Ghostbusters

[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 work

Then 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.

[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.

It's never too late

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


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

[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


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

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?

[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.