Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[mos6507]

Really good trailer. I'm glad they dropped the nostalgic angle and just went with what they are doing. Excited for this now.

I don't think there's a genuine funny moment to be had.

I am more than happy to laugh at a female comedian (for instance, the female characters on BBT are great) but these characters just seem cardboard flat.

The thing about Ghostbusters is people already knew the "types" based on the prior work from those actors. Ramis and Murray were pretty much playing the same irreverent characters they had already played in Stripes, for instance. And Dan Aykroyd played the straight-man who could go on a Spock like tear describing scientific terms. It's not something we hadn't seen before, so there was very little break-in time necessary to get into the story. But these new Ghostbusters don't seem to have any charisma or personality to them. They just seem like ciphers who are surfing solely on the gimmick of the gender-reversal. That is why people are downvoting the trailers.

The whole plot in the original with Murray wooing Sigourney Weaver. Remember that? Where is ANY of the back-story about these new characters in the trailer? We're told nothing about what their life was beforehand. So we're given no reason to care. They're just stereotypes.

 

[Tosk]

That's a heckuva lot to expect from a trailer.

 

[Greg Cox]

The whole plot in the original with Murray wooing Sigourney Weaver. Remember that? Where is ANY of the back-story about these new characters in the trailer? We're told nothing about what their life was beforehand. So we're given no reason to care. They're just stereotypes.

Um, how much "back-story" is there in most movie trailers? And who's to say that there isn't a romantic subplot in the new movie? Honestly, I'd be stunned if one of the new Ghostbusters isn't wooing or being wooed by someone in the flick. Doesn't mean the trailer is obliged to show it.

Trailers are not book reports, exploring the deeper themes and character nuances of the work. They're commercials.

And, honestly, today's audiences "know" McCarthy and Wiig as much as more audiences knew Murray and Ackroyd back in the day.

 

[Csalem]

International trailer. Lots of new footage. I think it looks better and better all the time...

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

 

[Owain Taggart]

It's the only movie I remember being in the movies all year long. I know things are different now, with even VCRs being new then and no internet services to watch movies, but I never remember another movie being in anywhere near that long, at least in NE PA.

The only other one I can think of would be Jurassic Park. That one seemed to be at the theatres forever.

 

[Csalem]

The only other one I can think of would be Jurassic Park. That one seemed to be at the theatres forever.

Yeah I remember going to see Jurassic Park in the cinema for my birthday and this is in November.
Titanic was in cinema for a long time too. I seem to recall it was still there when it came out on video.

 

[Greg Cox]

I remember "Kramer vs. Kramer" playing for what felt like forever at one of the nicer downtown theaters--which annoyed me at the time because it seemed like a shame to waste one of the biggest screens in town on a domestic drama that would play just as well on a smaller screen.

 

[Paradise City]

I dunno. Seems to me the comedy is overdone. Everyone is wisecrackin' in the OTT way contemporary sitcoms do it. It doesn't seem to be have the comedic equilibrium the first films have. That's my impression of it judging from the albeit very limited perspective of the trailer.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I like the long arms gag in the international trailer.

 

[mos6507]

I dunno. Seems to me the comedy is overdone. Everyone is wisecrackin' in the OTT way contemporary sitcoms do it. It doesn't seem to be have the comedic equilibrium the first films have. That's my impression of it judging from the albeit very limited perspective of the trailer.

Humor's just really subjective, I guess. Some people are eating this stuff up but the only gag in the new international trailer that made me chuckle was the "you're blushing" thing over seeing Chris Hemsworth for the first time.

There's just something inherently funny about Bill Murray in anything he does. He doesn't even need to try being funny. Everything about his delivery and his mannerisms is funny. Just the way he pranced through a scene, his body language, his double-takes, his innate irreverence to anything and everything. I can't seem to key in on anything that engaging with these women. It's then the responsibility of the punch-lines in the script to deliver the laughs and they're really not that good (IMHO).

 

[Saul]

International trailer. Lots of new footage. I think it looks better and better all the time...

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

Yep, looks good but as others here have said we shouldn't judge a movie by it's trailer. So maybe the film will be crap.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Humor's just really subjective, I guess. Some people are eating this stuff up but the only gag in the new international trailer that made me chuckle was the "you're blushing" thing over seeing Chris Hemsworth for the first time.

There's just something inherently funny about Bill Murray in anything he does. He doesn't even need to try being funny. Everything about his delivery and his mannerisms is funny. Just the way he pranced through a scene, his body language, his double-takes, his innate irreverence to anything and everything. I can't seem to key in on anything that engaging with these women. It's then the responsibility of the punch-lines in the script to deliver the laughs and they're really not that good (IMHO).

I feel the same way. The international trailer is the best one, but even there it feels like they're trying too hard to be funny instead of taking the naturalistic approach that made the first film so successful. But as others have said, we can't properly judge the film until we actually said.

 

[davejames]

Ok this movie is finally starting to look pretty good, and the humor seems to be clicking a lot better for me now. And I like that it actually seems to be using all the criticism to it's advantage, with everyone in the movie doubting and underestimating what these women can do and the fact they're forced to overcome all of that and prove themselves worthy.

I agree I prefer the more naturalistic style and humor of the original over this much more slapsticky style, but I also understand it's a different time and this might just have been a better fit with these actresses. So I think I can live with it.

 

[mos6507]

Looks like everyone wants to share their opinion on this one.

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

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Yep, looks good but as others here have said we shouldn't judge a movie by it's trailer.

With my (not unlimited) finances and minimal free time, how else am I supposed to judge if I should see the movie other than the trailer?

Or are we required to see all movies, regardless of time and money, and then say "yup, that was a waste, I should have put that money into giving my kids lunch money for tomorrow instead of letting them go hungry again."*

*Disclaimer, I don't really have kids, but I do like to out my time to things I'm fairly certain I'll enjoy, and like most people, hate to waste money on things I won't.

 

[Saul]

With my (not unlimited) finances and minimal free time, how else am I supposed to judge if I should see the movie other than the trailer?

Read a film review? Flip a coin? Read the Trek BBS

Or are we required to see all movies, regardless of time and money, and then say "yup, that was a waste, I should have put that money into giving my kids lunch money for tomorrow instead of letting them go hungry again."*

You should tell your kids to get a job and stop robbing you of your movie going money. By the age of 3 their hands should be able to use small tools allowing them to work in factories. Some people say 3 is too young, but hey, I don't want to called out as ageist.

*Disclaimer, I don't really have kids.

Are you sure?

 

[JD]

When it comes to trailers, my thought is that it is more than fair to use it to decide you want to see a movie, but it's not fair to say the whole movie was bad just from the trailer.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The thing about Ghostbusters is people already knew the "types" based on the prior work from those actors. Ramis and Murray were pretty much playing the same irreverent characters they had already played in Stripes, for instance. And Dan Aykroyd played the straight-man who could go on a Spock like tear describing scientific terms. It's not something we hadn't seen before

True---they were popular culture fixtures for years, with characters well known to, and often imitated by the public. The audience was primed and ready for the team up in the original GB--long before they knew a thing about the script.

But these new Ghostbusters don't seem to have any charisma or personality to them.

Indeed--its just a spin on what the producers think are versions....samples combinations of the original actors/characters, as if that's all it takes to reel in audiences.

 

[Vendikarr]

A comedy has to have at least one of two things to get me to see it in a theater, A favorite performer or a funny trailer/preview. So far from the trailers available, it has neither. I am leaning towards watching this when it hits cable in a year or so.

 

[ancient]

You're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong, but you're entitled to it just the same.

Actually, the post you quoted was mostly factual, not opinion. The FACT is that women lead action movies have done fantastic for decades. This is not really a point that you can argue, and it's a pretty devastating refutation of the sexism angle. This Ghostbusters movie is a severe outlier from the norm - from that perspective.

I also promised a look though this stuff.

Well, we'll start with bias against women in media:

This stuff is not my forte and I'd rather not talk about it in relation to this movie, it's really not worth the time. Why don't we just talk about how the entire history of the human race is conspiring against a Ghostbusters remake while we're at it.

I could go on, and on and on and on and on, but we're talking about a film here, so I'll keep it relevant to bias against women in media and in the sciences. So we have a film where four female scientists get together and start a business in capturing and detaining the paranormal: spirits, apparitions, ghosts, goblins, specters, and so on.
Sounds interesting, right? Oh, I'm sure there will be a mixed reaction to this. I mean, the movie is touching on some sacred ground, as the original all male cast Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II are pretty well loved by many. How bad of a reception could the movie get by telling everyone the four leads will be women?
http://fortune.com/2016/05/02/female-ghostbusters-trailer/

Ok, talking about hack clickbait bloggers who don't have a clue IS more of my forte. This article is just saying that the trailer was strongly disliked, then leaps to the conclusion that it's sexism, presumably because that will increase the number of clicks. Do not put stock in crap like this. They are making assumptions. Very dramatic, news friendly assumptions that also help the SONY hype machine, nothing more. Go on youtube right now, and search through the reaction videos people have made to find out what their opinions really are, and what their reasons are. You will have done more work than that blogger apparently did.

Stephanie Merry of the Washington Post does one better and outlines what we're seeing, but with some spiffy graphs:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...re-hating-the-ghostbusters-trailer-guess-why/
That is just for this movie. If we get out into the actual politics of what is going on, there is a vast world of information out there I could show you. Whether you accept it or not, it's there if you're willing to look, and like the effects of global climate change, it's going to make itself known to the most oblivious and those who are still deep in denial quite soon.

This is an even worse, and more poorly written article. I hope SONY didn't pay too much for it:

On the trailer’s YouTube page, more than 100,000 people have liked the video and nearly 200,000 have disliked it. That might be a record-breaking amount of hate for a trailer. To give you some context, the official trailer for the recent bomb “Gods of Egypt,” which came under fire for a whitewashed cast, was liked around 10,600 times and got 1,300 dislikes.

Yes, comparing this to that other movie no one has even heard of, or cares about is totally relevant. This person doesn't understand the internet, or what bandwagoning is, or how to properly prove a point.

Even “The Fantastic Four,” one of the biggest bombs of 2015, has more likes than dislikes.

...because fewer women made people...hate it less? This article was written by a simpleton or a SONY marketing shill, I'm not sure which since there is no connecting thread between those 2 thoughts. The first graphic is a perfect example of the sort of statistical tomfoolery I really hate. It got more dislikes than other selected movies huh? Wow, thrilling. It was a bad trailer & it went viral (probably intentionally), this isn't rocket science.
This author also doesn't understand trolling, or pretends not to. But I'm sure the 5 comments listed are totally representative of the entire internet. The thing about the internet is, you can go see for yourself what's going on, making hack bloggers less and less necessary. Speaking of which:

and they’re accusing Sony of deleting comments and altering the stats.

Sony did delete comments. But only non troll comments. Pretty good marketing, it seems to have worked miracles on some people.