Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[jaime]

As I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, comedy trailers, by and large, tend to suck out loud.

Edit:

Boom, there, you finally admitted it -- because it's not the nostalgia trip with a bunch of sexagenarians that you want, that's why the movie will suck. Was that so hard?

No, it's because that would possibly bring the film more success and keep the franchise alive. And it's an idea that others seem to have had, according to rumour, even Sony themselves are considering such an approach. I would have been happy with a continuation of the story via a handing of the torch, I would have been happy with a good remake or reboot, including one with this exact cast. Signs are not promising however, and I dislike the design work.
I wouldn't be so ageist as to assume 60 year olds couldn't make this kind of film though, as that in itself, is something that makes for fine comedy. And Indiana Jones 5 is going to be a thing.

So no...I want this to be good, or I want it to succeed enough that the next film will be better. A bad film kills that prospect. Anything that improves the chances of making more people go to see the film is a good thing. I think a surprise 'its a sequel after all! Look They're Back!' might prove to be popular in this instance.

 

[jaime]

Judging on small sample size is often irrational, despite the fact that most of us, myself included, do it all the time. For instance, the Divergent movie series looks like crap to me, and I have no desire to see it based on the trailers. Is it my right to do so? It sure is. Is it totally rational to do so with just a trailer to go by. Not really. However I at least acknowledge the irrationality of my judgement.

But you have a larger thing to take a sample from. A film is out (and on Netflix I think)
In this exact case, the trailer is what. 70 80 percent of the available data? Plus some stills and interviews.
You can call it a theory if you like, like black holes are, but no one has seen one of those either.
Its not a small sample, it's all of the available data, until the film is released or more stuff becomes available.

 

[Aldo]

I guess optimism is dead. Everything sucks until someone deems it good.

All hail the internet generation. Where everyone is a cynical asshole.

 

[jaime]

I guess optimism is dead. Everything sucks until someone deems it good.

All hail the internet generation. Where everyone is a cynical asshole.

That would be awful. Good thing I was a full on optimist till II saw the advertisement for the film. Then between that and the production miasma, I developed a less positive view. I still hope of course. But man is it a thread.

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

But you have a larger thing to take a sample from. A film is out (and on Netflix I think)
In this exact case, the trailer is what. 70 80 percent of the available data? Plus some stills and interviews.
You can call it a theory if you like, like black holes are, but no one has seen one of those either.
Its not a small sample, it's all of the available data, until the film is released or more stuff becomes available.

It's still a small sample size to me. It makes little difference if the movie is out or not, I'm still making judgments based on the trailer. I'm not talking about critical reviews, or even what my own wife says about the movies (she likes them). Before any of the movies came out and I saw the first trailer, I already wasn't interested. And that is my prerogative, but I still would not have a leg to stand on if I tried to argue the movies were bad, regardless of if the movies were already out.

 

[Aldo]

I don't let behind the scenes shananagains color my view on a film.

 

[Christopher]

What is rational is to say that while this product might look good or bad from the trailer, it is not enough to say it will be bad. What is rational is saying that I hope the movie will be good despite only seening 2 minutes of it. What is rational is to say, despite the fact that the trailer might not be good, I'll reserve my judgement for the movie itself.

This is true, but I would add that, as I've pointed out before, it's not "the trailer," it's one of the trailers. No film has just one trailer anymore. We've already seen a teaser trailer, a US trailer, and an international trailer, and they've all been different from each other. We will inevitably see more, and each trailer will be skewed to emphasize different aspects of the movie, because that is the routine formula used by the small number of marketing firms that make most movie trailers these days.

So we need to stop thinking in terms of "the trailer." Each trailer needs to be understood as just one step in a larger campaign. The teaser and the first full trailer are bound to be deliberately incomplete in their presentation of the film, because some things are being saved for later in the trailer campaign.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

Again, you really don't understand what people are saying. No one is assuming that it will be good. They are hoping. You know there is a difference between hope and assumption right?

Especially when it suits one's narrative, sure. Would it make you feel better if people said they were hoping it was going to be as bad the trailer makes it out? Yeah, didn't think so. But I'd bet you be A-OK if someone said they were assuming it would turn out decent. (You know, like several people have pretty much said, despite your continuous [and tragically erroneous] claims otherwise.)

 

[jaime]

This is true, but I would add that, as I've pointed out before, it's not "the trailer," it's one of the trailers. No film has just one trailer anymore. We've already seen a teaser trailer, a US trailer, and an international trailer, and they've all been different from each other. We will inevitably see more, and each trailer will be skewed to emphasize different aspects of the movie, because that is the routine formula used by the small number of marketing firms that make most movie trailers these days.

So we need to stop thinking in terms of "the trailer." Each trailer needs to be understood as just one step in a larger campaign. The teaser and the first full trailer are bound to be deliberately incomplete in their presentation of the film, because some things are being saved for later in the trailer campaign.

I think atm this is The Trailer in much the way that there was once The Dress. (Liz hurley or that colour change thing...depends on age.) There doesn't seem to be a huge difference between the trailers either, but I agree with you, it is part of a larger marketing campaign. Hopefully whatever they give us to go on next will provide a boost of positivity to those like myself.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I don't let behind the scenes shananagains color my view on a film.

Especially when we're basing it on a 4chan post that can never be confirmed.

 

[jaime]

Especially when we're basing it on a 4chan post that can never be confirmed.

Or on leaked emails on wiki leaks. Two people fighting for star billing never hurt Star Trek.

Flipping this around, focusing on one of the things that keeps the hope alive....what do people think of the 70s time travel stuff in there?

 

[Trekkin]

Can you imagine if we'd had the Internet when something like Casablanca was in production?

"They've been working on it for how long, spent how much, and are freaking shooting without an even half-finished script? No wonder it's trailer looks like shit!!

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

And who is this Ingrid Bergman woman anyway. All she's done is a bunch of German crap and one horror movie. This is gonna be the Worst. Movie. Ever."

 

[Awesome Possum]

Star Wars seems to have a disaster during filming and was only saved with editing and with the score. You can't ever judge a movie until you see the final product. There are amazing movies that went through a hell of a production and terrible movies that had no trouble at all.

The only difference is that a lot of people want this movie to fail just so they can say "I told you so".

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Wiig was wasted in The Martian. Nothing against her, the script just gave her nothing special to do. She was just there. For what little it required, the part could have been played by basically anyone.

True. The Martian was not a particularly worthwhile use of Wiig's immense talents. Her performance wasn't definitive. But she was a useful part of an enjoyable ensemble. Playing a nothing role like that can be one of the hardest things to do but she brought an easy naturalism to the part. And since not every comedian can make an effective transition to straight roles, I give her ample kudos for that.

Maybe that's what Chris Hemsworth is for.

Good point. In that case, maybe we should ask her how it feels to finally flirt with a man that she doesn't ridiculously tower over.

 

[Owain Taggart]

True. The Martian was not a particularly worthwhile use of Wiig's immense talents. Her performance wasn't definitive. But she was a useful part of an enjoyable ensemble. Playing a nothing role like that can be one of the hardest things to do but she brought an easy naturalism to the part. And since not every comedian can make an effective transition to straight roles, I give her ample kudos for that.

For me, it was the first thing I'd seen her in, and I felt she did a really good job with the part, given the role in the book. She portrayed the character very nicely.

 

[Aldo]

The first movie I saw her in outside of SNL was Bridesmaids, where I thought she was really good at carrying the film. I don't think I saw her in anything again until Skeleton Twins where I was really blown away by her presence. Anyone who doubts Wiig can be a great actress should seek this movie out.

 

[jaime]

For me, it was the first thing I'd seen her in, and I felt she did a really good job with the part, given the role in the book. She portrayed the character very nicely.

I would clarify I liked her in the Martian, but I didn't know who she was as an actress anyway. (I am a tad put of the loop) So I didn't link the fact it was the same actor /actress in (which is right these days? I use both interchangeably but on the Internet picking the wrong one could annoy someone somewhere...?) the Ghostbusters reboot/remake.
All of the cast in the Martian were pretty good, though it was odd watching Sean Bean not die.

 

[Christopher]

I didn't even remember that Wiig was in The Martian. I basically only know her as the voice of Ruffnut in the How to Train Your Dragon movies (and as one of the few main cast members of those movies who do not reprise their roles on the TV series).

 

[B.J.]

All of the cast in the Martian were pretty good, though it was odd watching Sean Bean not die.

Well, he didn't, but his career sure did!

 

[Timby]

The first movie I saw her in outside of SNL was Bridesmaids, where I thought she was really good at carrying the film. I don't think I saw her in anything again until Skeleton Twins where I was really blown away by her presence. Anyone who doubts Wiig can be a great actress should seek this movie out.

Bridesmaids is a great example of a comedy classic which had trailers that absolutely sucked out loud.