Ghostbusters

[charliepanayi]

Here's the trailer for the new one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JINqHA7xywE

[Fynn]

THAT WAS SO AWESOME OMG :hyper:

ALL MY FAVORITE SNL DUDETTES YAAAAS :omgomg:

[Freya]

I actually think I'm going to enjoy it. It looks fun!

[charliepanayi]

The trailer is OK. I've liked Paul Feig's films and I like the cast, so those are my main grounds for optimism. On the other hand, not like worthwhile remakes/sequels (or whatever this is) are common, so I guess we'll see. Hope it's good anyway, will really annoy knuckledraggers across the internet if it is.

[Midgar Mist]

Nostalgic nerd says:

Funny lines from the two 1980s films:

"Its the stay puft flour man"
"Lets teach this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown"
"Ive met some dumb blonds in my time...........only a Carpathian would choose New York City to be reborn in"
"Its every New Yorkers God given right to be mean"
"Thats right, this man has no dick"

[Bubba]

Egon: "Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light"
Venkman: "Right. That's bad. OK. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon."

[sharkythesharkdogg]

I'm not sure about this one.

It might be good, but it might just be too stiff. If the humor feels forced, it won't work.

Some of the trailer made me chuckle, some of it felt forced. So I'll just have to wait and see. :shrug:

[Freya]

Omg those youtube comments. Oh my god.

[Fynn]

Omg those youtube comments. Oh my god.

I watched on mobile so I didnt' see :p

What'd they say?

[charliepanayi]

Omg those youtube comments. Oh my god.

I watched on mobile so I didnt' see :p

What'd they say?

It's a remake of a classic film with four women in the lead roles (one of whom is Melissa McCarthy). I invite you to take a guess as to what the comments are like.

[Freya]

The thing currently has upvotes 5,097 and downvotes 4,978. The comments are full of really sexist shit.


(edited this one)
"N***** comedy = screaming as loud as you can"

"Oh nice, a girl with hair that stops at her forehead, 2 fat chicks, a fat black woman, let me guess, one of them is lesbo, one is genderfluid? Sponsored by buzzfeed and tumblr? Comedy died when women started forcing jokes, way to ruin a classic :)"

"why would them remake ghostbusters with 3 woman and a black man"

"For full political correctness someone of them must be lesbian and another one - mentally retarded."

"This is why women shouldn't have been given the vote. Slippery slope."

etc etc etc

[charliepanayi]

I imagine they posted the comments on their way to the nearest Trump rally.

[Fynn]

W-wait

People dislike Melissa McCarthy? People think any of those four is unfunny? :onoes:

[Crop]

I'll maybe go see it, the trailer was just a regular trailer - nothing good, nothing bad. I just don't like remakes in general so I went in with a frowny face.

Of course I didn't even glance at the YouTube comments because I knew the utter sludge that would be in there. I'm surprised any of you did, unless you like feeling mad and sad at the same time.

[Psychotic]

I checked the comments too, the top one is this: "As much as I love the idea of the all girl Ghostbuster team.. I much prefer the idea of talented writers."

Pretty much sums up my views. The trailer didn't even get a chuckle out of me, I was pretty disappointed. The dry wit of the original seems to have been replaced with a mixture of "hey this is slightly awkward right" and screaming and yelling. I appreciate that's more appealing to modern audiences and I'm the weirdo for not liking that, but I'm struggling to see more than a typical "hey remember this from your childhood? it's back!" Hollywood movie.

[Fynn]

I loved all the McKinnon scenes, honestly

[Burtsplurt]

It doesn't look great. Seems overplayed? As if the script wasn't very good so they just decided to try to make up for it with OTT performances.

[Bubba]

Yeah, I'll pass. I don't find Melissa McCarthy at all funny.

[Rez09]

It . . . looks okay? I'll see it, but I don't expect to be blown away or anything.

[Bri]

If there's something strange in your neighborhood
Who you gonna call?
Ghostbusters!

[Raistlin]

I am mostly concerned about this movie because it is a modern remake of a classic and those tend to be terrible, and the trailer did nothing to change my default opinion. I actually hope it's good because I don't want to give the sexist trolls more ammunition or reason to gloat, but I remain skeptical.

[Kalevala]

Echoing Raistlin's sentiment here. I wanted nothing more than for this film to be absolutely hilarious and amazing so all the sexist naysayers would be left with egg on their dumb faces.

But holy shit does this look awful.

[Sephex]

Trailer didn't do much for me. This is one of those movies I might go to if a few people in my crew are up to seeing a movie on a boring weekend. More than most likely I'll end up seeing it when it comes on video.

[sharkythesharkdogg]

It's only a trailer, but I think I figured out part of what it's missing, and why I'm worried.

The original had a unique combination of deadpan comedy, some juvenile sight gags, and ridiculous ghosts combined with traditional sci-fi and some actually creepy ghost designs and horror aspects.

So right now the trailer is just giving me slapstick comedy, the (starting to get tiresome and overused) awkward situation comedy trope, and ghosts that look like neon lights.

Maybe they'll have more to it on release, and the trailer isn't showing it, but I'm skeptical.

[charliepanayi]

Comedy trailers always go for lowest common denominator (which means lots of slapstick gags etc), whether or not the actual film is like that. Which is why I haven't adjusted my expectations either way after seeing this.

[krissy]

i think it'll be pretty funny on its own terms
i dont ever really understand why people think reboots should be even at all similar to the original work
it's like DMC like jeez louise get over dante's hair guys

if you're expecting 80's style deadpan comedy with bill murray you're probably gonna be disappointed no matter what, but luckily you can still rent the original ghostbusters on vhs from your local blockbusters

[Psychotic]

i think it'll be pretty funny on its own terms
i dont ever really understand why people think reboots should be even at all similar to the original workThen why not make a new franchise altogether? You've got these four talented actresses signed on, make them pirates or lawyers or, dare I say, paranormal investigators. But of course, the answer to that is because using an established and loved name means more money. You want to ride on the coat tails of something like that, that's your choice, but if you're putting yourself in the same series you've got to expect comparison to the original as a result. If you want to avoid it, it's very easily done. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Reboots like Star Trek and Fury Road were good because they took the spirit of the originals, dragged them into the 21st Century and were good sci-fi/action movies in their own right. With or without the Ghostbusters name, this just looks like a hack job tbh.

[Fynn]

Judging by one trailer. It's really hard to see what it will turn out to be. I honestly can't wait to see it because I loved the original Ghostbusters and I adore these four new lead actresses, so I just wanna wait and see. Like someone else said before, trailers always cater to the lowest common denominator. We'll see if the spirit is there when we see it.

[krissy]

i think it'll be pretty funny on its own terms
i dont ever really understand why people think reboots should be even at all similar to the original workThen why not make a new franchise altogether? You've got these four talented actresses signed on, make them pirates or lawyers or, dare I say, paranormal investigators. But of course, the answer to that is because using an established and loved name means more money. You want to ride on the coat tails of something like that, that's your choice, but if you're putting yourself in the same series you've got to expect comparison to the original as a result. If you want to avoid it, it's very easily done. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Reboots like Star Trek and Fury Road were good because they took the spirit of the originals, dragged them into the 21st Century and were good sci-fi/action movies in their own right. With or without the Ghostbusters name, this just looks like a hack job tbh.

if you did that though you'd be left with an internet that said "so ok... it's ghostbusters...with girls...and dubstep... but it's called ghostbreasters... no stealing there LOL k brb gotta post on youtube"

it may very well be a hack job once it's out yea
but i dunno why it can't be a hack job on it's own terms
i think in general we keep weighing things against the past too much
like final fantasies you know you guys
like 'is ffxx as good as ffx?'
that depends on what's important to you and how you perceive the message in the media

ghostbusters scared the crap out of me because i was a child, but that just won't happen now to me. looks not worse than 'let's be cops' and maybe fun to me from 1 trailer but i mean i'm not gonna try watching it expecting a life changing experience. but it might be really special to some kids these days tho who knows.

and i mean, ok, you can compare things to their originals, but i wouldn't even say mad max kept the same stylistic choices as old mad max movies. star trek certainly didn't either. i'd wager the spirit of a thing is a very personal thing and probably different for different people

in summary

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Extreme-Ghostbusters-Cast-1.png

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5DuseyorgTY/hqdefault.jpg

[NorthernChaosGod]

That was a pretty disappointing trailer to be honest. I really hate the "this is awkward therefore it's funny" thing and the CGI looked pretty bad. The black woman being a living stereotype was like shit icing on the crap cake.

[charliepanayi]

i think it'll be pretty funny on its own terms
i dont ever really understand why people think reboots should be even at all similar to the original workThen why not make a new franchise altogether? You've got these four talented actresses signed on, make them pirates or lawyers or, dare I say, paranormal investigators. But of course, the answer to that is because using an established and loved name means more money. You want to ride on the coat tails of something like that, that's your choice, but if you're putting yourself in the same series you've got to expect comparison to the original as a result. If you want to avoid it, it's very easily done. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Reboots like Star Trek and Fury Road were good because they took the spirit of the originals, dragged them into the 21st Century and were good sci-fi/action movies in their own right. With or without the Ghostbusters name, this just looks like a hack job tbh.

How many brand new franchises not based on anything can you name in the last few years? Despite endless complaints about remakes and sequels audiences are terribly resistant to new ideas. And it's not like Paul Feig hasn't done original films in the past, he's done Bridesmaids, The Heat and Spy (and like Kristen Wiig has thus far resisted the temptation to just do a sequel to Bridesmaids) so he's probably at least earned the right to be a bit lazier this time.

And to the person saying one character is like a walking stereotype, maybe we should wait to see more than thirty seconds of footage to judge that?

[Old Manus]

I'm one of the few people left on the planet who hasn't actually ever seen the original, so I suppose I can go into it with a fairly neutral outlook. Unfortunately that trailer assumes that you've already seen the original film, so it doesn't really tell me what happens and was more of a sequence of gross-out/sitcom gags. I didn't laugh, but I doubt it is supposed to match my sense of humour anyway. It doesn't look particularly bad, though.

[Freya]

I think the biggest blowback is yeah, the nostalgia. The trailer doesn't look amazing but it also doesn't look as horrible as many are saying. I think the biggest complaint is it's just not the original.

[Formalhaut]

I'm one of the few people left on the planet who hasn't actually ever seen the original, so I suppose I can go into it with a fairly neutral outlook. Unfortunately that trailer assumes that you've already seen the original film, so it doesn't really tell me what happens and was more of a sequence of gross-out/sitcom gags. I didn't laugh, but I doubt it is supposed to match my sense of humour anyway. It doesn't look particularly bad, though.

I've never seen Ghostbusters either, actually. :shobon:

[Fynn]

I'm one of the few people left on the planet who hasn't actually ever seen the original, so I suppose I can go into it with a fairly neutral outlook. Unfortunately that trailer assumes that you've already seen the original film, so it doesn't really tell me what happens and was more of a sequence of gross-out/sitcom gags. I didn't laugh, but I doubt it is supposed to match my sense of humour anyway. It doesn't look particularly bad, though.

I've never seen Ghostbusters either, actually. :shobon:

It's never too late :hyper:

This is actually one of my favorite movies from my childhood and I used to watch it all the time! It helped that our TV stations would have regular reruns!

[Formalhaut]

It's going to be one of those films that wouldn't click with me. I saw my first Harry Potter (Goblet of Fire, hilariously. Start right in the middle) last year, and while it was alright, it didn't wow me or anything. I get a feeling that I had to be in the moment to really enjoy it.

[Fynn]

It's going to be one of those films that wouldn't click with me. I saw my first Harry Potter (Goblet of Fire, hilariously. Start right in the middle) last year, and while it was alright, it didn't wow me or anything. I get a feeling that I had to be in the moment to really enjoy it.

Reading the books first in the right order would certainly help with the immersion thing :p


And you won't know until you try. It's a movie. It's like, 90 minutes. No commitment whatsoever. Can't hurt to try! You said yourself your assumptions are often wildly innacurate :p

[Formalhaut]

It's going to be one of those films that wouldn't click with me. I saw my first Harry Potter (Goblet of Fire, hilariously. Start right in the middle) last year, and while it was alright, it didn't wow me or anything. I get a feeling that I had to be in the moment to really enjoy it.

Reading the books first in the right order would certainly help with the immersion thing :p


And you won't know until you try. It's a movie. It's like, 90 minutes. No commitment whatsoever. Can't hurt to try! You said yourself your assumptions are often wildly innacurate :p

True. it's funny, I have a knack for starting a film series in the middle. I watched the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film before any of the others. Thankfully, it was something of a soft reboot so I didn't really miss anything from the others.

[Fynn]

Well, Harry Potter is one of those series that really counts on you getting hooked on the overarching plot, so I always get a little giggle out of people who say the series is weak when they've only read like Goblet of Fire or Order of the Phoenix. I mean, what did you expect? :p

[escobert]

I probably wont see this. I have yet to like the remakes of great movies/series I watched as a child.

[Slothy]

For everyone complaining the trailer didn't look interesting,the only trailers worse at conveying am accurate depiction of the final product than trailers for blockbuster comedies are video game trailers. I wasn't blown away by the trailer, but i have enough confidence in the people making it to reserve judgement for the time being.

[sharkythesharkdogg]

I probably wont see this. I have yet to like the remakes of great movies/series I watched as a child.

The remake of The Thing from a few years back is actually pretty damn good.

If you like horror/sci-fi and you liked the original, that one is a pretty good redux.

[charliepanayi]

Wait, do you mean the 1982 film The Thing with Kurt Russell (itself a sort of remake of 1950s film The Thing From Another World), or the terrible remake/prequel they made a few years back?

[NorthernChaosGod]

And to the person saying one character is like a walking stereotype, maybe we should wait to see more than thirty seconds of footage to judge that?

The things that someone consciously chose to show of the character are that she's uneducated and she screams about religious-ish stuff, maybe if they didn't want people to come to those conclusions they should have used different footage.

[Freya]

Hey now, the first batman vs superman trailer showed hardly any B v S but spoiled wonder woman for us. Now all the trailers are just B v S, they make stupid trailer mistakes all the time. It's a really annoying trend as of late to spoil or show out of context things in trailers.

[charliepanayi]

And to the person saying one character is like a walking stereotype, maybe we should wait to see more than thirty seconds of footage to judge that?

The things that someone consciously chose to show of the character are that she's uneducated and she screams about religious-ish stuff, maybe if they didn't want people to come to those conclusions they should have used different footage.

Pretty sure that second bit is just a lame Exorcist joke and says little about the character. And it's a bit patronising to assume she's uneducated simply as she isn't a scientist (I saw one person pointing out MTA employees earn more than a lot of scientists!).

[Freya]

I think I remember reading she's an architectural historian originally in the first script or something.

[Shorty]

So late to the party.

Finally saw the new Ghostbusters trailer. It looks fine. It looks fine, guys. It doesn't look any better or worse than any other rebootish sequel thing that we've ever seen. I 100% believe that any/all criticisms that are being directed at it are purely based on the fact that it has a lady crew, because if this was an all-male cast with the EXACT same trailer, it would be getting fast-tracked around the internet as a genius/hilarious remake and would certainly not be receiving all of the wet blanket criticism it's getting right now.

We can't expect the high-caliber level of Fury Road in all of the reboots or sequels that come up. We got lucky with that one. Anyone who was expecting this Ghostbusters to be better than the original fooled themselves into disappointment. It looks fine and I will probably see it because 1) it's filled with a cast full of hilarious women and 2) paranormal stuff is fun. It's getting shredded because people have the highest expectations for females participating in any art form and if we are less than stellar, we get nodded off as trout; whereas men can be a part of a mediocre performance and get recognized as being hilarious.

If Andy Samberg, Jason Sudeikis, Will Forte and Jay Pharaoh were in this cast and said the exact same lines, word for word, and had the exact same shots, shot for shot, this film would be celebrated as smurf and the internet would be running to see it; there would be zero mention of "it just doesn't have that ORIGINAL GHOSTBUSTERS MAGIC [jerkoff motion]".

It's disappointing to see the negative reactions to this film in 2016. Go see it and contribute to the box office so we can have more of a chance of diverse films in the future.

this post has been brought to you by copying it from my facebook because I didn't want to type up something different just to post here

[Psychotic]

Could be. Or I dunno, maybe people have different senses of humour and find different things funny. :monster:

[Shorty]

I'd be inclined to believe that if this wasn't already considered a "controversial film" 1) before it's even been released and 2) when the subject matter is not controversial.

[Psychotic]

I'd accept your view if you said some or even most criticisms were driven by sexism. But you specifically used the phrase any and all, and not only do I think you are wrong, I also think such a view - that it is impossible to offer criticism to women without a sexist agenda - does more harm to women than good.

[Shorty]

I believe that most of the criticism of this film is driven by sexism.

[Psychotic]

In that case, yeah, pretty much and it's a shame that there are enough knuckle dragging morons out there who are muddying the waters. I still think what we've seen of the script is unfunny, uninspired and cringeworthy in many places and I still think I would have that view if it was Bill Murray himself saying the lines. Evidently several people in this thread do find it funny and that's great and I'm jealous because I wish I could like it too.

Enjoy your movie, just don't tell me why I don't like it!

[Freya]

You don't like it cause you're a poo-poo head.

There are a lot of people, I think, just disliking it cause it's a reboot.
There are a lot of people, I think, just disliking it cause it's a lady reboot.
There are a lot of people, I think, just disliking it because they are contrary.

I think it's a big culmination of the three. And some just don't like the humor. But there's a lot of negativity that it doesn't deserve yet.

[Fynn]

I still think it's way too early to determine how funny or unfunny the movie will be based on a single trailer. There have been good trailers to terrible movies in the past, and there have been terrible trailers for good movies as well. I think the trailer was okay, nothing super awesome, but nothing too terrible. I'm just super psyched to see these ladies in action because they're all super funny :monster:

[Psychotic]

I know it's just a trailer, but then likewise you have to consider what the point of a trailer is. It's to give you a little idea of what the movie is going to be like to see whether it is relevant to your interests. Then you can decide whether or not you want to spend money to go see it. All I'm doing is using the trailer as it is meant to be used!

[Shorty]

I think that calling it cringe-worthy and unfunny is even a stretch. How much of the script have we seen, really? A minute and a half of talk time? Is that enough to judge how funny a movie is or is not? I think that if you were in a theater for a preview and saw Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd pull that scene where Melissa McCarthy catches Kate McKinnon behind the shelf and she goes, "Is it the hat? Is the hat too much?" that it would be hilarious and that fans would love it. If you really and truly don't think that's funny, that's your prerogative and of course you are entitled for it, but that was an objectively funny scene. And if someone chooses to not like it because it doesn't have their favorite dudes saying the lines, well, that is problematic.

I do firmly believe that this film would be embraced open-armed if there were funny men in the roles in place of the funny women who are currently cast. I say that because we've seen mediocre garbage like Horrible Bosses or Dinner for Schmucks that is received as being fairly funny, but if women were cast in place of those roles, I believe that they would receive much lower ratings. Instead they are tolerated and even celebrated as being funny because of the men who star in them, even though the scripts and jokes are not that good, whereas films that star funny women like this are shredded apart if they don't have 10/10 five-star jokes across the board.

The fact is that the actresses, the director, the entire crew took a gamble on this film and making these changes, and I think that it's being criticized much worse than it needs to be. It doesn't look atrocious or cringe-worthy to me. It doesn't look like the best movie of 2016, but does look fine.

I understand that a lot of this resistance is riding on childhood expectations being messed with, but within the realm of encouraging an open mind, if you like the actresses and think seeing a squad of funny ladies hunt down ghosts to save New York sounds like a good time, then I would encourage you to see it. If you compare it to the good time Murray and Akroyd had decades in the past, then you'll have a bad time of it.

[Pheesh]

Well, I didn't laugh at the trailer, so I guess that makes it a pretty bad trailer for my tastes. Whether the trailer is a reflection on the movie as a whole I don't know, but there was a chance I was going to see this in the cinema and now I'm pretty sure I will wait for it to be released for home viewing*.

*subject to change if they manage to release a trailer that I actually enjoy.

[Night Fury]

I dunno man, the trailer isn't always gonna be how the film is.

That Godzilla trailer was fucking awesome but the film was an absolute crock of shit.

[sharkythesharkdogg]

Wait, do you mean the 1982 film The Thing with Kurt Russell (itself a sort of remake of 1950s film The Thing From Another World), or the terrible remake/prequel they made a few years back?

I mean the "prequel". It's basically the same plot.

Clearly you didn't like it. I'm not saying it's the same as the '82 cult-classic, but I feel it's a lot better than the critics were willing to admit.

User reviews seem to split between "it's nothing like the '82 film!" or "it's actually a good, solid prequel and I liked it a lot."

I'm in the second group. :shrug:

[Pheesh]

I dunno man, the trailer isn't always gonna be how the film is.

That Godzilla trailer was fucking awesome but the film was an absolute crock of shit.

Yeah, but the good trailer got us in to see that piece of shit in the cinema. This trailer has had the reverse effect on me. The film could be great but now barring good reviews from people who I trust or a funnier trailer I don't think I'd want to fork out the money to see it in a cinema.

[Freya]

There are actually two trailers. Don't know if others have seen the second one.

KM1OouzGxPM

a few different scenes.

[Psychotic]

I think that calling it cringe-worthy and unfunny is even a stretch. How much of the script have we seen, really? A minute and a half of talk time? Is that enough to judge how funny a movie is or is not? I think that if you were in a theater for a preview and saw Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd pull that scene where Melissa McCarthy catches Kate McKinnon behind the shelf and she goes, "Is it the hat? Is the hat too much?" that it would be hilarious and that fans would love it. If you really and truly don't think that's funny, that's your prerogative and of course you are entitled for it, but that was an objectively funny scene. And if someone chooses to not like it because it doesn't have their favorite dudes saying the lines, well, that is problematic.

I do firmly believe that this film would be embraced open-armed if there were funny men in the roles in place of the funny women who are currently cast. I say that because we've seen mediocre garbage like Horrible Bosses or Dinner for Schmucks that is received as being fairly funny, but if women were cast in place of those roles, I believe that they would receive much lower ratings. Instead they are tolerated and even celebrated as being funny because of the men who star in them, even though the scripts and jokes are not that good, whereas films that star funny women like this are shredded apart if they don't have 10/10 five-star jokes across the board.

The fact is that the actresses, the director, the entire crew took a gamble on this film and making these changes, and I think that it's being criticized much worse than it needs to be. It doesn't look atrocious or cringe-worthy to me. It doesn't look like the best movie of 2016, but does look fine.

I understand that a lot of this resistance is riding on childhood expectations being messed with, but within the realm of encouraging an open mind, if you like the actresses and think seeing a squad of funny ladies hunt down ghosts to save New York sounds like a good time, then I would encourage you to see it. If you compare it to the good time Murray and Akroyd had decades in the past, then you'll have a bad time of it.

I would agree that the hat line was the best in the trailer and I wouldn't call it unfunny or cringeworthy, but to use the Murray/Akroyd example it wouldn't have made my top 10 lines in the original either. We'll never know either way though.

Let us consider how much time that got in the trailer compared to the "AWW HELL NAW, THE DEVIL IS ALAYVVV!", "GET OUT OF MY FRIEND, GHOST!" and "THE POWAH OF PAIN COMPELS YOU!" sequence. It played very much on the overused angry black woman shouting animatedly cliché which has been used in dozens of other movies. I got the impression it was crowbarred in in an effort to tick a box and appeal to certain demographics, and it wasn't even a particularly good example of that type of humour to boot.

I've seen the trailers for those two movies and I've never watched them because they didn't look funny to me either. I said earlier in the thread that I don't find the overwhelming majority of modern Hollywood comedies to be funny and that I appreciate I'm the weird one for it. I'm not disagreeing that some people have their views distorted by gender, but I will always object if someone tells me my choices are either find this funny or be a sexist.

[Shorty]

I think that calling it cringe-worthy and unfunny is even a stretch. How much of the script have we seen, really? A minute and a half of talk time? Is that enough to judge how funny a movie is or is not? I think that if you were in a theater for a preview and saw Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd pull that scene where Melissa McCarthy catches Kate McKinnon behind the shelf and she goes, "Is it the hat? Is the hat too much?" that it would be hilarious and that fans would love it. If you really and truly don't think that's funny, that's your prerogative and of course you are entitled for it, but that was an objectively funny scene. And if someone chooses to not like it because it doesn't have their favorite dudes saying the lines, well, that is problematic.

I do firmly believe that this film would be embraced open-armed if there were funny men in the roles in place of the funny women who are currently cast. I say that because we've seen mediocre garbage like Horrible Bosses or Dinner for Schmucks that is received as being fairly funny, but if women were cast in place of those roles, I believe that they would receive much lower ratings. Instead they are tolerated and even celebrated as being funny because of the men who star in them, even though the scripts and jokes are not that good, whereas films that star funny women like this are shredded apart if they don't have 10/10 five-star jokes across the board.

The fact is that the actresses, the director, the entire crew took a gamble on this film and making these changes, and I think that it's being criticized much worse than it needs to be. It doesn't look atrocious or cringe-worthy to me. It doesn't look like the best movie of 2016, but does look fine.

I understand that a lot of this resistance is riding on childhood expectations being messed with, but within the realm of encouraging an open mind, if you like the actresses and think seeing a squad of funny ladies hunt down ghosts to save New York sounds like a good time, then I would encourage you to see it. If you compare it to the good time Murray and Akroyd had decades in the past, then you'll have a bad time of it.

I would agree that the hat line was the best in the trailer and I wouldn't call it unfunny or cringeworthy, but to use the Murray/Akroyd example it wouldn't have made my top 10 lines in the original either. We'll never know either way though.

Let us consider how much time that got in the trailer compared to the "AWW HELL NAW, THE DEVIL IS ALAYVVV!", "GET OUT OF MY FRIEND, GHOST!" and "THE POWAH OF PAIN COMPELS YOU!" sequence. It played very much on the overused angry black woman shouting animatedly cliché which has been used in dozens of other movies. I got the impression it was crowbarred in in an effort to tick a box and appeal to certain demographics, and it wasn't even a particularly good example of that type of humour to boot.

I've seen the trailers for those two movies and I've never watched them because they didn't look funny to me either. I said earlier in the thread that I don't find the overwhelming majority of modern Hollywood comedies to be funny and that I appreciate I'm the weird one for it. I'm not disagreeing that some people have their views distorted by gender, but I will always object if someone tells me my choices are either find this funny or be a sexist.

You are right about the power of pain scene; it was the weakest and most unfunny of the trailer. However, it seems to me that it was clearly showcased in the trailer as a dissected effort of a marketing team, which shows how poor a job they did, really, which is why I overall don't really like watching trailers in the first place. They are based on the vision of a marketing team, not the director of the film. As an example, the two different Suicide Squad trailers that we have out are outrageously different - one is somber, serious and dramatic, and the other makes it look like it's a ragtag bunch of villains tripping over each other in a comedy. One put me off entirely, another made me want to see it. I have very confused feelings about that movie, which is further proof as to why I don't think trailers are accurate reflections of films and why I don't necessarily like watching them. I watched this one about GB to see what all the fuss was about and came to the conclusion that it has been sufficiently overblown by the internet.

As for my first post, it wasn't necessarily a commentary on anyone specifically here on the forum, it was more speaking to the overall criticism of the film I have seen on the internet, which is indeed overwhelmingly misogynistic. My post also wasn't meant as a ransom to find it funny or you'll get labeled as a sexist, more to encourage reflection on whatever resistance someone might have to this film and hope that it isn't just because ladies star in it.

[NorthernChaosGod]

To me the tone just comes off wrong. Like the original was a mix of sarcasm and serious, where this already comes off as another movie where everything has to be goofy constantly like a loose collection of gags instead of a coherent narrative that happens to have funny bits. Also the fact that they feel the need to tell you that two of them are the best in their field instead of just letting the movie show you bothers me, like the audience is either too dumb to just understand they're smart or the fact that they're women so they have to be the best.

[theundeadhero]

I think the movie looks fantastic. I have every intention of seeing it in a theater, even if I have to go alone.

[DMKA]

It looks like it's going to be a complete piece of trout.

[Mr. Carnelian]

I don't really mind if it's as good as people hope it might be, or as bad as people think it will be. If it's good, I'll probably enjoy it. But if it's REALLY bad, I'll almost certainly enjoy it. I really like bad comedy films. By "bad" I'm talking tacky, crass, plots which make no sense, hammy acting. Think the Scary Movie franchise. Or Horrible Bosses 2. So, to be honest I'm almost hoping it's awful. Bad comedy films are so much more fun to watch.

[charliepanayi]

It's another trailer. Still doesn't look great, but then as some have said, many blockbuster trailers aren't great anyway. I guess we'll see, and I'm sure the internet is already bickering about this one:

http://www.avclub.com/article/slimer-and-stay-puft-marshmallow-man-haunt-new-gho-236954

[Sephiroth]

Way to spit on the grave of Harold Ramis.

[Fynn]

Way to spit on the grave of Harold Ramis.

Really? :roll2

This film is its own thing. With genuinely funny people taking part in it. Also, all the living OG Ghostbuster cast members are making cameos. if that's not a sign of their blessing, i don't know what it. Let's give the movie a chance, please?

[charliepanayi]

Way to spit on the grave of Harold Ramis.

A bit much, don't you think?

Plus Harold Ramis made Analyze That, Bedazzled and Year One, he was hardly perfect.

[sharkythesharkdogg]

Way to spit on the grave of Harold Ramis.

A bit much, don't you think?

Plus Harold Ramis made Analyze That, Bedazzled and Year One, he was hardly perfect.

I actually laughed at Bedazzled. It was better than I expected.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F4W0R1Zr_8

[Mr. Carnelian]

Way to spit on the grave of Harold Ramis.

A bit much, don't you think?

Plus Harold Ramis made Analyze That, Bedazzled and Year One, he was hardly perfect.

I actually laughed at Bedazzled. It was better than I expected.

Yes, to be fair I also very much enjoyed it. Not sure whether that's because it's any good, or because it's so bad it's good.

I actually think this Ghostbusters film could be good. I usually find Melissa McCarthy very funny.

[Sephiroth]

I thought the dynamic betwen Brendan Fraser and Liz Hurley was great in that movie.

[Fynn]

I liked Bedazzled quite a bit too.

And yeah. I really don't think we'll get an unfunny movie with McCarthy, McKinnon, Wiig and Jones as the main cast. I've expressed my love for them many times in this thread already but it can't be overstated

[Psychotic]

I liked Bedazzled quite a bit too.

And yeah. I really don't think we'll get an unfunny movie with McCarthy, McKinnon, Wiig and Jones as the main cast. I've expressed my love for them many times in this thread already but it can't be overstatedIs this their usual style of humour?

[Bubba]

Man, I'm sick of the hoo-hah around this film. I won't be going to the cinema to watch it as both trailers look terrible. I do like the main cast but the style is all wrong for me. Plus, why do the special effects look so bad?

I feel bad for James Rolfe and all the unjustified flak he's got for saying that he won't be reviewing the film.

[Night Fury]

I usually find Melissa McCarthy very funny.

God you are wrong about a lot of things but this is probably the most wrong you have ever been.

[Shauna]

I feel bad for James Rolfe and all the unjustified flak he's got for saying that he won't be reviewing the film.

I dunno man, why did he make that video at all? Has he reviewed all of the other reboots of popular 80s things? (Note: He might have, I don't keep up with him, just the general gist I got that this is not his thing to do) I just don't know why he made a big deal about the fact he wasn't doing it. :shrug:

[Bubba]

I feel bad for James Rolfe and all the unjustified flak he's got for saying that he won't be reviewing the film.

I dunno man, why did he make that video at all? Has he reviewed all of the other reboots of popular 80s things? (Note: He might have, I don't keep up with him, just the general gist I got that this is not his thing to do) I just don't know why he made a big deal about the fact he wasn't doing it. :shrug:

It still doesn't justify him being accused of misogyny when there was nothing in the video that criticised an all-female cast. His reasons for not reviewing the film were very clear.

[Scotty_ffgamer]

He actually has reviewed a lot of the reboots and sequels as of late. I haven't seen the flak he's gotten, but I knew he was going to get a lot of flak when I saw him post the video.

None of the trailers have really grabbed me, but I honestly never was a huge fan of ghostbusters. If I have people that want me to see it, I'll see it. Otherwise, I want to wait to see what people have to say about the movie since the trailers didn't sway me towards seeing it.

[sharkythesharkdogg]

I saw the first of the Transformers and that was enough. I haven't even bothered with the new TMNT movies. I still feel like I can say that in my opinion they would all be bad.

I watched the first new Star Trek movie and it was solid. The next one was......fair, but was starting to lose too much classic Star Trek feel. At this point, I'm pretty certain I'm not going to bother with the third one in theaters. I'm pretty sure it will be bad. The trailers just aren't doing it for me.

It may not be fair to say that until after I see them, but I know my tastes and I know how to read into trailers and previews enough that I usually know the quality of what I'm going to see before I see it.

I'm going to give the new Ghostbusters a chance in someway, but I'm not particularly hopeful right now because of the vibe it is giving me. I really doubt I'll spend the money to see it in theaters. I'll probably wait until later. It has little to do with the cast either. In fact, if this was the case;


If Andy Samberg, Jason Sudeikis, Will Forte and Jay Pharaoh were in this cast and said the exact same lines, word for word, and had the exact same shots, shot for shot, this film would be celebrated as smurf and the internet would be running to see it; there would be zero mention of "it just doesn't have that ORIGINAL GHOSTBUSTERS MAGIC [jerkoff motion]".

then I would be less interested in the movie personally. It's true that there are not a lot of all female comedy casts in movies and if they did it right, that extra piece could really make this movie unique, fresh, and different. Sadly, right now it just feels stale in the trailers.



We can't expect the high-caliber level of Fury Road in all of the reboots or sequels that come up. We got lucky with that one. Anyone who was expecting this Ghostbusters to be better than the original fooled themselves into disappointment.

I find this statement depressing. Of course I can expect it to be the same high-caliber level. It should be the same high-caliber level, and if you're going to touch something like the Ghostbusters franchise then, IMO, in damn well better be a fantastic remake or you had no business touching it.

There's a reason they want to reboot these classic franchises. Because they were damn good, and people remember that. Giving producers and directors the wiggle room of "well, you can't expect all remakes to be as good as the original" is a major part of the problem, regardless of what set of genitals the actors have. I acknowledge that there are plenty of remakes that are crap, and that has lowered my expectations of how good other remakes will be, but that doesn't mean I just accept it. I shouldn't have to. It means that if I have good reason (my judgement from trailers and teasers) to believe the movie is a poor imitation of the original, then I'm specifically not going to see it in theaters, because I'm specifically not going to give them my money to encourage them into thinking crap remakes are an easy cash cow. If they want my business they can either do a good reboot/remake or they can try some original properties and ideas instead of beating a dead horse.



It's getting shredded because people have the highest expectations for females participating in any art form and if we are less than stellar, we get nodded off as trout; whereas men can be a part of a mediocre performance and get recognized as being hilarious.

It's disappointing to see the negative reactions to this film in 2016. Go see it and contribute to the box office so we can have more of a chance of diverse films in the future.


I do agree there's a lot of heavy expectations put on minorities to perform above expectations just to get an equal amount of credit, and I also agree that it's bulltrout. It's not fair at all.

However, as I said above, I'm really doubtful that I'm going to see Ghostbusters in the theaters just to support diversity. Right now, I feel I'd also be supporting mediocrity. That's sad because I like supporting new, fresh ideas and seeing things get a cool twist.

It's the job of the trailer to convince me to spend my money, and it simply hasn't done that. I mentioned several other reboot franchises that have similarly been written off by me.

Sometimes you simply can't recapture the magic of the original and that's okay too. Take those funny ladies, take their talent, and let them create their own legacy with a new, fresh idea. If it looks good, if it looks clever, they'll get my ticket money on opening day, no questions asked.

[Shauna]

I feel bad for James Rolfe and all the unjustified flak he's got for saying that he won't be reviewing the film.

I dunno man, why did he make that video at all? Has he reviewed all of the other reboots of popular 80s things? (Note: He might have, I don't keep up with him, just the general gist I got that this is not his thing to do) I just don't know why he made a big deal about the fact he wasn't doing it. :shrug:

It still doesn't justify him being accused of misogyny when there was nothing in the video that criticised an all-female cast. His reasons for not reviewing the film were very clear.

Oh absolutely, he shouldn't be insulted in such a way given what he actually said. I would never advocate such things.

I still feel like he was just grasping for views though, given the controversial subject, and that the video was entirely unnecessary. But that's just me. :3 I am aware that people can do whatever they heck they want, I just don't get the 6 minute soapbox about something that could have been a footnote.

[Scotty_ffgamer]

Oh absolutely, he shouldn't be insulted in such a way given what he actually said. I would never advocate such things.

I still feel like he was just grasping for views though, given the controversial subject, and that the video was entirely unnecessary. But that's just me. :3 I am aware that people can do whatever they heck they want, I just don't get the 6 minute soapbox about something that could have been a footnote.

I can agree with this. I wouldn't be surprised if he did this because he's gotten a lot of emails or whatever asking about the new ghostbusters, but it really could have been a footnote to the video of the cancelled ghostbusters 3 video he did afterwards, which I think is what he really wanted to talk about. All of his review videos for these reboot movies have been a big long winded though so I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he had it split into 2 videos. He just had enough footage to do it and probably figured he could get more views by doing it this way.

[Sephex]

Obviously I don't know the guy personally, but James Rolfe doesn't strike me as a sexist person or whatever. I honestly think he was simply addressing the situation because people were asking him about it since he has had many videos talking about how much he was into Ghostbusters.

It's really a shame that people react this way to people disliking the trailer, though. Sure, people who say they won't see it because of [sexist reasons] are being assholes, but it is ludicrous and outright unfair to label someone as a woman hater because they simply stated, "Nah, doesn't look interesting."

[Clo]

First one sucked, second one will suck. People have nostalgia complexes.

Make a new movie!

[Formalhaut]

I usually find Melissa McCarthy very funny.

God you are wrong about a lot of things but this is probably the most wrong you have ever been.

Hey now, he's only wrong about about half ​of things. :colbert:

[charliepanayi]

First one sucked, second one will suck. People have nostalgia complexes.

Make a new movie!

They already made a second one.

...wait, you think Ghostbusters sucks? What is this madness?!

[Clo]

First one sucked, second one will suck. People have nostalgia complexes.

Make a new movie!

They already made a second one.

...wait, you think Ghostbusters sucks? What is this madness?!

Whichever. They all suck. Remake. Cartoon. The humor is dumb.

[Fynn]

Just gonna leave this here (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dan-Akyroyd-Has-Seen-Ghostbusters-He-Has-Some-Strong-Opinions-134147.html)

[charliepanayi]

Hope he's right! Mind you, this is the same guy who thought Blues Brothers 2000 was a good idea at the time, so I'll continue to wait and see.

[Cuchulainn]

I heard this caused a Menanist rage in America.

For that alone it deserves an Oscar.

[charliepanayi]

Bump as it's out tomorrow (in the UK anyway). Reviews are decent, though not stellar, which is largely what I expected. Hoping to see it next weekend.

[charliepanayi]

It's pretty enjoyable, no classic but the cast are great and there's some good laughs to be had. Please don't let Fall Out Boy near the theme song again though.

[Shauna]

Yeah, Matt and I saw this today too. I would agree with the above analysis.

[Scotty_ffgamer]

The last trailer I saw left a better impression with me so it's made me a little more interested. It's something I'll pprobably see with my mom when shes able as I think she really wants to see it. I'm glad to hear the people I know who have seen it have generally found it enjoyable.

[Slothy]

Movie was great. Kate McKinnon is the greatest human of all humans.

[Bubba]

I'll wait until it comes on Sky but I'll definitely check it out. I'm actually going to the cinema for my birthday on Friday but there's no way this is coming before The BFG!

[charliepanayi]

Poor Leslie Jones got chased off Twitter by racist trolls giving her endless nasty s**t. Sad that there are such small-minded people out there :(

[Slothy]

I hate humans.

[Fynn]

I hate humans.

Except Kate McKinnon, right?

Anyway, read an article about Leslie being harassed and damn, she is STRONG! She's obviously not okay with being called that, and yet she doesn't shy away from calling it out and draws attention to it without making it about her, and about how much hate there is in the world. You go, Leslie, you magnificent woman you! Don't let the haters get to you because they'll never be as amazing as you are!

Also, I SOOOOOOOOOOOOO need to see this movie alread! :onoes:

[charliepanayi]

I hate humans.

Can't hate them that much, you're posting on a public forum!

Glad she's been getting lots of support anyway, social media really needs to deal with this sort of unpleasant stuff better.

[Slothy]

I hate humans.

Except Kate McKinnon, right?

She is the ideal to which we must all aspire, but despair that we may never reach her level of greatness.


Can't hate them that much, you're posting on a public forum!

You assume that I see any of you as human. :p

[theundeadhero]

It was everything I hoped it would be, with a little extra over-drama in the fight scenes, but I pretty much enjoyed myself the whole time I saw it. Many laughs were had.

[Slothy]

How could anyone resist those salty parabolas?

[charliepanayi]

I did roll my eyes a bit at the product placement there, but the line (and the sight of Kate McKinnon munching on crisps) still made me laugh.

[Raistlin]

This movie was a little better than I expected (I had middling expectations), and so overall was entertaining and worth seeing. I am very tired of Melissa McCarthy, though, and wish she had been replaced with an actress who played a more straight-laced nerd. Kate McKinnon is a gem and was amazing, and by herself could make the movie worthwhile.

Nothing amazing, but fun.

[99513363]

Nothing amazing, but fun.

That's good to hear because sometimes that's all i want out of my summer movies, and so far this summer has been disappointing.

[Wolf Kanno]

This movie was a little better than I expected (I had middling expectations), and so overall was entertaining and worth seeing. I am very tired of Melissa McCarthy, though, and wish she had been replaced with an actress who played a more straight-laced nerd. Kate McKinnon is a gem and was amazing, and by herself could make the movie worthwhile.

Nothing amazing, but fun.

68924

Saw it last night, not amazing, but way better than people have been treating it. I loved the cameos from the old cast and the various call backs to the original. Kind of wish the two leading heroines had more chemistry with each other but nothing so bad to validate all the whiny "they destroyed my childhood" nonsense I've been reading on the web.

[charliepanayi]

Sadly it sounds like a sequel is unlikely, the film hasn't done very well commercially, or at least not enough to justify a sequel. A shame really, if only because various knuckledraggers online will probably take great delight in that. I think audiences just aren't hugely receptive to reboots of well-known films.

Also, this film may not have been amazing, but it still deserved to do better than the bloody Angry Birds film.