, a slow, classy art film with occasional scenes of intense action perforating long shots of Gosling driving around the city, gazing silently ahead and contemplating life.

But if you judge it by the trailer, you have the impression that it is the next chapter in Fast And Furious franchise.

One woman filed a lawsuit that demanded a refund on her ticket for this misleading trailer.

Woman sues over misleading 'Drive' trailer

The ‘Drive’ lawsuit: A case that encourages suing over misleading film trailers

If this was the discussion for the original Drive movie, at this time we would be talking about why Hollywood keeps doing these stupid movies full of action and violence for a public that is suffering from ADD.

 

[Trek Survivor]

I think this looks terrific, and this is coming from a 30-year fan of the franchise.

LOL at all the people who are saying the cast seem "too comedic"... as opposed to those terribly serious thespians Rick Moranis, Dan Ackroyd and Bill Murray from the originals!!

I still wish this was a sequel (as somebody else said, would've been so easy given the franchise/Inc nature of the concept - every city would want a team, right!? "The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams!"), but am fine with a new version as well. I just want it to be good and this trailer has me optimistic.

 

[Christopher]

The trailer was made specifically to try and convince you that the film is worth your time and money. The point of a trailer is to be judged.

Trailers are commercials. Advertising is not and has never been about accurately representing a product. After all, if that were the case, advertisers would serve no purpose, because the product would speak for itself. Advertising is about embellishing the facts, creating an impression that exceeds the facts. It's about putting a certain spin on a product that you believe will make it more appealing to a given audience. What direction you spin it and what aspects you choose to exaggerate depends on what audience you're trying to sell it to.

And that's the thing to keep in mind. No big-budget movie can succeed by appealing to only a single segment of the audience. You want to appeal to a variety of different tastes. Which is why nearly every movie has multiple trailers, each one geared toward a different target audience. The fundamental mistake I see people keep making is to react to each trailer as if it were the entire ad campaign. We've already seen two Ghostbusters trailers in the past three weeks that presented the film in completely opposite ways -- the Valentine's Day teaser that just had a few ominous images of the city and the cops and military rushing to confront a crisis, conveying the sense of a tense action thriller, and this trailer which plays up the comedy. That's a textbook illustration of how modern trailer campaigns work. No single trailer is the entire campaign. Each trailer emphasizes a different aspect of the movie in order to pique the interest of a different subset of the audience. If one trailer doesn't appeal to you, just wait for the next one -- maybe it'll be targeted more to your tastes.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

I thought it looked... wow, it was just really, really boring to me. The trailer implying that it's an in-universe continuation of the original (and no, it doesn't matter one iota what anyone else said; the trailer directly implied it) somehow just made it worse.

For the trailer itself, the very first scene they showed really set the mood. It lacked anything that made the similar scene in the original movie so good, basically turning into a bathroom joke (and yes, I place projectile vomiting in the same category as pissing and shitting).

Considering that they almost always put some of the most humorous bits into the trailers, and this one was pretty devoid of any real sense of humor (certainly any humor on par with the original), says a lot, too.

Very disappointing. Especially given my obsessive love of Kate McKinnon. (Incidentally, it's a real shame that character wasn't her character in the movie.)

 

[Tosk]

Very disappointing. Especially given my obsessive love of Kate McKinnon. (Incidentally, it's a real shame that character wasn't her character in the movie.)

The hat/wig bit was probably my favorite bit of the trailer.

 

[Samurai8472]

Seems there might be some time hijinks involved

Billboards for Taxi Driver, The Who's Tommy and Isle of the Snake People advertise movies released in 1976, 1975 and 1971, respectively.


Could we end up with a parallel universe by the end of the movie?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Since I guess the whole point of trailers is to get asses in seats they should pay Bill Murray to be in one, maybe show some male ghostbusters too.

 

[Tosk]

Billboards for Taxi Driver, The Who's Tommy and Isle of the Snake People advertise movies released in 1976, 1975 and 1971, respectively.

But the Sony sign remains. 'Natch.

 

[Christopher]

But the Sony sign remains. 'Natch.

Judging from a Google image search, that Sony billboard actually was there in the '70s. I don't think it is still there in the present.

 

[Timby]

Yeah, the trailer does try to portray the film as an extension to the real GB, but maybe it might be after all.

No. One of the main characters in this movie was laughed out of academia for writing a book positing that ghosts might exist. That makes no sense in a world in which a hundred-foot-tall marshmallow man and the Statue of Liberty both went tear-assing through New York City.

 

[DigificWriter]

Trailer text aside (which we now know was included simply for nostalgia purposes based on test response research), this movie has zero connections to the previous films.

 

[Christopher]

No. One of the main characters in this movie was laughed out of academia for writing a book positing that ghosts might exist. That makes no sense in a world in which a hundred-foot-tall marshmallow man and the Statue of Liberty both went tear-assing through New York City.

Wasn't that kind of the premise of Ghostbusters 2, though? That there'd been no ghost sightings for several years and a lot of people had dismissed what had happened as a mass hallucination or drugs in the water supply or something? Not that it was really credible there -- it was one of the things that bugged me about the film -- but they did it. Heck, the 1988 War of the Worlds: The Series, a sequel to the 1953 George Pal film, posited that humanity had mostly forgotten about the alien invasion that had devastated most of the world, due to a combination of willful denial and some sort of alien-induced amnesia effect associated with UFOs. So yeah, it makes no damn sense, but that wouldn't necessarily preclude filmmakers from doing it anyway. I agree it's not what they're doing in this case, but it could've been.

That was one of the great things about The Real Ghostbusters, by the way -- that it just treated ghosts as an accepted reality in the world rather than wasting time on having characters refusing to believe the evidence. I prefer that to the whole cliche of the heroes knowing the paranormal truth that the public denies, which is one reason I've been wary of the reboot's premise. Hopefully they'll find a fresh take on the idea.

 

[B.J.]

Seems there might be some time hijinks involved

Billboards for Taxi Driver, The Who's Tommy and Isle of the Snake People advertise movies released in 1976, 1975 and 1971, respectively.

Huh. Not being familiar with Times Square, I thought that was just a feature of the billboards there, that they all changed at once, and didn't pay too close attention. Guess not! Interesting that the store fronts also change, but the cars do not.