Just about everything in the original library sequence was played for laughs. The whole point was to show that they were hucksters who had no clue whatsoever what they were doing.
Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Just about everything in the original library sequence was played for laughs. The whole point was to show that they were hucksters who had no clue whatsoever what they were doing.
Oh yeah! How could I forget. Like I was saying, they certainly took their job seriously, but they still knew how to have fun with it. That's why I don't understand people's problems with the trailer. Some are upset that there is a light and fun tone to the movie. I get not liking the particular style of humor, but to somehow suggest that the original movies were some grim-dark Lovercraftian tale is strange.Doe. Ray. Egonnnn!
Anything but some thundering brass fanfare intended as a hand-job for fannish expectations, yeah.
I've seen similar things with other fandoms -- nostalgia giving more gravitas to things than they originally had. Like the people who complain about Star Wars Rebels being aimed at kids when Star Wars was always, always meant for kids, or who see it as some big, deep, profound, dramatic epic rather than a bunch of well-made popcorn movies that Lucas made when he couldn't get the rights to adapt Flash Gordon. Or the way not just comic book fans but comic book creators are self-conscious about how adult and serious it all is and how it should be edgy and R-rated -- when the reason they're called comic books is because they were originally a lot of fun, even the adventure strips. I just recently read a couple of collections of the earliest Fantastic Four comics, and it's amazing how jokey and self-mocking they were, with a level of fourth-wall breaking that rivalled Deadpool today.
The thing is, genre fans and creators have worked hard to get taken seriously by society, and while that's been valuable, it's often been taken too far, to the extreme that things that are light or fun or child-friendly get devalued unfairly. Now that SF, fantasy, and comics are respectable, we need to get over that self-consciousness and remember that it's okay to have fun with it.
I'm not particularly nostalgic about the original. It was a funny movie that sold itself largely on the chemistry and interplay of its main cast that made the absurd believable and funny at the same time. But it was four actors playing to their own personal strengths and getting the best out of each other.
With that said this trailer looks awful. It doesn't look awful because it desecrates the nostalgic memories of the original. It doesn't look awful because the viewers are misogynists as some in media claim. It looks awful because it looks like an awful movie purely on its own terms. The dialogue that we have seen is all ham handed and expository. There is not one scene in the trailer in which you can find any chemistry between the cast. and each actor looks like they are trying to play to the strengths of the original Bill Murray and company cast, instead of their own, and failing miserably at it. I don't blame the ladies. I blame Paul Feige and the producers. Who on earth thought this approach was a good idea? They had a good franchise. All they needed to do was hand it off to some new characters. Let them be new characters. A lady team of Ghostbusters? Great! Set them in Boston and have them purchase a franchise from Venkman and Stanz. Let them be their own characters, that play to their own comedic strengths. Let them be unique. Not trying to mimic and retread somebody elses characters.
We've seen roughly 90 seconds of footage. It's really hard to tell if they have good chemistry based on that alone. You can't really say the movie is going to be terrible on such a small sample size unless you already want to it to suck and are looking for any excuse to hate it.
Look, no one's saying that it wasn't full of humor and light heartedness. It just wasn't only a comedy, and certainly not for the sake of only being one. The world also felt real, with only one of the main characters (Egon) feeling more like a caricature than a real person with some quirks. If anything, I'd say it was closer to being a "dramedy" more than a flat-out comedy long before they were really all that common.
The trailer for this reboot, however, is pretty much a straight-up comedy, complete with a heavy reliance on intentionally gross-out and slapstick humor just for the sake of it and over-the-top characters playing everything up for laughs. I mean, one of them is trying to bitchslap a ghost out of the other near the end, for goodness sake. By all means, can you cite a single time Winston did anything like that?
Just feels more like a really long SNL sketch more than anything like the original.
Dramedy? Ghostbusters? Come on now.
Didn't care for the trailer, and thought it was pretty craptacular to be honest. And no, this is not "nostalgia" talking because the first Ghostbusters movie was *ok* at best and the second one was complete shit, nor am I against re-makes because those have been going on in Hollywood since it began a century ago.
Now this is the first trailer and it might just be a sucky trailer that doesn't do it's job well. While I was perfectly fine with the Star Trek Beyond and first BvS trailers, I know a lot of people weren't. In BvS' case, the final trailer was the one that sealed the deal for a lot of people and left them asking why this wasn't the first trailer. So we might see that repeated.
Regardless, I've never given two shits if sequels or reboots have happened with Ghostbusters. It's not a "sacred cow", it's not untouchable and I'm perfectly fine with a new version with whatever gender or race. As long as it's good, that's all that really matters.
Here's hoping that the movie turns out to be something the kids of today love and will be bitching about years down the road when it eventually get's remade again.
Now this is the first trailer and it might just be a sucky trailer that doesn't do it's job well. While I was perfectly fine with the Star Trek Beyond and first BvS trailers, I know a lot of people weren't. In BvS' case, the final trailer was the one that sealed the deal for a lot of people and left them asking why this wasn't the first trailer. So we might see that repeated.
Regardless, I've never given two shits if sequels or reboots have happened with Ghostbusters. It's not a "sacred cow", it's not untouchable and I'm perfectly fine with a new version with whatever gender or race. As long as it's good, that's all that really matters.
Here's hoping that the movie turns out to be something the kids of today love and will be bitching about years down the road when it eventually get's remade again.
It's a trailer. It's supposed to sell the movie. If this thing did not have the Ghostbusters name attached to it you would mentally categorize it in the same rubbish heap as an Adam Sandler or Tyler Perry movie or anything involving any member of the Wayons family. If you take the Ghostbusters name off of it and look at it objectively very few would pay to see this in the theater based on that trailer. If no one told you the title you might reasonably think this was a trailer for "Scary Movie 27 1/2". Remember they typically put the good stuff in the trailer. If the trailer for a comedy isn't funny than they have failed in every way possible. Look at the dialogue delivery. How many times in that trailer are they telling us just how smart these ladies are supposed to be? Not showing us. Not by doing actual quirky smart things ala Egon, but having them pose in front of really cheesy props such as that whiteboard, while directly telling us how smart they are? This is what they chose to put in the trailer. These are the scenes and the lines that they think are among the best. That are good enough to sell the movie. And that should give you some idea of just how badly backed up the toilets are in the Sony executive suites right now as they poop themselves in panic and despair. I mean yeah it could be a "bad trailer". But those generally don't happen. When they do they are colossal screw ups. They certainly don't happen on a studios big tent pole movies. Which means somebody in the production of this thing thought that that trailer was both a good idea and the best they had to offer.
We don't know if this one is either. But at the end of the day, would it really matter if the new one is "only" a comedy? What crime is that?
Yeah, nah.
What point would that serve? Is the slap sillier than three dudes squirting purple ooze on someone to get a ghost out of them?
What point would that serve? Is the slap sillier than three dudes squirting purple ooze on someone to get a ghost out of them?
Or how about having the Statue Of Liberty walk, despite the fact that it's a staute and there are no legs or joints or hinges under the dress. There's a sculpted dress and there's feet. That was just the shittiest part of an already shitty movie. The slap is more amusing than that.
Name one smart thing Egon did that was actually shown on screen. The closest we ever see to anyone building the proton packs is him using a screwdriver on the neutrino wand. He also spouts technobabble. That's really about it. He's being posed with science stuff and saying science-y things. The exact same complaint you have about the new movie.
Egon also made a joke about women's interest in his balls.
Egon was very much the 'Spock" character in the original film. (something that a Trek board should pick up on). Harold Ramis did a huge job of communicating both his intelligence and his semi autistic dysfunction via mannerisms and his dialogue with other characters. Egon is the one providing the analysis and the answers to the other characters questions. We understood from the word go the archetype character he was playing. Nobody felt the need to tell us how smart he was, over and over and over. They didn't pose him in front of a blackboard of jibberish. They communicated it by doing. "Show don't Tell" if you will.
Look as I said I am not seeking to compare this movie to the previous. I certainly do not judge this one based on the prior beyond where it forces itself. And then it only rubs me wrong because even in that short trailer it feels like the 4 actresses are trying to play parts written for other people. Which is never a good starting point. This movie will live or die based on its own sins. It's just there are so many sins in that trailer. In the trailer alone the forced exposition is like being hit with a hammer. That's not bad Ghostbusters. That's not bitching through nostalgia goggles. That's awful filmaking.
Look as I said I am not seeking to compare this movie to the previous. I certainly do not judge this one based on the prior beyond where it forces itself. And then it only rubs me wrong because even in that short trailer it feels like the 4 actresses are trying to play parts written for other people. Which is never a good starting point. This movie will live or die based on its own sins. It's just there are so many sins in that trailer. In the trailer alone the forced exposition is like being hit with a hammer. That's not bad Ghostbusters. That's not bitching through nostalgia goggles. That's awful filmaking.
You still didn't name a single scene.
It's inappropriate to refer to high-function autism as a "dysfunction." It's a way of thinking that's different from the norm but clearly has its own advantages. And it may be a stretch to say that Egon qualifies for the autistic spectrum anyway. We tend to apply that term a bit too glibly and freely these days. Simply having a mind that's more oriented toward patterning and reasoning than social and emotional skills doesn't make one autistic.
I believe the director is on record as saying that he wrote the roles specifically for these four actresses. And it really is premature to judge anything from a few smattered lines and actions in a 90-second trailer. People today are in too much of a rush to form conclusions, to embrace vague first impressions as definitive. Understanding is a cumulative process. It takes time.
To prove pretty much every single thing you and those of a likemind are trying to disprove.
Similar threads
