Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[jaime]

Have to love Murray when it comes to creative integrity for a project. He deeply regrets ever being involved with GB 2, and I agree with him; the movie was a total turd dump. There were no ideas coming from that movie, there were no jokes no organic conflicts, just a rehash from stuff done well from the first film. It was selling the brand to boost merchandising but the focus should have been about the picture.

I think the merchandise was moving itself off of the cartoon at that point....from a certain perspective it seemed more like film was piggy backing the brand rather than the other way round. I also don't think Gb2 is a bad film, just bits don't work.
Murray had to be 'persuaded' to do the first one after agreeing, so I don't think it's always about artists integrity with him, he's just....vague (same is true for Lost In Translation)
Ghostbusters in the 80s was....big. Internationally big. Bigger than the Mcu is now in a really odd way. All off the back of one film.
Edit:
I would say there's also a ton of stuff in Gb2 that doesn't get enough credit. Time passing between films. Where do you go after averting apocalypse in the end of your first film? The subtle hints that Oscar is Peters son, the millennial tension 10 years early, trying to twist what was an adult concept back round since its biggest fanbase is now children. (that last one doesn't quite work. Slimer and newly punkified janine.) The Rick Moranis stuff doesn't quite work, because Gb2 is lot heavier with intentional comedy than the first, but overall...it's on a par with the first film in lots of places. Ironically it's biggest flaws (almost ignoring the Big Fact of the first film...ghosts are real...and probably way too many daytime scenes and a touch of slapstick with cheaper costuming) are things this trailer looks to be repeating (though as remake cum reboot, it's stuck with ignoring the events of the prior films. Which is fair enough for a remake)

 

[jaime]

I've seen that recently with all the hoo-ha over the new trailer. A lot of those old trailers were pretty terrible such as the Star Wars trailers. It seemed like they more haphazardly selected and edited clips together back then without slick music overlays.

The internet and YouTube evolved the trailer fast. But then also led to people faking shots for them (as opposed to putting scenes that work better in the trailer than in the film, or using scenes that were later removed at release. That's been going on for yonks.)
You want a real laugh, look at the teasers for generations and first contact. Particularly first contact. Guest starring voyager and the ENT D

 

[STEPhon IT]

I can't speak to the trailer, I was about 5 when it came out (I can speak more about 2 lol) but back then there were way way way more tie in promotions, I had a glowing sticker of the Terror Dog from my breakfast cereal I can remember, and eventually saw what was probably a pirate video of it at a friend of my father's house (Even piracy was harder back then, remember kids, always go legit.) I loved the film, loved playing the video games at friends houses and was all about the cartoon for the next 5 years of my life or so....and here's the thing....I would not have got about 90 percent of the jokes in that film (especially not the lines cut or redubbed for the television version I spent that half a decade watching) So it was all about that scifi fantasy drama for little me.

There was a scene where a ghost did the "naughty naughty" to Ray, was that scene really in the actually theatrical movie??? I was shocked and it was very funny at the same time. LOL!!!

 

[STEPhon IT]

I think the merchandise was moving itself off of the cartoon at that point....from a certain perspective it seemed more like film was piggy backing the brand rather than the other way round. I also don't think Gb2 is a bad film, just bits don't work.
Murray had to be 'persuaded' to do the first one after agreeing, so I don't think it's always about artists integrity with him, he's just....vague (same is true for Lost In Translation)
Ghostbusters in the 80s was....big. Internationally big. Bigger than the Mcu is now in a really odd way. All off the back of one film.

Lost in Translation was a great movie, and after GB2 Murray has done some great work to me, well for the exception of Charlie's Angels, but I think it hold true to what he's done.

 

[jaime]

There was a scene where a ghost did the "naughty naughty" to Ray, was that scene really in the actually theatrical movie??? I was shocked and it was very funny at the same time. LOL!!!

It's mangled in the TV edit (you are left assuming a ghost has just hit ray in the nuts possibly in a dream sequence) but yes it's in the film, and was apparently part of a longer middle sequence the cut out part filmed. Pretty awesome ghost in fact.

 

[jaime]

Lost in Translation was a great movie, and after GB2 Murray has done some great work to me, well for the exception of Charlie's Angels, but I think it hold true to what he's done.

I liked Lost In Translation too, mainly for its style and the fact I like Japanese stuff in general. It's a bit too arthouse for its own good sometimes though. I think it's on the directors commentary where it's basically revealed they didn't know for sure he was going to turn up and be in the film literally until they started shooting. There's a similar story for ghostbusters where the director basically picks him up at the airport and basically drag him off to do ghostbusters after he agreed to on a tacit agreement involving his pet project (Razors Edge) gets made. So he finishes making that, and then they physically move him to start work on GB (apparently he was busy making jokes through a megaphone at a crowd or something)

For a professional, and I don't doubt he is, he seems to be unprofessional about things. The Garfield history with him is even funnier.

 

[STEPhon IT]

It's mangled in the TV edit (you are left assuming a ghost has just hit ray in the nuts possibly in a dream sequence) but yes it's in the film, and was apparently part of a longer middle sequence the cut out part filmed. Pretty awesome ghost in fact.

I never saw the TV version, just the Blu ray BTW.

 

[Aldo]

It's mangled in the TV edit (you are left assuming a ghost has just hit ray in the nuts possibly in a dream sequence) but yes it's in the film, and was apparently part of a longer middle sequence the cut out part filmed. Pretty awesome ghost in fact.

I was trying to type it up from memory, but here it is taken from IMDB:

• Ray and Winston inspect Fort Detmerring, where Ray dresses in an old General's coat and falls asleep. When he awakes, he sees a female ghost above his bed. This part of the sequence was kept and used in the montage in the middle of the film.

This is the job that Ray and Winston are driving back from when they talk about the End of Days.

 

[Saul]

Refusing to judge a movie in advance based off of one trailer: Being a reasonable person.

Being a passive person.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

This is the job that Ray and Winston are driving back from when they talk about the End of Days.

Which was a rip-roaring conversation. I was in stitches from start to finish of that scene. HI-larious!

 

[Amaris]

Being a passive person.

Stand up, man. Don't let a movie that doesn't affect you negatively in any way get you down. Be strong. Be... strong. *sniff*
*hums Battle Hymn of the Republic*

 

[Owain Taggart]

I think changing locations would have done wonders for this movie and help it separate itself from criticisms and comparisons and be able to just be its own thing. I said it earlier, but I think a GB in New Orleans would make a lot of sense given the culture. I never really understood why the original movie was set in NY, but then again maybe that was part of the funny.

 

[jaime]

I think changing locations would have done wonders for this movie and help it separate itself from criticisms and comparisons and be able to just be its own thing. I said it earlier, but I think a GB in New Orleans would make a lot of sense given the culture. I never really understood why the original movie was set in NY, but then again maybe that was part of the funny.

Gothic architecture, lot of history for that part of the world, probably some spiritualist church connections,and at the time was just starting to be up and coming again, there were probably a ton of tax breaks for shooting there at the time too.
They filmed Braveheart in Ireland for less reason.

New Orleans does work well, but doesn't have the university set up the story needs.

 

[Admiral2]

I'm amazed this movie is so controversial. Leave it to me to be odd man out twice with the same film.

At first, when I heard it would be directed by the guy who did Bridesmaids I was dead set against it, because I hated Bridesmaids (walked out after the bridal shop scene) and figured a ghostbusters sheboot by that director would blow. Of course, everybody else said give it a chance.

So now I've seen this trailer...I think I'm looking forward to this take after all. It changed my mind.

So of course the trailer's getting dumped on like a statue in a park full of pigeons...

I give up.

 

[Tribbles and Bits]

I don't think we've really gotten any sense of the plot yet. We know it's recapping the premise of three scientists and a layperson uniting to fight an outbreak of supernatural phenomena using makeshift technology, but the only hint we have so far of what it is they're actually dealing with is the reference to someone using a device to amplify those phenomena, which is definitely not something we've seen before.

I'd quibble with this a little bit since Ivo Shandor designed the building in the first movie to be a super-conductive paranormal Antenna. Shandor was long dead in the first movie and not able to actively use his design, but the concept is still there.

 

[jaime]

I'd quibble with this a little bit since Ivo Shandor designed the building in the first movie to be a super-conductive paranormal Antenna. Shandor was long dead in the first movie and not able to actively use his design, but the concept is still there.

I'd say the tech is more homemade rather than makeshift. But yeah, it's like a not dead Ivo by the sounds of it.

 

[Christopher]

I think changing locations would have done wonders for this movie and help it separate itself from criticisms and comparisons and be able to just be its own thing. I said it earlier, but I think a GB in New Orleans would make a lot of sense given the culture. I never really understood why the original movie was set in NY, but then again maybe that was part of the funny.

I think it's about the New York attitude and culture. They get plagued with ghosts? They aren't gonna scream and tremble in fear, they'll just form a business to clean up the darn things. (Although they'll probably use a much stronger word than "darn.")

 

[shapeshifter]

So, how does the original trailer compare for you?
That one was clearly sold as a horror comedy, imo.

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

On a side note: Damb, that trailer spoiled the entire movie!

To be fair, that appears to be the trailer for the re-release. Narration is awful. Flipped between the comedy aspects and the poltergeist style drama. But yeah...saw the whole film right there lol.

No, you've got it flipped. That was the original release trailer, here is the re-release trailer and it highlights the comedy of the film. Isn't it possible the comedy to drama ratio in the new film is flipped for the trailer, that were seeing more of the 'funny' bits than the dramatic?

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

 

[jaime]

No, you've got it flipped. That was the original release trailer, here is the re-release trailer and it highlights the comedy of the film. Isn't it possible the comedy to drama ratio in the new film is flipped for the trailer, that were seeing more of the 'funny' bits than the dramatic?

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

When I clicked the link it ended on a 'back in theatres 2011' logo. *shrug* either way my concern is that the trailer isn't showing me an interesting story concept, doesn't have that much funny stuff either, and shows some stuff that makes me suspect I won't like the tone or the designs. (it later turns out some of the bits I did like in the trailer are from the end of the film according to some reports too)
So, original trailer...decent mix, bad narration, good trailer for its time. This new trailer....is not working for many people, myself included.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I think it's about the New York attitude and culture. They get plagued with ghosts? They aren't gonna scream and tremble in fear, they'll just form a business to clean up the darn things. (Although they'll probably use a much stronger word than "darn.")

I guess there's that, though I took it to mean that in general, there's a rise in paranormal activity and these guys happen to have an idea about how to help and combat the situation, which is something that could happen anywhere. Making a business out of it just seems like a good idea, wherever you are. If there's one thing I would change, it's being able to access them via 911. I wonder if the new movie will touch on that.