Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[Mr. Adventure]

QUOTE="DigificWriter, post: 11492337, member: 529"]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.[/QUOTE]

Could you link to where you found that?

 

[STEPhon IT]

Canon or not I like what I'd seen so far; it looks funny and McCarthy and Wiig are great. There's one critique I had were the gangs outfit; I was expecting something a little different or stylistic. The hearse was a disappointment but I can hardly wait for this movie.

 

[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.

Could you link to where you found that?

Sure.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/3/11...view-paul-feig-katie-dippold-trailer-analysis

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^thx

 

[Cyke101]

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.

Yeah. Feig stated that he didn't want ghosts to be an accepted reality so that they'd be allowed to be scary to the world. But the cartoon showed that even if you're making ghosts commonplace, there's still plenty of room to make them into legitimate and unique threats. They're a reality, but they're never taken for granted. After all, some of those ghosts were trying to kill people. True, it was rarely outright said or coded that way, but if a ghost is trying to destroy NYC, the intent is pretty clear.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Aside from the opening words being confusing canonically, it clearly states, "30 Years Ago... Four Scientists Saved New York." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like Winston wasn't a scientist in the original movie; he was simply a regular guy being trained for a new job. Working in a science-related field doesn't make someone a scientist.

As to the whole "people hate this movie because the Ghostbusters are women," I say that the tone of the actresses in these roles is what doesn't work for me. If they had cast the Ghostbusters as Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, and Rob Schneider, I would dislike it for the same reason.

 

[davejames]

Yikes, now that would have been some awful casting.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

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

This fancut teaser is much better, thankfully removing the cringe-worthy bits. Sony still has a few months to save this film... hopefully it doesn't end up like FANT4STIC.

 

[Amaris]

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

This fancut teaser is much better, thankfully removing the cringe-worthy bits. Sony still has a few months to save this film... hopefully it doesn't end up like FANT4STIC.

It's okay, but I like the official one because it gives us a bit more to play around with.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Yeah. I certainly wasn't blown away by the trailer, but that's just so cookie cutter. It's no different from all the "fan" trailers people did of STB. The original was still the best.

My apathy was mostly due to the fact I just wasn't that excited about the film to begin with. Ghostbusters has, for me, always been like Indy. Liked it when I was a kid and owned a copy on VHS of the first one, but it never had any lasting appeal like Trek, BTTF, Turtles, etc.

And while I love the idea of a she-boot. I was never blown away by the cast. McKinnon is my favorite SNLer since Fey, and certainly thought she was the best part. I don't know enough about Jones, but the few times I've seen her, I thought she was pretty funny. I adored McCarthy on Gilmores, but haven't liked a single thing she's done since. And I've never like Wiig and find her painfully unfunny.

 

[CRM-114]

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.)

I tend to agree. There were a couple of points where I chuckled to myself, but there were also some spots where I thought "they should've put a funnier joke there."

The vomiting ghost does feel like an attempt to up the ante, since the original Ghostbusters seems to have wisely chosen not to overdo the sliming. This was an especially good choice when you consider they bury the characters in marshmallow at the end.

 

[Mudd]

Looks like a fun movie. I'm in.

 

[Amaris]

Yeah. I certainly wasn't blown away by the trailer, but that's just so cookie cutter. It's no different from all the "fan" trailers people did of STB. The original was still the best.

My apathy was mostly due to the fact I just wasn't that excited about the film to begin with. Ghostbusters has, for me, always been like Indy. Liked it when I was a kid and owned a copy on VHS of the first one, but it never had any lasting appeal like Trek, BTTF, Turtles, etc.

And while I love the idea of a she-boot. I was never blown away by the cast. McKinnon is my favorite SNLer since Fey, and certainly thought she was the best part. I don't know enough about Jones, but the few times I've seen her, I thought she was pretty funny. I adored McCarthy on Gilmores, but haven't liked a single thing she's done since. And I've never like Wiig and find her painfully unfunny.

I can understand that. For me, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, the Star Wars films, the TOS Star Trek movies, Ghostbusters, they helped define my childhood, so they're all pretty special to me. That being said, I have them safely tucked away on my DVD shelf where I can watch them anytime. I want to see what these kids can do.

So far, I'm really liking what I've seen. I think they're striking the right tone, though it's clear they're pushing for a bit more scare than the previous films. I adore all four ladies, though I think Kate McKinnon has already become my favorite character of the group. I think those of us who loved Egon from the original GB will love her character anyway, because while she's different in so many ways, there's this underlying vibe that says they're similar enough that we'll identify with her.

Also, I nearly pissed myself laughing during the wig/hat moment in the film. I don't know why, but it just struck me as hilarious. I did love the "get out of my friend, ghost!" scene from Leslie Jones' character Patty, and of course I love Melissa McCarthy and her little mannerisms (touching the hot object on the counter). I didn't see a lot from Wiig this time around, but maybe the next one will play her up a bit more. We'll have to see.

All in all, I have a good feeling about the film, but even if it turns out to be poorly done, I still have my DVDs all safe and sound. So for me this is a no risk venture.

 

[ITL]

Also, I nearly pissed myself laughing during the wig/hat moment in the film.

I do like a frozen goofy grin sliding into view.

 

[Amaris]

I do like a frozen goofy grin sliding into view.

Indeed. In fairness to people who don't know how that could be so funny, I also state that I am extremely biased in favor of Kate McKinnon (as I'm sure this can be clearly divined from my previous posts).

 

[Jax]

need more original Ghostbusters theme...the trailer did nothing for me

 

[Unicron]

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.

I think RGB had the benefit of some good writers in some episodes who did creative things, and also included the idea that not all ghosts are inherently evil or destructive. Some of them are simply lost souls trying to find their way out of the living world ("The Man Who Never Reached Home" being a good example). I also have a fondness for "Bustman's Holiday" in part because it played around with an interesting concept - a "keystone" ghost forced to haunt an area to atone for some crime or guilt, and whose haunting keeps other spirits involved in the problem at peace so they won't cause problems.

 

[Saul]

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.

They should have said something like "30 years ago a movie defined a generation". Having it be scientists implies that it's in continuity and that this film takes place 30 years later. Of course test audiences responded better to that because they wanted a sequel, not a reboot with the lame idea of "four hilarious women" somehow been a stroke of genius for making the film work. That opening line is more than for nostalgic purposes. It's damage control. Even looking at the official website which is plastered with quotes from the original cast praising the movie it seems to me that they are backtracking a bit. That doesn't mean this film won't be a big success but they do seem worried.

 

[Marsden]

Is it possible that there was something 30 years ago in this movie's setting that's coming apart for these present Ghostbusters to fix?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Leslie Jones defends her character
http://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...es-ghostbusters-criticism-20160304-story.html

I Posted before but still my favorite trailer reedit:

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