Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Looking forward to it, looks good so far. Certainly seems a bit more serious in tone.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Overread wrote: Wait did I just sit through a whole Ghostbuster trailer and not one sight of Slimer?!
..is that not who they're chasing after deploying the gunner seat ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
'This time, let's have kids running around with a few props. That'll make it feel more like a ghostbusters movie.'
I got a bit of that feeling too, however this one appears to be taking a more serious slant on the franchise yet without being fully serious. I think that might actually save it if they can walk that fine line between a full comedy and just a light adventure style story with kids in it. It at least has some connections to the prior films that started the whole thing off. Plus lets face it the previous Ghostbusters film was a "spoof" film, but decades too late to really work. If it had been done in the same era I think it would have been fine. Being the first Ghostbusters film in decades kind of set them up for a hard time no matter how good they made it because, at its core, it was a spoof off the same core style.
The props (and some name dropping they don't really do) are the only connections though. Take out the joy ride scene in the Ecto-1 and replace the ghost trap with a piece of One-eyed Willy's treasure, and it could be a Goonies sequel.
The actual plot (kids move to small town because of dead relative, something under town is causing problems, solve mystery!) is grossly generic. You could take any franchise and staple it on to what's presented here.
Parts of the intro remind me of the opening act of Lost Boys, for example.
Anybody else notice the "Shandor Mining Company" sign at one point? I wonder if what's under the town is Shandor's prototype/backup for what he built in New York.
Anyway, the more I watch this trailer and think about it, the more I think that just about everything we're seeing is just from the first half of the movie, and that there is a whole lot more to come.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
My question is; if there isn't a whole lot more to come - who cares? My only qualifications for a movie nowadays are simple; is it entertaining and is it NOT cramming a political agenda down my throat? Cool, give it a shot.
Not to piss off anyone, but the original Ghostbusters wasn't some marvelous piece of film-making, it was a well received and enjoyed popcorn film, lent some credence by some blockbuster names who partook. As long as we get something that isn't a 1.5 hour SNL "spoof" of Ghostbusters (like the last film), this new one doesn't have to remake the wheel.
If it remakes the original, it'll be really horrifyingly creepy (and not in horror way), as it seems centered on young teens and pre-teens.
No one needs to play 'keymaster' and 'gatekeeper' or find out if they're menstruating right now, especially not Paul Rudd.
Which is partly why a kid cast is unlikely to make for a satisfying Ghostbusters sequel. The tone and themes are going to have to be very different.
But you're also wrong. The original was a marvelous piece of film-making craft, with a firm grasp of story structure, pacing and contrasting and complementing the tones and themes. Very few films can manage that, especially these days.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/10 00:56:53
And the critics are all ready panning this. According to one: "This is just pandering to fanbois that ruined the 2016 movie and female cast and is rewarding misogyny."
Now, unless I miscounted, 3 of the 5 leading actors in this move are female.
Shhh, don't ruin their narrative...remember, no one is allowed to dislike something without becoming a "______ist" (insert the most volatile option available).
PS: Voss, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make me wrong. If you think Ghostbusters was a "marvelous piece of film-making craft"...that's...well you can just enjoy that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/10 02:31:08
I’m really looking forward to this as a genuine sequel to the original films and the trailer looks like they have got the tone bang on.
I was very “meh” on the 2016 version, mainly because it never seemed to decide what it wanted to be; it felt more like a reboot/reimagining but then they had cameos from various original cast members that implied it was a sequel, except it’s wildly inconsistent with the originals. Likewise I thought the cast had potential, but they seemed to be playing the roles as a spoof/homage, when the plot and editing were aiming for a more “straight” action/adventure. It’s just a bit of a mess, that could have been a very entertaining film if they’d been more committed to a single vision i.e. either make a new version for 21st century kids or make a nostalgia sequel for the original fans (like this one). Don’t try to do both.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
I'm not feeling it. It just doesn't have any of the spirit of Ghostbusters, at least in this trailer. It seems to be taking the toy aspects of the original and take treat them as some kind of ultra serious, deep lore in a franchise largely memorable for relentlessly mocking this kind of stuff. Nobody watches Ghostbusters to learn the secret history of the Gozerians, and this feels like its pretending we should.
I wonder when Hollywood is going to realise that remaking stuff with kids is never ever going to be profitable in either a financial or critical sense?
Not excited about this, didn't see the last one either. I don't understand how Ghost Busters has a fan base any more. I enjoyed the first one and the second one was ok but I think it's time has passed? This jut looks like a kinds movie..for Kinds. " It's goonies". Probably wont see this, at least not any time soon.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
cuda1179 wrote: And the critics are all ready panning this. According to one: "This is just pandering to fanbois that ruined the 2016 movie and female cast and is rewarding misogyny."
Now, unless I miscounted, 3 of the 5 leading actors in this move are female.
but how am I supposed to hate this and WW84, and whatever ladies they ruin Maverick with, its going to be a toxic summer for sure
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
warhead01 wrote: I don't understand how Ghost Busters has a fan base any more.
The cartoon and toys mostly. One of the reasons the franchise is so peculiar is because there's a huge fanbase built in the same culture of nostalgia as GI Joe and Transformers that have almost certainly seen and enjoyed the movies, but didn't really experience the first movie with an understanding of its central "blue collar super science" joke. Much of the demand for it comes from the same place as the Thundercats remake or any of the other continued attempts to recapture the childhood of the 80's.
The difference when it comes to Ghostbusters is that it was a great movie first and to a lot of people that's all it was. They don't care about the mechanics of proton packs or ghost traps. They think its funny that they drive around in a car meant to carry dead people to capture unruly dead people and its cool and memorable but its not a thing like it is to people who had it as a toy. It's a lot like fans of the original TMNT comics in that regard, though unlike that one, the cultural impact of the movie far outweighs that of the show. The end result is a generation of kids invested in all the trappings of Ghostbusters, but nobody that can get a handle on how to modernize that simple joke of taking a wildly mystical premise and reducing it down to menial labor.
LunarSol wrote: They think its funny that they drive around in a car meant to carry dead people to capture unruly dead people.
I think this statement alone captures what has truly change. I don't think most people even know what a hearse looks like today. Back in the 80s, people may have gotten he joke. But today that car is the car they use in the Ghostbuster's movies, not a hearse.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/10 17:22:02
warhead01 wrote: I don't understand how Ghost Busters has a fan base any more.
The cartoon and toys mostly. One of the reasons the franchise is so peculiar is because there's a huge fanbase built in the same culture of nostalgia as GI Joe and Transformers that have almost certainly seen and enjoyed the movies, but didn't really experience the first movie with an understanding of its central "blue collar super science" joke. Much of the demand for it comes from the same place as the Thundercats remake or any of the other continued attempts to recapture the childhood of the 80's.
The difference when it comes to Ghostbusters is that it was a great movie first and to a lot of people that's all it was. They don't care about the mechanics of proton packs or ghost traps. They think its funny that they drive around in a car meant to carry dead people to capture unruly dead people and its cool and memorable but its not a thing like it is to people who had it as a toy. It's a lot like fans of the original TMNT comics in that regard, though unlike that one, the cultural impact of the movie far outweighs that of the show. The end result is a generation of kids invested in all the trappings of Ghostbusters, but nobody that can get a handle on how to modernize that simple joke of taking a wildly mystical premise and reducing it down to menial labor.
I mostly missed the Ghost Busters cartoons. I recall seeing at least one all the way through but it always confused me as to why it was a cartoon when I didn't really see the Ghost Busters as for kids. On of my roommates in 05' was a big fan with a few of the toys on display and I found that strange at the time as well, but thought he was a chaplains assistant so... I guess it all works. He seemed a little strange to me but what did I know anyway.
I recall watching Transformers and wondering ..But why are the robots talking. I think I really missed the boat on that franchise and that's ok. I can't say I really enjoyed them overly much, one of the later ones had some cool human guys in it, clearly out of shape Vets talking trash is usually funny. I think they were to best part of that one to me.
I was into GIJOE's growing up but living in Germany getting only AFN it was hit or miss as far as catching the cartoon. I mostly read the comics. The movie wasn't fantastic really but I dislike the actor playing Duke. the convoluted characters being related to characters was similar to the comics just not as far as I can remember the same characters. I enjoyed the second one less. But have only seen it once and I am not sure I even own it on dvd.
I'm sure this new Ghost Busters will go over will enough if it finds it target audience. Who knows the next trailer may change my mind.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
