I'm ambivalent about any reboot of a franchise I love but we'll see. I really didn't like Melissa McCarthy at all previously, but then Spy got such great reviews, I went to go see it and it was hilarious. Paul Feig directed that as well as Bridesmaids (and now this), so... I'm cautiously optimistic
It looks like it's going to have lovely visuals in the worst case.
timetowaste85 wrote: Nope. Looks fething stupid. I'm sure Egon (Ramis) is rolling over in his grave from this crap.
Considering Ramis' attitude towards other comedians and how Ghostbusters was considered a "careermaker" for many of his costars, I very much doubt that.
I dunno. I think this one just isn't for me. Unlike most reboots, this one seems to be about new audiences rather than those nostalgic for the original. I saw Ghostbusters in the theater and was a huge fan, and I can't remember ever wanting to see it reimagined as a Paul Feig - Melissa McCartney vehicle. *shrug*
But then I've also come to strongly feel that Ghostbusters should never have gotten a sequel or remake. These things happen for rea$on$, but IMO the original is a nearly perfect, self-contained comedy film. Anything that came after was probably going to fall a little flat.
So yeah...probably not for me, but that's okay...it doesn't have to be.
Ouze wrote: I'm ambivalent about any reboot of a franchise I love but we'll see. I really didn't like Melissa McCarthy at all previously, but then Spy got such great reviews, I went to go see it and it was hilarious. Paul Feig directed that as well as Bridesmaids (and now this), so... I'm cautiously optimistic
It looks like it's going to have lovely visuals in the worst case.
Actually looks pretty good to me. I'm cautiously optimistic as well.
It looks like it's going to have lovely visuals in the worst case.
Thats exactly my worry. All style and no substance.
Whilst a trailer is never going to give away the funniest moments or best jokes, I found that one to be complettely meh. Didnt even giggle once
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A streetwise African-American woman who gets angry and starts slapping people...
I thought we left the 1960s stereotypes behind?
I'm sure she is happy to know you are out there somewhere to be be internet upset for her.
Not sure what to think of it to be honest, though it seems they are going to have a human antagonist but that may not be. I did hate the music in the trailer, so I got that going for me.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A streetwise African-American woman who gets angry and starts slapping people...
I thought we left the 1960s stereotypes behind?
I'm sure she is happy to know you are out there somewhere to be be internet upset for her.
Not sure what to think of it to be honest, though it seems they are going to have a human antagonist but that may not be. I did hate the music in the trailer, so I got that going for me.
Not for me, but I ain't the target audience of this one. It will likely be a tropes-filled slapstick movie (come on, that " _____ gets in every crack joke can die already...please) with great visuals but, pun intented, no soul.
Nope, not impressed. Pretty much certainly going to give it a pass.
I still don't understand why it needs to be a reboot. - Ok, I don't understand why it needs to be made at all, but lets grant them that (aka 'we want money'). However, why does it need to be a reboot? What is so significantly important about the way the story hangs together that it needs to be a reboot. Why can't it just be another ghostbusters film? You don't even need to put a number on it, just give it a title.
Maybe it's another franchise, maybe the originals have retired. Does it really need an origin story to reboot?
Compel wrote: I don't understand why it needs to be made at all
That is the easiest part to understand. It has been 32 years since the original, they hope there is still money in the franchise, and most of the original actors aren't up for another or have died.
Compel wrote: I still don't understand why it needs to be a reboot. - Ok, I don't understand why it needs to be made at all, but lets grant them that (aka 'we want money'). However, why does it need to be a reboot? What is so significantly important about the way the story hangs together that it needs to be a reboot. Why can't it just be another ghostbusters film? You don't even need to put a number on it, just give it a title.
It's a little odd that the trailer opens with the reference to four scientists (sic) and a shot of the firehouse, but then seems to establish that it's a full reboot. Audiences will understand that it's a Ghostbusters film the moment the symbol is on screen and the proton packs fire up. Not sure why they felt the opening was necessary.
I dunno. I could see this movie beating expectations, or struggling to find an audience.
I do not like the idea of a reboot
-- the "30 years ago" is misleading and it pissed me off because I was expecting a continuation/tie-in to the original movies...does not appear to be that way
Same tired role/performance from McCarthy. All her characters are the same as all her other characters....just like Jane Lynch.
If my wife insists on dragging me to it, I will for the sake of spousal appeasment....but otherwise, I see myself passing.
Looks like a serviceable enough movie for a date night with the GF who is a GB and a McCarthy fan. I'm sure we will see it and I will enjoy it. I don't have any nostalgia for GB and reboots don't give me an identity crisis lol.
TheMeanDM wrote: I do not like the idea of a reboot
-- the "30 years ago" is misleading and it pissed me off because I was expecting a continuation/tie-in to the original movies...does not appear to be that way.
I don't think it's a true reboot, where what happened in the previous movies is completely forgotten. From what I understand, it is a direct follow-up to the other films and most of the cast will be back with cameo rolls.
It definitely does *not* look that way: designing the proton backs and ghost traps, etc.
If they really wanted to win the hearts and minds of old school people like me (and I am definitely not alone) then they should have included something identifying the old crew in the movie...a Peter one liner... Ray quoting some obscure paranormal trivia...an appearance by Winston...a shot of Egon's grave...something!
As it is, it appears to be a complete reboot from scratch, which is unappealing.
I think this looks pretty forced and bad, but somehow, much to my sincerest surprise, McCarthy was the least bad part about the trailer. And I can't stand her typically.
I groaned at the part the black chick is playing. Badly. She couldn't have been one of the scientists? With someone else playing the "straight guy" role? I don't think she's particularly funny on SNL anyway. But man.
Immediately before watching this trailer, I saw Cyrax crush another cyborg into a cube. But this is the one that put an expression of disbelieving horror on my face.
There is a germ of a good idea here. The Ghostbusters was about exorcism as a pest exterminator business - extending that metaphor by having the original team franchise out their business to another team in another city is perfectly logically sound. You could even make it an all-woman team. But not this all-woman team.
If you watch this movie, you are the reason why Hollywood greenlights any old crap with a recognisable name on it.
Meh. They look like they are trying to take themselves too seriously. Contrast "They're armed [collateral damage]. They're Dangerous" to "You're a brilliant engineer, and your a brilliant scientist".
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Meh. They look like they are trying to take themselves too seriously. Contrast "They're armed [collateral damage]. They're Dangerous" to "You're a brilliant engineer, and your a brilliant scientist".
The only one that doesn't look too serious, is Chris Hemsworth... but then again, all we see is him kicking a door open and striding through all sexy in his coveralls.
Melissa McCarthy trying to be funny again, Kristen Wiig trying to be serious again, that other one from SNL being that other one from SNL and little miss "I know these streets coz I'm black!".
gorgon wrote: It's a little odd that the trailer opens with the reference to four scientists (sic) and a shot of the firehouse, but then seems to establish that it's a full reboot.
That's what strikes me. It's a complete reboot... so why start of talking like it's a sequel?
gorgon wrote: It's a little odd that the trailer opens with the reference to four scientists (sic) and a shot of the firehouse, but then seems to establish that it's a full reboot.
That's what strikes me. It's a complete reboot... so why start of talking like it's a sequel?
Because it's the best of both worlds for the talentless hack. It means you can ride on the coattails of your far superior predecessor even if you lack the competence to write a continuation of that story.
Big thumbs down...
Wouldn't watch it for free
Nothing in the trailer was funny, the head spinning thing has been done a 100 times before.. Not very original
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Meh. They look like they are trying to take themselves too seriously. Contrast "They're armed [collateral damage]. They're Dangerous" to "You're a brilliant engineer, and your a brilliant scientist".
The only one that doesn't look too serious, is Chris Hemsworth... but then again, all we see is him kicking a door open and striding through all sexy in his coveralls.
I fear that's his entire job in this movie. But we'll see.
gorgon wrote: It's a little odd that the trailer opens with the reference to four scientists (sic) and a shot of the firehouse, but then seems to establish that it's a full reboot.
That's what strikes me. It's a complete reboot... so why start of talking like it's a sequel?
It could suggest that the studio IS concerned about this film finding an audience. So they're blurring the lines right off the bat in an attempt to draw in the fans of Venkman and company.
The best part about this trailer revealing the utter mediocre 'film' is that it will give my friends several hours of delight in declaring me a sexist pig because I think this will be cold vomit on a plate.
lonestarr777 wrote: The best part about this trailer revealing the utter mediocre 'film' is that it will give my friends several hours of delight in declaring me a sexist pig because I think this will be cold vomit on a plate.
Unfortunately I think this will be an issue with those who dislike the film. The only reason we could dislike it is because we are sexist pigs. Couldn't possibly be that the film is a massive pile of gorilla mung that gaks all over the original.
lonestarr777 wrote: The best part about this trailer revealing the utter mediocre 'film' is that it will give my friends several hours of delight in declaring me a sexist pig because I think this will be cold vomit on a plate.
Well, clearly, the only reason for why you cannot like the film is that you're a sexist.
I'm sure with the lack of ideas in Hollywood in the next few years we'll see ET, Jaws,Beastmaster, Stripes, Caddyshack, 1942, the jerk, on golden pond, grumpy old men, 9 till 5, Dirty Harry, Beverly Hills Cop, ect ect...all over again
lonestarr777 wrote: The best part about this trailer revealing the utter mediocre 'film' is that it will give my friends several hours of delight in declaring me a sexist pig because I think this will be cold vomit on a plate.
Well, clearly, the only reason for why you cannot like the film is that you're a sexist.
- Tumblr
I wonder if this film has enough privilege credits (tm) that no one will dare complain about the grating racism.
Maybe the whole thing is a CIA social experiment.
The only other explanation is that no one during the production noticed millennials are as funny as periodontal disease.
I have been excited about this film since it was first announced, but the trailer sapped a lot of that excitement.
Like others I am confused by the reference to the original movie while this movie is a reboot. Why did they show the firehouse when the Ghostbusters seem to be operating out of some kind of restaurant? It took my second viewing of the trailer to realize that they weren't operating out of the firehouse.
Based on the trailer Leslie Jones' character looks annoying, and Kate McKinnon's character seems to playing up the "kooky, zany weirdo" schtick a bit too much. That purple wig bit...
I really, really dislike the ghost visuals. They are too neon. I think I understand the visual connection they were trying to make with the 80's ghosts from the original film, but why are the ghosts all blue except Slimer?
Also, why does all of the equipment look so comic-booky? Someone on Reddit nailed the equipment look by comparing it to something out of Schumacher's Batman movies. Again, too much neon. The original equipment looked like something that could be cooked up in a well-stocked university lab. This stuff looks like it was stolen out of the Scooby gang's van.
I hope the trailer is a fluke and the movie is actually good, but I kinda doubt that will be the case. I am disappointed.
TheMeanDM wrote: It definitely does *not* look that way: designing the proton backs and ghost traps, etc.
If they really wanted to win the hearts and minds of old school people like me (and I am definitely not alone) then they should have included something identifying the old crew in the movie...a Peter one liner... Ray quoting some obscure paranormal trivia...an appearance by Winston...a shot of Egon's grave...something!
As it is, it appears to be a complete reboot from scratch, which is unappealing.
I haven't even watched the trailer because of this. It has a big f you sign on it to the original cast. Not going to watch it. Heck they will probably be using Ghost box apps on the iphones anyways. Ghost themed stuff is a joke here anymore. I like classic Unsolved Mysteries ghosts.
are you allowed to post positive comments here?
I think it looks good but I don't ask for much in a movie. I loved all of the originals but will watch this one with no comparison between the two.
I consider it a different movie with a common idea and name and that's it.
usernamesareannoying wrote: are you allowed to post positive comments here?
I think it looks good but I don't ask for much in a movie. I loved all of the originals but will watch this one with no comparison between the two.
I consider it a different movie with a common idea and name and that's it.
im looking forward to it.
Of course. I'm trying not to be too negative about it. It's just the first trailer, and trailers can fool you in either direction.
From what we've seen, it doesn't look like something I'd be interested in, but it might end up to be pretty successful at the box office. Comedies can be hard to predict. I don't think anyone saw the original Ghostbusters becoming what it did.
The exorcist neck-spinning is what tipped me into hating it. Possession by terror dogs was miles more interesting, and frightening, than the lame exorcist homage that's been old since Repossessed. Everything else struck me as comedy written by someone with no depth of comedic experience, just hoping to get lucky with the same old same old. I am honestly surprised that such an experienced cast was okay with the material they were given.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The exorcist neck-spinning is what tipped me into hating it. Possession by terror dogs was miles more interesting, and frightening, than the lame exorcist homage that's been old since Repossessed. Everything else struck me as comedy written by someone with no depth of comedic experience, just hoping to get lucky with the same old same old. I am honestly surprised that such an experienced cast was okay with the material they were given.
repossessed... holy what, 80s Bob? lol... what you say has some truth to it but honestly when have we seen anything truly new out of Hollywood lately? I honestly think the world is out of ideas.
It looks like a Hollywood formula remake. Probably enough throwbacks to tickle my nostalgia, with some new-ish “twists” to liven it up. Not expecting anything great, but I’ll watch it on Netflix with The Wife when it gets there.
Depending on reviews, I’d adjust my alcohol levels as needed before/during viewing.
Watched that "cut" trailer. Still looks like crap. Worse than the FF reboot. You should be ashamed of yourself if you still want to go see that pile of dung!
This thread went to a bad place quick. I love it when people who dislike the film are already accusing people of calling them sexist for having an opinion. Stay classy and keep on bashing those Millenials!
I am excited to see it, I think Kristen Wigg is hilarious and while I dislike most of the stuff McCarthy does, I think she can be funny given the right material.
Maybe that does make me a terrible person, for liking something.....
I'm a fan of several of the actresses and thought it was cool to hear about them starring in the reboot...but the trailer really turned me off. It was an unfunny overly green screened cgi mess and that kind of stuff isn't fixable this late in the game. The jokes fell flat without me even cracking a smile once and the visual style reminded me too much of that Egyptian gods movie out now. Despite being a big fan of some of the actresses and the original movie, I'll be skipping this one.
warboss wrote: I'm a fan of several of the actresses and thought it was cool to hear about them starring in the reboot...but the trailer really turned me off. It was an unfunny overly green screened cgi mess and that kind of stuff isn't fixable this late in the game. The jokes fell flat without me even cracking a smile once and the visual style reminded me too much of that Egyptian gods movie out now. Despite being a big fan of some of the actresses and the original movie, I'll be skipping this one.
I keep hearing this about the CGI and I am a little confused by the argument. How are you supposed to have a movie about ghosts without CGI?
warboss wrote: I'm a fan of several of the actresses and thought it was cool to hear about them starring in the reboot...but the trailer really turned me off. It was an unfunny overly green screened cgi mess and that kind of stuff isn't fixable this late in the game. The jokes fell flat without me even cracking a smile once and the visual style reminded me too much of that Egyptian gods movie out now. Despite being a big fan of some of the actresses and the original movie, I'll be skipping this one.
I keep hearing this about the CGI and I am a little confused by the argument. How are you supposed to have a movie about ghosts without CGI?
I don't think anyone wants a CGI-less movie, but the ghost are portrayed in this movie as distracting, neon-glow messes. They are so obviously CGI that they look cartoony.
I was also immediately reminded of the 1996 movie The Frighteners. Why do the new Ghostbusters ghosts look like something from 20 years ago?
Wait? Distracting? What? You are supposed to be paying attention to them. They are one of the main themes of the movie. They are intentionally distracting.....
Dreadwinter wrote: Wait? Distracting? What? You are supposed to be paying attention to them. They are one of the main themes of the movie. They are intentionally distracting.....
You can do ghosts without random lens-flare type burst of light. That is what I mean about distracting. Look at the vomiting librarian above. It looks like a video game screen capture which just screams lame CGI to me.
warboss wrote: I'm a fan of several of the actresses and thought it was cool to hear about them starring in the reboot...but the trailer really turned me off. It was an unfunny overly green screened cgi mess and that kind of stuff isn't fixable this late in the game. The jokes fell flat without me even cracking a smile once and the visual style reminded me too much of that Egyptian gods movie out now. Despite being a big fan of some of the actresses and the original movie, I'll be skipping this one.
I keep hearing this about the CGI and I am a little confused by the argument. How are you supposed to have a movie about ghosts without CGI?
I don't have a problem with CGI but rather unnecessary CGI messes. CGI isn't a one stop solution to film making; practical effects still have a place and a mix of CGI over practical is frequently the best solution if you have the money.
For instance, the scene of ghosts rampaging through the streets of New York... it's obvious to me that the actresses are just standing in front of a giant green screen and the ghost AND the city are cgi. They should have filmed them in the city and then added the ghosts. Same thing looking up from the actresses with the giant uncle same ghost walking down the street at night. Same thing with the vomitting ghost in the library; the wall whole shot of the ghost and library is cgi and then cuts back and forth to the real actress in the actual library. Same thing with the actresses doing their action poses (punching, drawing dual pistols, shooting)... just them with a green screen backdrop and everything but them is fake. That is what I'm talking about.
There was really no reason a big budget movie couldn't have filmed them in a real city stand in for NY and then added in the CGI ghost effects. The original Iron Man movie made use of that combo of real and CGI with bits of his armor around joints missing for mobility but added in CGI. They didn't have to "guess" what the armor should look like as they had the practical worn armor in the same shot so the textures and lighting were spot on. That's why I compared it to that egyptian god movie that does the same thing (actors jumping around in front of green screens for almost all the shots in the commercials). I simply don't like unnecessary CGI because despite tens of millions of dollars it still looks fake.
They actually did a large amount of filming in NYC, from what I understand.
That's where a lot of the early photos of the cast came from; set photos. I'd imagine there comes a point though where it becomes impractical for them to be shutting down an area for filming.
Dreadwinter wrote: Wait? Distracting? What? You are supposed to be paying attention to them. They are one of the main themes of the movie. They are intentionally distracting.....
You can do ghosts without random lens-flare type burst of light. That is what I mean about distracting. Look at the vomiting librarian above. It looks like a video game screen capture which just screams lame CGI to me.
I think you may need to look in to what a lens-flare is. Also, there isn't really a burst of light so much as ethereal wisps of what I can only assume is supposed to be some sort of spirit energy emanating from the Ghost. No bursts of light or lens flares that I can see.
As far as the scene with the ghosts moving through New York, I am not sure if that is green screened or not. It doesn't look Green Screen to me. However, if it is I would have to assume that it would be much easier to get the correct shot while trying to convey the tone of the movie with a green screen. Also probably a thousand times easier to put the CGI in with a green screen like that.
I get that you guys do not like this movie, but do not blame it on the CGI. The CGI looks great and well done. I mean cmon, they are ghosts in a comedy movie about people who fight ghosts. We are not going for super realistic here.....
I don't think anyone wants a CGI-less movie, but the ghost are portrayed in this movie as distracting, neon-glow messes. They are so obviously CGI that they look cartoony.
They do look VERY cartoony. That's fairly appropriate for slimer (although the original didn't look very cartoony iirc but rather more disgusting... the cameo in the trailer looked more like the 80's cartoon version) but less so for the other ghosts. I imagine they've got hit songs, kids cartoons, and toy tie in sugar plumbs dancing in the studio exec heads just like with the original so they're aiming for that younger PG audience despite the likely PG-13 rating. I'd be ok with that if the rest of the scenes with ghosts weren't just as fake looking.
Kanluwen wrote: They actually did a large amount of filming in NYC, from what I understand.
That's where a lot of the early photos of the cast came from; set photos. I'd imagine there comes a point though where it becomes impractical for them to be shutting down an area for filming.
I can't verify but I believe you; scenes where the ecto-1 is just driving or the girls are just standing around are shot on location. The problem is that (for me at least) the convienence/crutch of CGI shows. Not every scene was green screened but rather it seems like almost every time (in the trailer) where there was a ghost the whole damn thing was green screened instead of just adding the special effects to the actual set.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: They are ghosts, they are supposed to be fake looking. Ghosts are not real.....
But they don't have to look cartoony. The wraiths in the 10+ year old LOTR movies look less fake. Eh, whatever. Enjoy the movie! My dislike of an unnecessary overabundance of CGI shouldn't detract from your enjoyment of the movie.
Dreadwinter wrote: Wait? Distracting? What? You are supposed to be paying attention to them. They are one of the main themes of the movie. They are intentionally distracting.....
You can do ghosts without random lens-flare type burst of light. That is what I mean about distracting. Look at the vomiting librarian above. It looks like a video game screen capture which just screams lame CGI to me.
This was the original Ghostbusters CGI from the Library.
It also looks like the cinematography is worse in the new one, reducing the depth in the shots so that the ghosts look "flatter". It could also be the color filter. I don't know. The effects are just less convincing, and perhaps too flashy. Ghostbusters was always about some guys going to do a job, where the job just happened to be catching ghosts. The new one looks more like a comic book movie, which loses a lot of that grounded quality.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Being a filthy uncultured millenial, this looks like my type of movie.
As a joyless, jaded millennial I think this movie (Judging by the trailer) is just another bland and forgettable comedy film. Play it safe to get those seats filled with those who grew up with the original but change enough so it doesn't blatantly look like a cynical cash grab.
Dreadwinter wrote: How are you supposed to have a movie about ghosts without CGI?
See above statement about practical effects. They're usually much better. (Compare Fury Road with pretty much every other action movie that year.)
You realize that there was tons of CGI in Fury Road, right?
And they were added onto practical effects/shots whenever possible which is why it looked so great. As I said before, CGI is not some magic panacea that filmmakers should instantly use for every shot that needs something extra. In Fury Road, they could have just filmed actors on a green screen with just a Wii steering wheel in their hands "acting" out the chase scene and added in all the cars and desert with CGI.. but then it would have looked like crap ala the Egyptian gods movie out now instead of the visual spectacle it was. It's just lazy when they film an actor in front of a green screen because of interacting with one single isolated element and then add in the rest of the 90% of the scene/background with CGI. The "action figure" scenes in the trailer are an example of that. There was really no reason they couldn't film Melissa McCarthy on any actual street in front of the Ecto-1 prop car just punching the air and THEN add in the ghost... instead of her just punching the air on an empty green screen stage. YMMV.
It doesn't look like the dislike is just on dakka...
There is an almost 2:1 ratio of dislikes to likes for the trailer. While I'm sure some of those are from fans unhappy with the change to female characters (a view that I find stupid frankly), I doubt that it is just that. IGN commented on the video as well with a comparison that summed up my thoughts on the CGI (and the overall tone for me) quite well... it reminded them more of the live action Scooby Do movies from the past 10 years than the original Ghostbusters. If that trailer was for a super hero movie, the visuals would remind me most of the Green Lantern and compared with the original's Xmen.
warboss wrote: And they were added onto practical effects/shots whenever possible which is why it looked so great.
There were practical stunts, layered with tons and tons of CGI.
As I said before, CGI is not some magic panacea that filmmakers should instantly use for every shot that needs something extra.
And yet, CGI was used in almost every single shot in Fury Road.
In Fury Road, they could have just filmed actors on a green screen with just a Wii steering wheel in their hands "acting" out the chase scene and added in all the cars and desert with CGI.. but then it would have looked like crap ala the Egyptian gods movie out now instead of the visual spectacle it was. It's just lazy when they film an actor in front of a green screen because of interacting with one single isolated element and then add in the rest of the 90% of the scene/background with CGI.
You realize that this was never an argument, right?
The "action figure" scenes in the trailer are an example of that. There was really no reason they couldn't film Melissa McCarthy on any actual street in front of the Ecto-1 prop car just punching the air and THEN add in the ghost... instead of her just punching the air on an empty green screen stage. YMMV.
What makes you say that the one shot of Melissa McCarthy punching something was filmed entirely on green screen?
And yet, CGI was used in almost every single shot in Fury Road.
There were plenty but I think "almost every" is a bit of an overstatement although it is true of the chase action scenes that make up over half the movie. I don't consider color correction to get the particular tones used throughout the movie though to be "CGI" but rather when they create something out of nothing. I've seen videos of the before and after and think they did a great job of melding the two.
You realize that this was never an argument, right?
With you, yes, but I thought it needed saying generally. I even considered adding a disclaimer that you weren't arguing otherwise but I assumed incorrectly that it was evident.
What makes you say that the one shot of Melissa McCarthy punching something was filmed entirely on green screen?
Because it looks like a CGI shot with her just standing on a green screen as do the other "action pose" shots of the other ghostbusters. I really dislike pure unnecessarily pure CGI shots and pick up on them easily.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Being a filthy uncultured millenial, this looks like my type of movie.
As a joyless, jaded millennial I think this movie (Judging by the trailer) is just another bland and forgettable comedy film. Play it safe to get those seats filled with those who grew up with the original but change enough so it doesn't blatantly look like a cynical cash grab.
You must be one of those employed, fringe (30+ years old) millenials. :-D
Judging from the trailer, it's a parody of a classic and/or comedy. Much like the Brady Bunch and Dark Shadows films. Those tended to come off as being purely stupid.
You realize that there was tons of CGI in Fury Road, right?
No, there was *Tons* of CG in Jurassic World, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Terminator: Genishit. Compared to Ultron in particular,it was almost CGI free.
I'm not sure how a 120 minute long movie with over 2,000 VFX shots - an average of a CGI effect every 4 seconds - qualifies as "nearly CGI free", regardless of what you compare it to.
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure how a 120 minute long movie with over 2,000 VFX shots - an average of a CGI effect every 4 seconds - qualifies as "nearly CGI free", regardless of what you compare it to.
It's not like it was nominated for an Academy Award for visual effects...
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure how a 120 minute long movie with over 2,000 VFX shots - an average of a CGI effect every 4 seconds - qualifies as "nearly CGI free", regardless of what you compare it to.
Because you're counting a lot things like color filters and image composites when you cite that 2k vfx shots, as well as practical vfx, rather than digital ones.
Example:
Now, don't get me wrong, there's CGI in it, the sandstorm sequence and a lot of backgrounds are matted in.
This shot everyone loves, for example, is cg but not a 3d modeled image:
This shot was made by compositing each vehicle, which was filmed separate, into the shot, like you would with photoshop. The only thing in it not actually real is the edges of the canyon.
Compare this to say, a shot in Jurassic World, where the only thing in the scene on screen that exists is the actor.
They do look VERY cartoony. That's fairly appropriate for slimer (although the original didn't look very cartoony iirc but rather more disgusting... the cameo in the trailer looked more like the 80's cartoon version) but less so for the other ghosts. I imagine they've got hit songs, kids cartoons, and toy tie in sugar plumbs dancing in the studio exec heads just like with the original so they're aiming for that younger PG audience despite the likely PG-13 rating. I'd be ok with that if the rest of the scenes with ghosts weren't just as fake looking.
Yeah, I think you may be right about making this friendly for younger audiences. The ghosts just don't appeal to me and I guess that's just me not being in the target demographic.
That being said, I'd love some Ecto Coolers again.
Rick Moranis wrote:
"It's hard to come up with original material," he says. "Occasionally, they get it right or else they wouldn't attempt to do these things. I'm surprised that Disney hasn't done Honey, I Shrunk the Grandkids. But I'm happy with the things I said yes to, and I'm very happy with the many things I've said no to.
Rick Moranis wrote:
"It's hard to come up with original material," he says. "Occasionally, they get it right or else they wouldn't attempt to do these things. I'm surprised that Disney hasn't done Honey, I Shrunk the Grandkids. But I'm happy with the things I said yes to, and I'm very happy with the many things I've said no to.
Sounds like he thought it sucked too.
Sounds like he thought he wasn't a good enough actor to be part of a good movie.
Today I learned a movie is going to suck because an actor who has turned down every role offered to him for twenty years running also turned down this one, I guess?
Maybe it will suck, and maybe it won't, but Rick Moranis non-involvement doesn't mean anything either way.
Ouze wrote: Today I learned a movie is going to suck because an actor who has turned down every role offered to him for twenty years running also turned down this one, I guess?
Maybe it will suck, and maybe it won't, but Rick Moranis non-involvement doesn't mean anything either way.
No, it's going to suck because it doesn't look funny at all, seems completely forced, and generally appears terrible. That's why it's going to suck. Just happens to also be a movie RM said "no" to.
Having re-watched it several times, I'll stand by "cautiously optimistic". I mean, if I see a 15 or 20 on Rotten Tomatoes, I'm staying home, but for now I'm thinking it might be an OK movie with a sub-par trailer. I will definitely agree with the criticisms of Leslie Jones's character, though - I've seen very little of it obviously but what I have seen seems lazy and cliched.
Having re-watched it several times, I'll stand by "cautiously optimistic". I mean, if I see a 15 or 20 on Rotten Tomatoes, I'm staying home, but for now I'm thinking it might be an OK movie with a sub-par trailer. I will definitely agree with the criticisms of Leslie Jones's character, though - I've seen very little of it obviously but what I have seen seems lazy and cliched.
What in the trailer left you cautiously optimistic, out of curiosity?
Stereotypical black speech patterns.
Stereotypical black preferences "It's a Cadillac!"
Stereotypical un-educated but "street smart" black person.
Street-wise black caricatures have appeared in many movies. It is a trope, a cliche, the kind of character that lacks thought or depth in many of its examples. Is that what Jones’ character is in the latest Ghostbusters iteration?
I know this isn't going to be some girly slap fight about how computers are used but I'll charge ahead anyway. It is also important to remember this is just a trailer and may not reflect the final product, but based on the trailer:
As I said earlier I don't care for the music in the trailer. It seems to be trying way to hard to come across as cool and hip, but comes across as some executives idea of what is cool and hip instead.
The original was a balance of horror and comedy but this seems to have moved away from the horror and went all the way to comedy.
The comedy is less verbal, such as the first, and more physical slapstick. Slapstick can be funny, but it is also much harder to replicate, or it shouldn't be replicated at all. Saying "back off man, I'm a scientist" is much easier to redo than jumping on someone and slapping them really hard.
I'm not a fan of the dual wielded pistols or fists. It feels like a merchandising item designed to sell toys from the movie.
It seems more like they are going for a human bad guy then a supernatural entity (Gozer or Vigo*).
I like the people in it, but the trailer hasn't rubbed me the right way and that is all I ask from a trailer. No wait...
Ouze wrote: Today I learned a movie is going to suck because an actor who has turned down every role offered to him for twenty years
Well, yeah, after his wife died he decided to focus on raising kids instead of acting, but they're grown up now, he's supposedly back in acting and rumor has it that there's a new Mel Brook's Sequel in the works... something about a Search for More Money...
TheMeanDM wrote: Stereotypical black speech patterns. Stereotypical black preferences "It's a Cadillac!" Stereotypical un-educated but "street smart" black person.
Street-wise black caricatures have appeared in many movies. It is a trope, a cliche, the kind of character that lacks thought or depth in many of its examples. Is that what Jones’ character is in the latest Ghostbusters iteration?
That's intended. All four roles are stereotypical feminist roles with the streetsmart black, the nerdy "top of her field" scientist, the lesbian weirdo and the "funny" leader woman that keeps 'em together, mix and match all body types. It's pretty bland and shows clearly what the movie wants to be or rather what it's focus is going to be. Hint: not the script.
3/4 of the leads are either active cast of SNL, or SNL alumni- that means it needs to compete with the likes of The Ladies Man, and Night at the Roxbury. I am confident that it will be awesome in this particular category.
The whole thing with the original was the chemistry between the characters and seeing the trailer i didn't see that. Well probably will check it out in the theaters to find out if it can stand on its own.
Trouble with reviewers now is that many take the corporate coin and song praises when the purse jingles. This is more common with games than films though.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well probably will check it out in the theaters to find out if it can stand on its own.
Please don't. Go watch a good movie instead; don't help make bad movies profitable.
Exactly this. Read the reviews. If it sounds bad, wait for it to hit redbox. You can rent it for $1.50, if you need to see it so badly. Take that $13 for the movie ticket and buy three pots of GW paint instead.
kronk wrote: The back and forth about will it suck or won't it for various reasons is more entertaining than the movie promises to be.
Please, continue.
Yeah, ever since they announced the reboot, and that it would be an all-woman lineup, the drama surrounding this has been... well, what I sort of expect from the internet now, unfortunately.
Meh, like a lot of people, it didn't need a reboot. I had heard that it was a sequal, essentially the ladies were starting a franchise of Ghostbusters. Very disappointed that wasn't the case and is in fact a complete reboot. It even starts in the flippin library. Not a Melissa Mcarthy fan either, she really annoys me. I am not even an activist type and the Hollywood stereotypical black woman thing is bothersome, can we expect a head wobble too just to complete the type casting?
That said it had some funny parts, but I wont be kept awake with excitement the night before I go see it, if I go see it. I am glad I got to see the 30 year anniversary in the theaters a couple years back, that was fun.
Reviews as has been proven are a horrible way to decide to see a movie. I personally know of one instance where competitors have paid off reviewers to slam a movie to the point it tanked ridiculously even though a few weeks afterward peoples reviews online were excellent and the movie did well overseas. Don't piss Disney off.
The most recent example was that Will Smith football movie about head injuries. The NFL paid for that one to tank all over even though I had heard it was one of Will's best performances.
Col. Dash wrote: Reviews as has been proven are a horrible way to decide to see a movie. I personally know of one instance where competitors have paid off reviewers to slam a movie to the point it tanked ridiculously even though a few weeks afterward peoples reviews online were excellent and the movie did well overseas. Don't piss Disney off.
The most recent example was that Will Smith football movie about head injuries. The NFL paid for that one to tank all over even though I had heard it was one of Will's best performances.
How do you explain the most recent Fantastic Four's theater run?? It was absolutely butchered in reviews, and it was fairly terrible in theater as well... Unless somehow different versions went to different theaters
They get it right from time to time or no one paid them to pan it.
In the case I mentioned, there is actually a lawsuit in the works based on some actual evidence they found. I have a family member who was a producer on it. They didn't want to play Hollywood games so they raised $200 mil and a good bit of change on their own to make and distribute a movie, had some big name voice actors, Patrick Stewart being the big one off the top of my head. Because they skipped Hollywood and didn't pay into the system Disney and I want to say Paramount made a direct competitor and paid the reviewers to pan the film and to screw with show times like putting a children's movie at 10pm on opening weekend. It has made a bit more money over seas. I am not sure where the lawsuit is at this point, I don't talk to that uncle very often.
I am sure this one will be great according to the reviewers, best movie of the year! I don't know which would be worse, watching a boring Oscar-bait movie or seeing my childhood beaten up. I didn't see a Stay-puff marshmellow man though so that's a bonus.
Col. Dash wrote: Reviews as has been proven are a horrible way to decide to see a movie. I personally know of one instance where competitors have paid off reviewers to slam a movie to the point it tanked ridiculously even though a few weeks afterward peoples reviews online were excellent and the movie did well overseas. Don't piss Disney off.
The most recent example was that Will Smith football movie about head injuries. The NFL paid for that one to tank all over even though I had heard it was one of Will's best performances.
How do you explain the most recent Fantastic Four's theater run?? It was absolutely butchered in reviews, and it was fairly terrible in theater as well... Unless somehow different versions went to different theaters
They had to make a movie or lose the license. It's part of their contract and the people behind it themselves said that the movie sucked big time.
kronk wrote: The back and forth about will it suck or won't it for various reasons is more entertaining than the movie promises to be.
Please, continue.
Yeah, ever since they announced the reboot, and that it would be an all-woman lineup, the drama surrounding this has been... well, what I sort of expect from the internet now, unfortunately.
Agreed. That the internet is labelling any critic of this film as being a misogynist, is exactly what I expected
We're living in one of the worst artistic droughts in modern memory, and my problem with this film is not that it contains women, but because it's symptomatic of the lazy, re-booting, re-hashing, re-making, film industry that we're all used too.
The last two films I've seen (Force awakens) and SPECTRE, were so meh, they deserved to have their place in the dictionary under the definition of meh
Sadly, I think Ghostbusters will continue this trend.
Col. Dash wrote: Reviews as has been proven are a horrible way to decide to see a movie. I personally know of one instance where competitors have paid off reviewers to slam a movie to the point it tanked ridiculously even though a few weeks afterward peoples reviews online were excellent and the movie did well overseas. Don't piss Disney off.
The most recent example was that Will Smith football movie about head injuries. The NFL paid for that one to tank all over even though I had heard it was one of Will's best performances.
You heard incorrectly. He was appropriately left out of the nominations. Bad accent. Preachy acting. He's better in a number of other films.
In the trailer, it specifically mentioned the original crew saving NYC 30 years ago.
But this movie appears to be a step-by-step reboot, with inventing the ghostbusting tech and the confirmed existence of ghosts in general.
So, it is a complete do-over, is it not?
Other than that and the obvious rule 63 implications, it looks decent, I guess. The original was honestly not as amazing as it has made out to be - it was ok.
And the level of vitriol (generally, not here specifically) being dished out about the reboot of a long-dead franchise is kind of odd, honestly.
The last two films I've seen (Force awakens) and SPECTRE, were so meh, they deserved to have their place in the dictionary under the definition of meh
I don't agree with you on TFA, but SPECTRE was absolutely meh-tastic. In particular, the drowning cat opening music of Sam Smith (which seemed to go on for an eternity). ABOMINATION!! If I had a flame-thrower, his music would absolutely be on the receiving end of it.
The last two films I've seen (Force awakens) and SPECTRE, were so meh, they deserved to have their place in the dictionary under the definition of meh
I don't agree with you on TFA, but SPECTRE was absolutely meh-tastic. In particular, the drowning cat opening music of Sam Smith (which seemed to go on for an eternity). ABOMINATION!! If I had a flame-thrower, his music would absolutely be on the receiving end of it.
Ahem. Back on topic...
To hell with the mods - I'm going renegade here!
To quickly address your point, I didn't mind Sam Smith's music - it wasn't the first bad Bond theme, and it won't be the last, but to waste an actor of Waltz's ability with such a mediocre script...
Cultural marxism the movie. If you like the trailer, you're a racist, if you dislike it, you're a sexist. That's been the crux of any discussion I've seen about it. It's getting hammered on youtube, massive dislike to like ratio.
The original wasnt really that good, watchable, some good moments, sure, but not on par with many of the really great films from that era.
I will likely sit this one out and preserve the positive memories I have from the original rather then taint that with the remake and have it join the ranks of robocop/terminator/ect
kronk wrote: The back and forth about will it suck or won't it for various reasons is more entertaining than the movie promises to be.
Please, continue.
Yeah, ever since they announced the reboot, and that it would be an all-woman lineup, the drama surrounding this has been... well, what I sort of expect from the internet now, unfortunately.
Agreed. That the internet is labelling any critic of this film as being a misogynist, is exactly what I expected
We're living in one of the worst artistic droughts in modern memory, and my problem with this film is not that it contains women, but because it's symptomatic of the lazy, re-booting, re-hashing, re-making, film industry that we're all used too.
The last two films I've seen (Force awakens) and SPECTRE, were so meh, they deserved to have their place in the dictionary under the definition of meh
Sadly, I think Ghostbusters will continue this trend.
Wow, an artistic drought? That is some pretty harsh language. I mean, you didn't like a few movies that have come out, but an artistic drought? There have been plenty of amazing movies that have come out very recently. Also, I really enjoyed The Force Awakens so it might be that some people have a different opinion of what is good compared to you.
I dunno, people being individuals and making their own decisions. Crazy thoughts for a crazy world.
Yeah, the artistic drought thing and the "age of the sequel/remakes" is something I've heard a lot.
Truth be told, I don't think it pans out. It's always been thus. - King Kong is a great example of this (And then, King Kong Lives as an example of a sequel to a reboot).
If anything, I'd say there's more sequels/reboots now, because there's more films to pick from, that's all. And that means, more franchises to mine.
Additionally, technology has progressed to the point that, I think a lot of people are wanting to put things on film in a way that does them justice. - Hence the comic book films.
So yeah, I understand all that theoretical stuff (plus the constant 'to make money' thing) but yeah, a proper sequel as opposed to the (probably) reboot, I would have been better with.
But still, the film looks kinda rubbish in my point of view.
Compel wrote: Yeah, the artistic drought thing and the "age of the sequel/remakes" is something I've heard a lot.
Truth be told, I don't think it pans out. It's always been thus. - King Kong is a great example of this (And then, King Kong Lives as an example of a sequel to a reboot).
One thing to consider is the impact of DVD/Blu-Ray sales on Hollywood's offerings.
This radio program interviews an author who makes the argument that losses in DVD/Blu-Ray sales and the impact of growing foreign markets has caused Hollywood to focus on existing franchises and sequels as a way to make money--at the expense of smaller or more original projects.
So, while sequels have been happening for almost as long as cinema has been a thing, the rapid shift in studio behavior to focus on sequels/franchises is a newer trend.
There are just more movies being made now too. Including a lot of independent films, which is where you can go if you want to see new ideas and stories.
Blockbuster-type films tend to be formula, which TBH isn't bad business strategy when you sink a hundred mil or two into a film.
gorgon wrote: Blockbuster-type films tend to be formula, which TBH isn't bad business strategy when you sink a hundred mil or two into a film.
I would tend to agree. The biggest korean movie ever made was only about a 40 million budget, but it was 80% english and stared primarily american/british/french actors. The vibe is basically, we're really happy to have made the biggest movie in korea's history, but we also don't want to lose 40 million dollars so it would have to work internationally. The big hollywood studios are the same, they don't want to take too many risks, and when a movie has a 100 million dollar budget I can see it from their perspective. The stuidos resembles triple a gaming taking no risks anymore and leaving that to the indie games. A lot of innovation in film is similar, leave all the risk to the indie's.
Doesn't make the content we know so far any better, but it's extremely well-cut.
Extremely well cut to the extent that everything flashed before my eyes before it registered!
Maybe that was deliberate!
This film will suck harder than an hundred industrial vacuum cleaners jury rigged onto a hovercraft powered by a runaway generator with all the safeties removed.
kronk wrote: The back and forth about will it suck or won't it for various reasons is more entertaining than the movie promises to be.
Wow, an artistic drought? That is some pretty harsh language. I mean, you didn't like a few movies that have come out, but an artistic drought? There have been plenty of amazing movies that have come out very recently. Also, I really enjoyed The Force Awakens so it might be that some people have a different opinion of what is good compared to you.
I dunno, people being individuals and making their own decisions. Crazy thoughts for a crazy world.
It's the lack of originality. TFA was a pretty bland remake of ANH and a lot of movies that come out nowadays are pretty open about being remakes of popular movies of the past or just the same movie every single time (looking at you, Mr. Statham). As others stated, that's fully understandable. Netflix has really ruined the cinema's day. It's far, far cheaper, it's more comfortable and it allows for...more...stuff to do than you could do at the movies. The movie industry is extremely expensive and with series now taking a good chunk of people who would formerly go to the cinema because it was the place to be for interesting content, it's a lot smarter to pull off the safety card and make bland rehashes / trying to maximize broadening your audience instead of trying to be original.
Ghostbusters wants to gather the old nostalgia crowd and puts some SJW / "woooo 3D CGI!" stuff in to further broaden the audience. It's a smart business decision, but mark my words, the movie will suck.
Dakka Dakka Off-Topic: "Stop liking what I don't like!".
Based on who is already tearing this movie apart, and their track record with other movies talked about in the OT, I'll probably end up seeing it in the theater.
timetowaste85 wrote: So, D, you're saying you saw FF in theaters? Good waste of $13!
I actually did see FF in theaters... both the wife and I saw the reviews and said (before going), "it can't possibly be as bad as that, right?" I honestly thought people were still butthurt over the casting of Johnnie Storm and were taking that anger out on the reviews.
It was one instance in which the trailers and reviews did not lie
d-usa wrote: Based on who is already tearing this movie apart, and their track record with other movies talked about in the OT, I'll probably end up seeing it in the theater.
Going to see a movie just to spite people is a form of self flagellation I'm just not into.
d-usa wrote: Based on who is already tearing this movie apart, and their track record with other movies talked about in the OT, I'll probably end up seeing it in the theater.
Going to see a movie just to spite people is a form of self flagellation I'm just not into.
There is just a tiny bit of a difference between "these guys suck, I will watch the movie to spite them" and "they sad similar things about these other movies that I enjoyed, so chances are that I'm going to enjoy this one".
What other reason could there be for having women, including a black women, in a movie that previously starred 4 men?
They didn't have to pay them as much and they're less likely to ask to see the script before signing on with the film?
Maybe that. Maybe they wanted to pander to SJWs. Maybe they looked at demographics and said "there aren't a lot of movies starring women, so women will want to see this". Maybe they decided to go with the "the original was X so we will redo it with Y" formula. Maybe they just liked these actresses and figured this was a good excuse to get them on a project together that complemented their styles. Maybe they were the best 4 people on the casting couch.
kronk wrote: The back and forth about will it suck or won't it for various reasons is more entertaining than the movie promises to be.
Please, continue.
Yeah, ever since they announced the reboot, and that it would be an all-woman lineup, the drama surrounding this has been... well, what I sort of expect from the internet now, unfortunately.
Isn't there usually drama behind any remake, reboot, reimagining, prequel, etc of a beloved franchise? I mean whether there was an all female cast or not I have a feeling this movie was going to be under heavy scrutiny.
In response to my earlier comments about artistic droughts, sequels, remakes, and re-boots - I can list the following films from the top of my head that have appeared in recent years, which are earlier remakes, reboots, sequels, re-bott sequels, or sequel sequels!
Mad Max
Jurassic Park/World
Superman (it's not that long since Kevin Stacey played Lex Luthor!)
Re-make of Star wars a new hope Spiderman
14 Iron Man films
27 avengers films
Captain America (still waiting for Captain Confederacy )
Point Break! Damn you forever Hollywood! Ghostbusters
Indiana Jones and the crystal bulltgak
Kung Fu Panda 1-11
Rocky 1-11
Terminator whatever the feth that monstrosity was called Transformers
Fast and Furious (the car films not the ATF scandal!)
and so on and so on.
This year's big releases are comic book made into films, and oh, another comic book adaption.
I'm old enough to remember the days when people read comics, and not watched them!
People may think that I'm a bitter person for these kind of rants, but it's because I love the cinema so much, that I'm reduced to jumping up and down like this. The Western world seems to be stuck in this adolescent bubble, where serious films and serious ideas are frowned in culture, and instead, we get this conveyor belt of gak heading our way on a weekly basis, because people want to play out their fantasies of dressing up as a superhero and run around beating the gak out of people.
You look at 1970s Hollywood and some of the fantastic films that were made, and you wonder why they can't or don't do that any more...
Rant over!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Dakka Dakka Off-Topic: "Stop liking what I don't like!".
Based on who is already tearing this movie apart, and their track record with other movies talked about in the OT, I'll probably end up seeing it in the theater.
Opinion is not prohibition. If you see me outside your local cinema trying to deny you entry, then you'd have a point. Just because I don't like the idea of a film, doesn't mean I'm trying to stop people from going to see it.
Cheesecat wrote: Or you can read a few reviews before making a purchase (or not) I mean Rotten tomatoes and IMDB do exist...
Or just use the common sense God gave you to see this bomb coming from a mile away.
I mean judging by the trailer it looks awful but then again most comedy trailers are awful so it's really hard to go by just trailers even when I like the movie (like Deadpool and Hot Fuzz didn't have funny trailers but were funny movies). So common sense would tell me that cause the trailer is
bad and that often remakes, reboots, reimaginings, prequels, etc of established retro franchises are mediocre or worse I should give this a pass, but you know what I usually don't go by trailers as they aren't often a good gauge on whether a film is good or not and there has been good
remakes, reboots, reimaginings, prequels, etc (like True Grit, Bat Man, Mad Max, The Thing, Dracula, King Kong (although it has some flaws), Scarface, Little Shop of Horrors, 3:10 to Yuma, The Fly, Insomnia, Hairspray, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Departed, James Bond, Fistful of
Dollars, Magnificent 7, Dredd, etc) so despite what common sense says I think I'll wait till the reviews before making a final judgement.
You guys act like there aren't dozens of artsy little independent films coming out every year. Just because they don't appear in every theater or make hundreds of millions of dollars doesn't mean they don't exist. Look up your local independent theater if you want those same kind of films. People are still making them, probably for the same budgets and same box office returns as actual 70's films.
It's also kind of funny that you mention the 70's as a high water mark of cinema. Sure, people remember a lot of classics from that era...but they don't remember all of the crap that used to be made. One of my coworkers is an aficionado of schlocky 70's films, and trust me, they are legion. Just wait 25 years and you will hear everyone complaining about all the Robowuxia crap that's popular and how no one makes thoughtful sci fi like The Martian or Ex Machina any more.
Glass half-full, another Melissa McCarthy film, Spy, had trailers that didn't exactly inspire confidence in its quality, but it turned out to be a legitimately hilarious film. We shall see with this, I suppose.
Yeah, I saw the redone trailer yesterday. It's an improvement but still not particularly funny and the special effects still look like scenes cut from a Scooby Doo movie. I did like that they addressed the allegations of sexism and racism in a tongue in cheek manner via scenes from the movie... that was about the only part that I found funny. It's sad that the folks who worked on movies that I really enjoyed like Bridesmaid and Spy ended up with *this* as the result. I guess everyone strikes out sometime.
If I've been out on the town, downed a few drinks, and somebody says lets go and see this, I'll probably stumble into the cinema, and sleep through it.
But watching it stone cold sober? Highly unlikely...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: You guys act like there aren't dozens of artsy little independent films coming out every year. Just because they don't appear in every theater or make hundreds of millions of dollars doesn't mean they don't exist. Look up your local independent theater if you want those same kind of films. People are still making them, probably for the same budgets and same box office returns as actual 70's films.
It's also kind of funny that you mention the 70's as a high water mark of cinema. Sure, people remember a lot of classics from that era...but they don't remember all of the crap that used to be made. One of my coworkers is an aficionado of schlocky 70's films, and trust me, they are legion. Just wait 25 years and you will hear everyone complaining about all the Robowuxia crap that's popular and how no one makes thoughtful sci fi like The Martian or Ex Machina any more.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that the 1970s didn't contain bad films. I'm saying that the culture in the main studios was different to what it is today. Chinatown being a famous example of a film being made that wasn't asked for, but the studio took anyway.
I do find it funny that some of the posters on here are attacking those of us who think this movie looks terrible. We're not racist, sexist, or any other 'ist'. We just recognize a turd movie when we see an awful trailer. But that won't stop the posters who are always looking for a fight and righting wrongs that don't actually exist. Stay classy, guys!
timetowaste85 wrote: I do find it funny that some of the posters on here are attacking those of us who think this movie looks terrible. We're not racist, sexist, or any other 'ist'. We just recognize a turd movie when we see an awful trailer. But that won't stop the posters who are always looking for a fight and righting wrongs that don't actually exist. Stay classy, guys!
Can you quote these people, or are we playing victim?
Actually, nope-I won't. Don't really feel like risking a warning again for name calling. Thought about it, and I'm redacting the post I just made and going out.
timetowaste85 wrote: I do find it funny that some of the posters on here are attacking those of us who think this movie looks terrible. We're not racist, sexist, or any other 'ist'. We just recognize a turd movie when we see an awful trailer. But that won't stop the posters who are always looking for a fight and righting wrongs that don't actually exist. Stay classy, guys!
I must have missed that. Has any Dakka poster attacked the vast majority of people on Dakka who think the trailer looks like crap?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Has any Dakka poster attacked the vast majority of people on Dakka who think the trailer looks like crap?
No, but I'll be happy to! I'll start by punching my liver with a double bourbon and then kicking my lungs with a cigar...while not watching this movie and feeling smug.
timetowaste85 wrote:I do find it funny that some of the posters on here are attacking those of us who think this movie looks terrible. We're not racist, sexist, or any other 'ist'. We just recognize a turd movie when we see an awful trailer. But that won't stop the posters who are always looking for a fight and righting wrongs that don't actually exist. Stay classy, guys!
timetowaste85 wrote:Actually, nope-I won't. Don't really feel like risking a warning again for name calling. Thought about it, and I'm redacting the post I just made and going out.
You can't because it hasn't happened here. I'd love to see where in the last 7 pages some poster called another one sexist, or racist, or... some other ist, because they didn't like the trailer.
"Righting wrongs that don't actually exist".... yes, precisely so. But not the way you said it.
Ouze wrote: I'd love to see where in the last 7 pages some poster called another one sexist, or racist, or... some other ist, because they didn't like the trailer.
I wonder if he might be referring to Sigvatr's Tumbler quote on page 2?
timetowaste85 wrote:I do find it funny that some of the posters on here are attacking those of us who think this movie looks terrible. We're not racist, sexist, or any other 'ist'. We just recognize a turd movie when we see an awful trailer. But that won't stop the posters who are always looking for a fight and righting wrongs that don't actually exist. Stay classy, guys!
timetowaste85 wrote:Actually, nope-I won't. Don't really feel like risking a warning again for name calling. Thought about it, and I'm redacting the post I just made and going out.
You can't because it hasn't happened here. I'd love to see where in the last 7 pages some poster called another one sexist, or racist, or... some other ist, because they didn't like the trailer.
"Righting wrongs that don't actually exist".... yes, precisely so. But not the way you said it.
You know what the best part is? This is the same guy that said this on the third page:
timetowaste85 wrote: You should be ashamed of yourself if you still want to go see that pile of dung!
Also, I just reread all seven pages of this thread and couldn't find a single instance of anyone calling anyone else racist or sexist, unless I'm missing something that Timetowaste sees that I don't.
Ouze wrote: I'd love to see where in the last 7 pages some poster called another one sexist, or racist, or... some other ist, because they didn't like the trailer.
I wonder if he might be referring to Sigvatr's Tumbler quote on page 2?
No - that was cleared accredited to "tumblr", right in the post. Timetowaste said "some of the posters on here". I re-read every damn page of this thread, and this has not happened here, but far be it from facts to interrupt a good martyring.
Wouldn't it be a twist if in this film, Walter Peck were right, and the Ghostbusters really were spending all their time fighting beings that aren't really there, poisoning the environs while trying to convince the world that these unseen enemies were the real threat?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Wouldn't it be a twist if in this film, Walter Peck were right, and the Ghostbusters really were spending all their time fighting beings that aren't really there, poisoning the environs while trying to convince the world that these unseen enemies were the real threat?
This is not an M. Night Shyamalan flick. I think a ridiculous twist like that is thee one thing that we do not need to fear.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Wouldn't it be a twist if in this film, Walter Peck were right, and the Ghostbusters really were spending all their time fighting beings that aren't really there, poisoning the environs while trying to convince the world that these unseen enemies were the real threat?
A twist? I'd call it fraud. A degree of slight of hand is inevitable, but I draw the line at tricking your audience into seeing a movie that they would not have willingly watched. If somebody pays to watch a Ghostbusters movie, they have the right to expect it to be a movie about ghosts and the busting thereof. Betraying that trust isn't even clever - you can only do it because other, better filmmakers have spent decades accruing the goodwill that you're spending on your con.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Wouldn't it be a twist if in this film, Walter Peck were right, and the Ghostbusters really were spending all their time fighting beings that aren't really there, poisoning the environs while trying to convince the world that these unseen enemies were the real threat?
A twist? I'd call it fraud. A degree of slight of hand is inevitable, but I draw the line at tricking your audience into seeing a movie that they would not have willingly watched. If somebody pays to watch a Ghostbusters movie, they have the right to expect it to be a movie about ghosts and the busting thereof. Betraying that trust isn't even clever - you can only do it because other, better filmmakers have spent decades accruing the goodwill that you're spending on your con.
Hey, I watched Birdman and expected there to be 100% more Birdman in it. Was still a good movie.
So Ms. Slimer = Ms. Pacman? Adding long brown hair to a green blob makes it a girl like adding a bow to a yellow blob makes it a girl.
That link is full of possible spoilers, but it led to an idea:
Spoiler:
What if since this movie takes place in an alternate reality from the original, but seems to share the same multi-dimensional baddies as the original (Zuul is mentioned at the end of the reboot), that the reboot sequel features the reboot universe colliding with the 1984/89 Ghostbuster universe? I am imagining some kind of dimensional cross-over where the two teams of Ghostbusters meet to fight Zuul or Gozer or whomever. That would be something I'd go see. I don't know why, but I really do want to see the original surviving Ghostbuster donning their kit for one last romp.
LoL. That would be awesome Dark- since this one appears to have a ghost maker, I'm hoping for the OGs to make an appearance as ghosts. Ghost Ghostbusters. And possibly one or more of the new ghostbusters gets zapped and turned into ghosts- sort of a show your true colors thing- if this occurs, I'm betting its the mad scientist one.
It's interesting that the story leaks contain a little insight into the views of the cast and crew. Seems there's a pretty negative feeling around this picture from within and without. It was pointed out to me, that none of the lead actors have come out in support of the trailer on Twitter or Facebook.
Pinch of salt of course, but considering Sony just unceremoniously dumped the guy in charge of marketing this movie, I think it's a safe bet that the studio are very nervous about how this movie is going to perform.
General Kroll wrote: It's interesting that the story leaks contain a little insight into the views of the cast and crew. Seems there's a pretty negative feeling around this picture from within and without. It was pointed out to me, that none of the lead actors have come out in support of the trailer on Twitter or Facebook.
The actress playing Patty has spoken out in support of the movie. I don't know about the others.
Leslie Jones has come out in defence of her character a lot. - Maybe not the trailer as such.
The writer of the novelisation has tried to say some non-NDA-ey words about it to try to say, "there's more to Jones' character than the stereotype shown in the trailer."
For example, the guys who do a movie show I watch mentioned that Jones' character is shown to have a History Degree somewhere. They also point out, in New York, a Subway driver earns 80k, someone in a history related field, maybe about 60k.
They're not saying that's going to be a thing, but it could be. And so, have that all as some kind of metajoke that might make it redeemable to some people.
Still not a fan of it myself but I'm willing to watch it on TV if it ends up not being utterly dire now, whereas earlier I was more "nope, not at all."
To be honest I've never figured out why people even liked the originals so much, it's always something that came off as being incredibly meh to me. So when I see people moaning about the new one I kinda scratch my head. As somebody who never "got" the appeal of originals it looks like more of the same to me.
I think Mc Carthy is usually pretty funny in her other movies, but don't think that will be enough to make this watchable.
The writer of the novelisation has tried to say some non-NDA-ey words about it to try to say, "there's more to Jones' character than the stereotype shown in the trailer."
For example, the guys who do a movie show I watch mentioned that Jones' character is shown to have a History Degree somewhere. They also point out, in New York, a Subway driver earns 80k, someone in a history related field, maybe about 60k.
They're not saying that's going to be a thing, but it could be. And so, have that all as some kind of metajoke that might make it redeemable to some people.
OMG, a character revealing an unexpected skillset to advance the plot? That sure breaks all stereotypes. How meta.
So rumor I've heard is that the youtube comments are being edited, and not in the way you might think.
Again haven't looked myself because that would mean digging through youtube comments, blech... but apperently Sony is supposedly deleting only criticism that is NOT sexist and racist.
So posts like "This looks really bland."get deleted while "Fish tacos ruin everything!!!1" gets left up.
Compel wrote: Leslie Jones has come out in defence of her character a lot. - Maybe not the trailer as such.
The writer of the novelisation has tried to say some non-NDA-ey words about it to try to say, "there's more to Jones' character than the stereotype shown in the trailer."
For example, the guys who do a movie show I watch mentioned that Jones' character is shown to have a History Degree somewhere. They also point out, in New York, a Subway driver earns 80k, someone in a history related field, maybe about 60k.
Keep in mind that in NYC, cost of living is a huge issue, 80K in NYC gives you about as much disposable income as making 35K in Austin TX, 45K in Portland, or 50K in LA & Boston.
Yes, but the point is still that it wouldn't be ridiculous to have someone with a postgraduate education ending up as a train driver instead, for a 33% pay rise.
I don't know. I like the originals, but a lot of the objections to this new film could have been levelled against them too. On the other hand, I'm not sure I like the tone of this new film. It feels like they're telegraphing the gags more in this script. I though Saturday Night Live had a better reputation than that, or was that back in the 80s?
I think Coneheads was the last good "Saturday Night Live movie".
Automatically Appended Next Post: The show has been mostly crap since Phil Hartman left, with a few bright spots, like Norm MacDonald, Tina Fey and Celebrity Jeopardy.
lonestarr777 wrote: So rumor I've heard is that the youtube comments are being edited, and not in the way you might think.
Again haven't looked myself because that would mean digging through youtube comments, blech... but apperently Sony is supposedly deleting only criticism that is NOT sexist and racist.
So posts like "This looks really bland."get deleted while "Fish tacos ruin everything!!!1" gets left up.
I'm British, so I've pretty much never really seen SNL. (Except maybe a youtube video once or twice). My kinda sense of the film though was of a parody of a Ghostbusters film.
Like, if you spliced a few of the scenes into "Scary Movie" it wouldn't look out of place.
Compel wrote: I'm British, so I've pretty much never really seen SNL. (Except maybe a youtube video once or twice). My kinda sense of the film though was of a parody of a Ghostbusters film.
Like, if you spliced a few of the scenes into "Scary Movie" it wouldn't look out of place.
that's probably the best way Ive seeen this film described. Thats exactly how it comes off.
People might still like it of course, it may still end up being popular. - After all, Scary Movie 1 and 2 are generally well received, then there's a bunch of sequels after them.
But that still doesn't mean it's what I'm looking for from a Ghostbusters film.
I also agree with the damning Scary Movie equivalence. The only question now is if it's more like the Wayans' Scary Movies or the ZAZ Scary Movies. Either way, we lose.
New trailer, still sucks.
Different gags, still not funny.
More gags delivered via hysterical screams
Racism awareness stereotype joke box ticked.
Male sexist joke box ticked.
Still licking the fething gun.
It reinforces the total-fail-in-waiting this film will be.
lonestarr777 wrote: So rumor I've heard is that the youtube comments are being edited, and not in the way you might think.
Again haven't looked myself because that would mean digging through youtube comments, blech... but apperently Sony is supposedly deleting only criticism that is NOT sexist and racist.
So posts like "This looks really bland."get deleted while "Fish tacos ruin everything!!!1" gets left up.
Yeah they've been doing that since the start.
Well, to save you guys some time, I made the herculean effort of reading a few pages of youtube comments. No, there is not a feminist illuminati conspiracy to only leave negative comments in place that make it seem like any criticism of the movie is sexist or racist in nature. The vast majority of the negative comments are the same nature as they are here: that they don't think the movie looks funny, or is original.
However, there could be some botting going on, but it's mostly positive comments - of an extremely generic and suspicious nature. Maybe they're just non-native english speakers.. maybe they're scripted. If they're scripted, it makes sense by an automation perspective: it's not super hard to randomly insert comments from a table like "looks great!", but it's very tedious to actually read 6 comments a second for context for 18 days straight to spin a story. And finally, if they're going to be that corrupt to begin with, it would be a lot easier to simply generate racist and sexist comments to forge that (nonexistent) narrative... and there simply are very few comments, percentage-wise, that I saw that were racist or sexist.
Not to mention, of course, that the ROI is nonexistent since literally no one in the history of ever decided to see or not see a movie based upon youtube comments. Not when there are better ways to rig the system!
I just wanted to add Mundane Matt to the Angry Joe reaction, because so far the really funny bits to come out of this have been watching people's faces as the reality of the trailer dawns on them.
This should skip directly to the trailer reaction: his expression is aptly described as 'like watching someone's childhood die';
Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
lonestarr777 wrote: So rumor I've heard is that the youtube comments are being edited, and not in the way you might think.
Again haven't looked myself because that would mean digging through youtube comments, blech... but apperently Sony is supposedly deleting only criticism that is NOT sexist and racist.
So posts like "This looks really bland."get deleted while "Fish tacos ruin everything!!!1" gets left up.
Yeah they've been doing that since the start.
Well, to save you guys some time, I made the herculean effort of reading a few pages of youtube comments. No, there is not a feminist illuminati conspiracy to only leave negative comments in place that make it seem like any criticism of the movie is sexist or racist in nature. The vast majority of the negative comments are the same nature as they are here: that they don't think the movie looks funny, or is original.
However, there could be some botting going on, but it's mostly positive comments - of an extremely generic and suspicious nature. Maybe they're just non-native english speakers.. maybe they're scripted. If they're scripted, it makes sense by an automation perspective: it's not super hard to randomly insert comments from a table like "looks great!", but it's very tedious to actually read 6 comments a second for context for 18 days straight to spin a story. And finally, if they're going to be that corrupt to begin with, it would be a lot easier to simply generate racist and sexist comments to forge that (nonexistent) narrative... and there simply are very few comments, percentage-wise, that I saw that were racist or sexist.
Not to mention, of course, that the ROI is nonexistent since literally no one in the history of ever decided to see or not see a movie based upon youtube comments. Not when there are better ways to rig the system!
I congratulate you on your fortitude and stamina. Thank you for proving my rumor false.
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
Are you kidding? There is no-way that you could remake a Mel Brooks film nowadays.
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
I happen to agree with Kronk.... Bill Murray performances tend to be, well, Bill Murray performances. The thing is, Ghostbusters isn't a masterpiece like say, 2001 or Godfather part 1 are. It isn't some movie that you can watch 30+ years after it was made and say, "Wow, that was a really deep movie," like you can with say, Blade Runner.
Ghostbusters was a silly premised movie that is beloved by fans. The same as Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, etc. What I see Kronk saying is that people in this thread are putting GB onto a pedestal that it shouldn't be on.
EDIT: I agree with Crazy_Carnifex.... there's no way you could remake a Mel Brooks movie in today's world. Hell, I doubt Mel could make his own movies the way his fans know in today's world.
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
Are you questioning Kronk? I thought that was a violation of the rules?
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
I happen to agree with Kronk.... Bill Murray performances tend to be, well, Bill Murray performances. The thing is, Ghostbusters isn't a masterpiece like say, 2001 or Godfather part 1 are. It isn't some movie that you can watch 30+ years after it was made and say, "Wow, that was a really deep movie," like you can with say, Blade Runner.
Ghostbusters was a silly premised movie that is beloved by fans. The same as Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, etc. What I see Kronk saying is that people in this thread are putting GB onto a pedestal that it shouldn't be on.
That really isn't for you (or Kronk) to say, though. How some people rank movies among their personal favorites is entirely up to those individuals. I don't think anyone is saying that Ghostbusters is a deep movie. It is however a movie with a very passionate fan base. It is an important movie to those fans. For some of those fans it is their favorite movie above all other movies. Are those fans wrong about Ghostbusters being their favorite movie?
Frankly I am more than a little sick of this attitude in this thread. I already had someone tell me my opinion on the new ghost visuals was essentially wrong because they liked the visuals instead. Since we are going off of opinions in this thread, all of our opinions should be valid.
If you don't think Ghostbusters is that big of a deal, fine, but some people obviously hold the movie in higher regard than you do. So telling those same people that the movie they like "isn't a masterpiece" is pointless to the discussion. Its a masterpiece to those who deem it so. Just like others could deem the same movie to be a dumpster fire.
Yours and Kronk's responses merit a big "so what?"
So what is your point? That Ghostbusters isn't the same pedigree of film as 2001: A Space Odyssey? Great! No one in here as far as I know made that claim, but cool, I am glad we got that issue covered.
It's less of a "ghostbusters wasn't a great movie" and more of a "the original had many of the same problems that people are complaining about now" observation.
d-usa wrote: It's less of a "ghostbusters wasn't a great movie" and more of a "the original had many of the same problems that people are complaining about now" observation.
As an observation I think it still merits a "so what" type of response.
If a movie remake that is 32 years removed from the original "fails" in many of same ways as the original so what? The original movie came first. It has the benefit of novelty and nostalgia to smooth out the rough edges. That doesn't give the remake a pass, if anything it damns the remake more for not finding a solution to those problems in the first place.
d-usa wrote: It's less of a "ghostbusters wasn't a great movie" and more of a "the original had many of the same problems that people are complaining about now" observation.
As an observation I think it still merits a "so what" type of response.
If a movie remake that is 32 years removed from the original "fails" in many of same ways as the original so what? The original movie came first. It has the benefit of novelty and nostalgia to smooth out the rough edges. That doesn't give the remake a pass, if anything it damns the remake more for not finding a solution to those problems in the first place.
To be frank, all of your responses to me (last couple of posts from you) make me say "so what." Your opinion is just, like, your opinion, man.
I enjoy Ghostbusters in that it's a funny show. But I can look myself in the mirror and say that "Yes, Kronk, you enjoy a silly, silly show that is no masterpiece of theater".
I guess you can't. And that's OK.
Also, I don't give the remake a pass. I think it looks unfunny AF. Stop putting words in people's mouth. That's naughty and you shouldn't do it.
I would say the original was a masterpiece (as far as comedies go) almost every joke lands with me (and I don't feel insulted with them) or at least makes sense, there is set up and pay off, a tight script, a fun premise, interesting characters, etc the only flaws I see in the movie is some of the
special effects are a little dated and don't look that convincing but since the movie is from the 80's and is a comedy (I don't go to comedies expecting to see amazing special effects) and that Winston is underdeveloped relative to the other ghost busters. Other than that I would say it's a near
perfect movie. Also comparing it to the Godfather or 2001 seems a little weird to me there is literally no crossover in those movies with Ghostbusters.
Cheesecat wrote: I would say the original was a masterpiece (as far as comedies go) almost every joke lands with me (and I don't feel insulted with them) or at least makes sense, there is set up and pay off, a tight script, a fun premise, interesting characters, etc
IMO, the reason this works, because I also thoroughly enjoy the movie (despite what one poster may think), is that there is a very real and visible on-screen chemistry.
Nothing in this remake gives me the feeling
Also, While Godfather and 2001 have no crossover with GB, they are near universally regarded as "masterpieces" of cinema. Hell, Godfather and 2001 really have nothing in common.
Frankly I am more than a little sick of this attitude in this thread. I already had someone tell me my opinion on the new ghost visuals was essentially wrong because they liked the visuals instead. Since we are going off of opinions in this thread, all of our opinions should be valid.
Uh, no. That is not what I said. I said you do not understand what a lens flare is or the appropriate time to use a green screen.
Do not try to put words in my mouth to make it look like you are a victim.
Cheesecat wrote: I would say the original was a masterpiece (as far as comedies go) almost every joke lands with me (and I don't feel insulted with them) or at least makes sense, there is set up and pay off, a tight script, a fun premise, interesting characters, etc
IMO, the reason this works, because I also thoroughly enjoy the movie (despite what one poster may think), is that there is a very real and visible on-screen chemistry.
Nothing in this remake gives me the feeling
Also, While Godfather and 2001 have no crossover with GB, they are near universally regarded as "masterpieces" of cinema. Hell, Godfather and 2001 really have nothing in common.
Yeah, the on screen chemistry is pretty important aspect of GB and you had a lot comedic talent as well.
Yeah, the on screen chemistry is pretty important aspect of GB and you had a lot comedic talent as well.
In a comedy, I'd probably rank screen chemistry as one of the top things. Anyone remember "Grown Ups" ?? It's got a bunch of comedians, but I found it genuinely not funny.
Yeah, the on screen chemistry is pretty important aspect of GB and you had a lot comedic talent as well.
In a comedy, I'd probably rank screen chemistry as one of the top things. Anyone remember "Grown Ups" ?? It's got a bunch of comedians, but I found it genuinely not funny.
Well it's an Adam Sandler flick so a miserable experience is expected. I mean Adam Sandler is to comedy in what AIDS is to the human condition.
I was thinking a little more about the film again today.
You've got the bit with the 'pistols' - Done appropriately, the whole over dramatic thing with those is actually kinda funny, considering the characters in overalls, it's not a Action Movie and so on.
The joke is then taken too far with her licking the pistols. - That is a classic kind of 'Scary Movie' gag to me and isn't what I find funny.
Yeah, the on screen chemistry is pretty important aspect of GB and you had a lot comedic talent as well.
In a comedy, I'd probably rank screen chemistry as one of the top things. Anyone remember "Grown Ups" ?? It's got a bunch of comedians, but I found it genuinely not funny.
Well it's an Adam Sandler flick so a miserable experience is expected. I mean Adam Sandler is to comedy in what AIDS is to the human condition.
Woah woah woah, saying that implies that his earlier works are HIV and he does actually have some pretty good movies. I mean pretty much all of his recent stuff is trash, but Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, and even Little Nicky were pretty good.
Woah woah woah, saying that implies that his earlier works are HIV and he does actually have some pretty good movies. I mean pretty much all of his recent stuff is trash, but Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, and even Little Nicky were pretty good.
I agree with this. With the exception of Little Nicky that is. I think the thing with comparing comedies... I'm of the opinion that Sandler hasn't really "progressed" as a comedian/actor the way the Bill Murray did. Sure, Bill Murray had a fairly basic "schtick" that he stuck to, but IMO, he kept evolving it to the point where, in Zombieland and other movies, he's able to sort of make fun of his previous work. I mean, his work as the groundskeeper in Caddyshack is gold, but it really is nothing like Ghostbusters from a comedy stand-point.
Yeah, the on screen chemistry is pretty important aspect of GB and you had a lot comedic talent as well.
In a comedy, I'd probably rank screen chemistry as one of the top things. Anyone remember "Grown Ups" ?? It's got a bunch of comedians, but I found it genuinely not funny.
Well it's an Adam Sandler flick so a miserable experience is expected. I mean Adam Sandler is to comedy in what AIDS is to the human condition.
Woah woah woah, saying that implies that his earlier works are HIV and he does actually have some pretty good movies. I mean pretty much all of his recent stuff is trash, but Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, and even Little Nicky were pretty good.
Eh, I haven't found Sandler funny since I was like 10 and I suspect that is how most people end up liking some of his work, they liked it when they were pre-teen or teenager but as people's tastes evolve I feel quite a few if they were to revisit some of the Sandler movies of the past they
would realize how embarrassingly bad they are. That being said I will say some of his earlier films were less lazy than his more recent ones (in that they had actual jokes), but I haven't found his "schtick" funny in awhile his shouting, violence, vulgarity, wacky voices, etc (none of those
things are necessarily bad in of itself I just feel he doesn't have the cleverness or talent to elevate it beyond that (or he doesn't care)) are juvenile and obnoxious to me. Some specific examples of hackiness include Jack and Jill where they have a Mexican maid (just because she's Mexican
doesn't give you a free pass on making racist joke towards that culture) spewing out lazy jokes that have the racial sensitivity of The Birth of a Nation, like "I just go over the border" or references to illegal immigrants and Water Boy perpetuating stereotypes of Cajun culture. A lot of his
comedy comes across as mean spirited to me where he thinks it's okay to make fun of cultures, body shape, ability, etc basically anyone who is different. None of these things are automatically bad but, if you're going to do comedy on something controversial or a touchy subject it helps if
you have something smart, interesting or insightful to say about it. Maybe there was period of quality Sandler flicks but that time has long past, in short I would recommend Adam Sandler about as much as I would recommend getting diarrhea.
Happy Gilmore, The Wedding Singer, Billy Madison, and Big Daddy are all still quite funny, and I'm no longer a 10 year old.
Must be something wrong with me.
Also, newsflash: lots of comedy revolves around making fun of stereotypes. If you're looking for racial sensitivity go find a safe space; it doesn't belong in comedy.
Not particularly thrilled on this one, to be honest. Just... doesn't say 'Ghostbusters', and it's not because of the women. I think it's the general attitude of the movie. It's like... a direct-to-DVD movie making Ghostbusters references...? I dunno.
I was expecting this to be awful but I'm not so sure now... It looks pretty fun, but hi how is what ghost busters should be. It's not Star Trek or Star Wars after all it was always a feel good comedy so as long as it makes me laugh then I'm good with it.
Oh and Jesus would laugh at the ghost busters trap, if death couldn't hold him then neither could some man made ghost trap!
cincydooley wrote: If you're looking for racial sensitivity go find a safe space; it doesn't belong in comedy.
So you find racism funny?
Pointing out and making fun of racial and ethnic stereotypes in comedy can be incredibly funny. Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, George Carlin, George Lopez, et al have all done it.
I have to agree, but it's a fine line between mocking them (as Dave Chappelle did initially on his show) and reinforcing them (as Dave Chappelle started to do on his show, before he realized and quit).
I'm guessing that "All in the Family" was something along the lines of 'Rising Damp' we had in the UK?
It depends what you mean by 'features racism' though. It's true that I can't think I've ever seen a British show which 'features racism' but the point of the joke hasn't been, "this guy is a fool." - The Pub Landlord comes to mind.
We certainly do have jokes about race though. - This is one of the classics.
Compel wrote: I'm guessing that "All in the Family" was something along the lines of 'Rising Damp' we had in the UK?
It depends what you mean by 'features racism' though. It's true that I can't think I've ever seen a British show which 'features racism' but the point of the joke hasn't been, "this guy is a fool." - The Pub Landlord comes to mind.
We certainly do have jokes about race though. - This is one of the classics.
God they were good back in the day. Wasn't so impressed with the remakes they did a couple of years ago though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: It must be hard to be so enlightened. Or maybe your definition of "racist joke" is far too broad.
I'll wager on the latter.
Try typing Bernard Manning Racist into YouTube and see the type of stuff that comes up. That's what we generally mean by race jokes in the uk.
Sigvatr wrote: I genuinely pity you if you don't think that racism can ever be funny.
?!?
A lot of comedians use racist jokes. Just think of any "lazy Mexican" joke, the overly accurate Germans, the always drunk French etc. It's very popular in the US and also in Germany, it's called ethno-comedy over 'ere, and most of the time, since it's bad if you say notsonicethings about others as a German, it's people making fun of their racial heritage themselves.
It's /good/ that there are racist jokes and racist comedy - as long as it stays within agreeable boundaries. Making jokes about any issue creates distance and provokes (self)reflection.
Evidently nobody here ever watched "All in the Family". The character of Archie Bunker was of a rare breed: A bigot with a heart of gold.
Never heard of it.
I wonder if this is a US phenomenon?
Comedy in the UK just doesn't feature racism, at least not since the 80s with the likes of Bernard Manning who are now very much out of favour.
I personally have never found a racist joke funny.
Compel wrote:I'm guessing that "All in the Family" was something along the lines of 'Rising Damp' we had in the UK?
It depends what you mean by 'features racism' though. It's true that I can't think I've ever seen a British show which 'features racism' but the point of the joke hasn't been, "this guy is a fool." - The Pub Landlord comes to mind.
We certainly do have jokes about race though. - This is one of the classics.
You probably never heard of it because it was a 70's sitcom created by Norman Lear and starring the late, great Carroll O'Connor. It ran for eight seasons (1971-1979). It's inspiration came from a British sitcom call Till Death Us Do Part.
Compel wrote: I'm guessing that "All in the Family" was something along the lines of 'Rising Damp' we had in the UK?
It depends what you mean by 'features racism' though. It's true that I can't think I've ever seen a British show which 'features racism' but the point of the joke hasn't been, "this guy is a fool." - The Pub Landlord comes to mind.
We certainly do have jokes about race though. - This is one of the classics.
God they were good back in the day. Wasn't so impressed with the remakes they did a couple of years ago though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: It must be hard to be so enlightened. Or maybe your definition of "racist joke" is far too broad.
I'll wager on the latter.
Try typing Bernard Manning Racist into YouTube and see the type of stuff that comes up. That's what we generally mean by race jokes in the uk.
You might not feel so smug then.
Nope; still feel fine.
And still think that attitude towards comedy is sad.
"All in the Family" was the American remake of Till Death Do Us Part. The character of Alf Garnett was a horrible racist, sexist old man, and the audience was supposed to be laughing at his reactionary (even for the late 60s/early 70s) views, although like the Chappelle Show, a lot of people laughed with him instead of at him. The Pub Landlord fell into that trap too, which is why Al Murray doesn't use that character so much now.
"racist" jokes are a bit postmodern now; it's the racism that's the subject of the joke, rather than the "funny foreigners". Or it's comedians from the ethnic groups who used to be the butt of the jokes. Have a look on YouTube for some clips of Mock the Week when Dara O'Briain has Ed Byrne or another Irish comedian to work with - there's plenty of jokes about "stealing the English comedians' jobs" and the like.
There's still some acceptable targets, though; The first time Henning Wehn was on QI, the very idea that there might be a German comedian was a joke in itself (not to mention getting "don't mention the war" as his buzzer).
A beloved franchise is rebooted, with a trailer done the right way.
Simple and to the point: it's a movie about all the things that you loved in the original. We show the stuff you liked about those original films in the trailer. We do not give the plot away. Ta da!
Cheesecat wrote: That Ultraman trailer is awful, I don't know what you're talking about when you say "done right".
You kidding? Giant monsters, Ultraman punching and or kicking giant monsters, and a spectacle of urban devastation as Ultraman and said monster duke it out.
And best, they focus ON THESE THINGS in the trailer. No Bryan Cranston. No Kick Ass. Just Ass Kicking. I am excited to see this film. This is what a kaiju film trailer should be.
Woah woah woah, saying that implies that his earlier works are HIV and he does actually have some pretty good movies. I mean pretty much all of his recent stuff is trash, but Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, and even Little Nicky were pretty good.
I agree with this. With the exception of Little Nicky that is. I think the thing with comparing comedies... I'm of the opinion that Sandler hasn't really "progressed" as a comedian/actor the way the Bill Murray did. Sure, Bill Murray had a fairly basic "schtick" that he stuck to, but IMO, he kept evolving it to the point where, in Zombieland and other movies, he's able to sort of make fun of his previous work. I mean, his work as the groundskeeper in Caddyshack is gold, but it really is nothing like Ghostbusters from a comedy stand-point.
I agree with Dreadwinter if this is about Sandler. That said he is pretty much the low point of all comedy these days. He is the D-bag of comedy. That is seriously the type of humor he does. When I see him in movies his movies are often in a D-bag's perspective of comedy.
You know most comedians would have the scene in 'zohan' where he has sex with middle aged women as a stunt that actually ends up being something else. In a Sandler movie though it's exactly what it seems to be. You know South Park having a friend 'getting raped' ended up being a joke about how bad the Indiana jones movies were. If only Sandler knew such types of humor. If only Sandler still knew what humor was or knew what it was to begin with.
Yeah, that is exactly what an Ultraman trailer should be. Look at how awesome our monster is! See them fight! There will be more fighting (and possibly more monsters) in the movie. Perhaps we will tell a story or teach a morale- if we feel like it.
Cheesecat wrote: That Ultraman trailer is awful, I don't know what you're talking about when you say "done right".
You kidding? Giant monsters, Ultraman punching and or kicking giant monsters, and a spectacle of urban devastation as Ultraman and said monster duke it out.
And best, they focus ON THESE THINGS in the trailer. No Bryan Cranston. No Kick Ass. Just Ass Kicking. I am excited to see this film. This is what a kaiju film trailer should be.
I don't think this is an official trailer. As far as I can tell, the movie is still in development hell.
The CGI looks awful, but for a fan trailer (assuming it is) it's not that bad.
I don't think this is an official trailer. As far as I can tell, the movie is still in development hell.
The CGI looks awful, but for a fan trailer (assuming it is) it's not that bad.
It was released last year by Tsuburaya Productions, publishers of Ultraman, but is region locked. It's assumed that it has something to do with Ultraman's 50th anniversary this year, as it ends with 7-7. July 7th is Eiji Tsuburaya's, Ultraman's creator, birthday.
There still enough comedic awkwardness that shows it's not my kind of humour but.... It something like that had been one of the early trailers, I think the film would have had a far better reception.
And yeah, looks like Hemsworth is playing a Sigourney Weaver type role to the film.
I'm just quote someone from another site as I think they nailed it:
WesleyDodds wrote:Yeah, still decidedly unimpressed.
Not because it's an all-female team or anything ridiculous like that, but because it looks like crap.
2002 Scooby-Doo movie calibre CGI, not a single good gag, and a possession subplot that ALREADY Feels like screentime-wasting filler.
I love Ghostbusters. I hope I'm wrong, I hope this is one of those really fun movies that just trails badly
Compel wrote: There still enough comedic awkwardness that shows it's not my kind of humour but.... It something like that had been one of the early trailers, I think the film would have had a far better reception.
And yeah, looks like Hemsworth is playing a Sigourney Weaver type role to the film.
What are you referring to when you say he's playing a Sigourney Weaver type role?
Compel wrote: There still enough comedic awkwardness that shows it's not my kind of humour but.... It something like that had been one of the early trailers, I think the film would have had a far better reception.
And yeah, looks like Hemsworth is playing a Sigourney Weaver type role to the film.
What are you referring to when you say he's playing a Sigourney Weaver type role?
I think she did a good job with the role, and totally nailed it.
But I also think she was definitely cast as eye candy as well.
Sigourney Weaver is absolutely beautiful in GB. But she had a done more substantial, critically acclaimed roles by 1984 than Hemsworth has up to this point. I think the casting people on GB wanted something more than eye candy and probably would have gone with a more "conventional" beauty if that's all the role required.
Sinful Hero wrote: Did they just reveal the big bad? Ghost possesses their secretary?
Certainly seemed that way. Looks like it's after the scene where they slap the ghost out of the woman, and it flies down and possesses him. Then the scene where he's standing in front of the huge... thing... letting out ghosts. Seems the possession thing isn't a screen time waster, it's central to the plot. And they just gave it away.
Just going to point out that the Bay Ninja Turtles trailer made that look watchable too.
I think this is honestly a bit late, especially after the dumpsterfire the first round of trailers were, we know all the horrible that's coming versus these snippets of fun.
I notice that Sony haven't posted the trailer on their own official YouTube channel but have instead distributed it to various movie review channels.
Perhaps this is in the hopes that the massive ratio between dislikes and likes will be mitigated and to avoid the negative headlines associated with it.
From what I can see though, there's still a huge amount of dislikes on the videos that are hosted by other channels.
Surely this has got to be the most hated film since the Phantom Menace? And it hasn't even been released yet.
Unless this gets less than a 50 on rotten tomatoes, I'm still inclined to see it - I didn't see anything that made me change my mind from that trailer.
This screams "Using Stay Puft will be too obvious, what can we make LOOK like Stay Puft?"
They seem utterly bereft of ideas. I honestly think they didn't have the talent to bring anything new to the table, so have just cobbled together a half assed remake. I don't see the casting of women in the lead roles as some ultruistic feminist act either. I see it as a cynical attempt to do something "different" and to seperate this film from the original enough to make people think it's not an undercooked rehash.
Bleh.
For the record, because it seems anyone criticising the cast is deemed sexist, I don't care that there are women in key roles, I just think the casting has far more to do with a cynical decision than anything progressive.
Ahtman wrote:I'm just quote someone from another site as I think they nailed it:
WesleyDodds wrote:Yeah, still decidedly unimpressed.
Not because it's an all-female team or anything ridiculous like that, but because it looks like crap.
2002 Scooby-Doo movie calibre CGI, not a single good gag, and a possession subplot that ALREADY Feels like screentime-wasting filler.
I love Ghostbusters. I hope I'm wrong, I hope this is one of those really fun movies that just trails badly
The Scooby-Doo movie reference totally hits it on the head, the CGI is all ramped up past 11, color saturation, overly busy etc. Like the color coordinator for the tellietubbies was left in charge of the effects.
Manchu wrote:Sigourney Weaver is absolutely beautiful in GB. But she had a done more substantial, critically acclaimed roles by 1984 than Hemsworth has up to this point. I think the casting people on GB wanted something more than eye candy and probably would have gone with a more "conventional" beauty if that's all the role required.
Possessed Sigourney Weaver was a pivotal moment in my boyish brains change from a negative to positive perception of girls. Along with Evil Lily from Legend and Princess Aura from Flash Gordon.
General Kroll wrote:
They seem utterly bereft of ideas. I honestly think they didn't have the talent to bring anything new to the table, so have just cobbled together a half assed remake. I don't see the casting of women in the lead roles as some ultruistic feminist act either. I see it as a cynical attempt to do something "different" and to seperate this film from the original enough to make people think it's not an undercooked rehash.
What I saw in my mind's eye, on hearing the new GB would be all female leads was a boardroom full of Hollywood male execs trying to come up with ideas, some ancient chair saying 'we're creatively bankrupt and cannot risk any money on new ideas or hiring creative talent, so what's trending on the series of tubes?' and some Carter Burke-esque little marketing man saying 'sir, now hear me out, 'female...geeks...', we take a geeky film that's already been a hit... but replace all the male roles... with women!' /pauses for effect. 'You see, there's a huge online gamergate thing, Geek is Chic, so now the chicks want in on it, so, we cynically condense it by taking perhaps the holy grail of weird movies that isn't The Holy Grail, and fill it with women wearing glasses!!!'
Followed by gasps, raising of eyebrows and the ancient chair saying 'it's so crazy it might just work!'... and Carter Burke saying 'think about it, the geeks will revolt, saying the thing is sacred, the women will accuse them of sexism, the right wing will accuse the women of liberal elitism, the left will respond with cries of sexism and we have a perfect. marketing. storm... we can take a weak, gakky movie, smear it in CGI and ride on the twin waves of online argument and the success of the movie it's imitating'
Ancient chair pauses and looks vaguely worried 'So, we are doing just another remake of a hugely popular movie with no need of a remake though, at the core?'
Carter Burke nods slowly, smiling 'Yes sir, absolutely', Ancient chair starts smiling too 'Well, thank feth for that, for a moment, I actually thought you wanted to make a statement about women's rights' before they both burst out laughing.
/round of applause, coke and whores all round.
Ahtman wrote:I'm just quote someone from another site as I think they nailed it:
WesleyDodds wrote:Yeah, still decidedly unimpressed.
Not because it's an all-female team or anything ridiculous like that, but because it looks like crap.
2002 Scooby-Doo movie calibre CGI, not a single good gag, and a possession subplot that ALREADY Feels like screentime-wasting filler.
I love Ghostbusters. I hope I'm wrong, I hope this is one of those really fun movies that just trails badly
The Scooby-Doo movie reference totally hits it on the head, the CGI is all ramped up past 11, color saturation, overly busy etc. Like the color coordinator for the tellietubbies was left in charge of the effects.
Manchu wrote:Sigourney Weaver is absolutely beautiful in GB. But she had a done more substantial, critically acclaimed roles by 1984 than Hemsworth has up to this point. I think the casting people on GB wanted something more than eye candy and probably would have gone with a more "conventional" beauty if that's all the role required.
Possessed Sigourney Weaver was a pivotal moment in my boyish brains change from a negative to positive perception of girls. Along with Evil Lily from Legend and Princess Aura from Flash Gordon.
General Kroll wrote:
They seem utterly bereft of ideas. I honestly think they didn't have the talent to bring anything new to the table, so have just cobbled together a half assed remake. I don't see the casting of women in the lead roles as some ultruistic feminist act either. I see it as a cynical attempt to do something "different" and to seperate this film from the original enough to make people think it's not an undercooked rehash.
What I saw in my mind's eye, on hearing the new GB would be all female leads was a boardroom full of Hollywood male execs trying to come up with ideas, some ancient chair saying 'we're creatively bankrupt and cannot risk any money on new ideas or hiring creative talent, so what's trending on the series of tubes?' and some Carter Burke-esque little marketing man saying 'sir, now hear me out, 'female...geeks...', we take a geeky film that's already been a hit... but replace all the male roles... with women!' /pauses for effect. 'You see, there's a huge online gamergate thing, Geek is Chic, so now the chicks want in on it, so, we cynically condense it by taking perhaps the holy grail of weird movies that isn't The Holy Grail, and fill it with women wearing glasses!!!'
Followed by gasps, raising of eyebrows and the ancient chair saying 'it's so crazy it might just work!'... and Carter Burke saying 'think about it, the geeks will revolt, saying the thing is sacred, the women will accuse them of sexism, the right wing will accuse the women of liberal elitism, the left will respond with cries of sexism and we have a perfect. marketing. storm... we can take a weak, gakky movie, smear it in CGI and ride on the twin waves of online argument and the success of the movie it's imitating'
Ancient chair pauses and looks vaguely worried 'So, we are doing just another remake of a hugely popular movie with no need of a remake though, at the core?'
Carter Burke nods slowly, smiling 'Yes sir, absolutely', Ancient chair starts smiling too 'Well, thank feth for that, for a moment, I actually thought you wanted to make a statement about women's rights' before they both burst out laughing.
/round of applause, coke and whores all round.
)
