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.

 Compel wrote:
Isn't that the other Ghostbuster film that's being made? (Like here needs to be another one )

Well, I know that Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, Sigourney Weaver, and Dan Aykroyd are all going to be in the movie.

I don't know though, I've heard conflicting things on whether this is a true reboot or a soft reboot (like The Force Awakens).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Isn't that the other Ghostbuster film that's being made? (Like here needs to be another one )

Well, I know that Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, Sigourney Weaver, and Dan Aykroyd are all going to be in the movie.

I don't know though, I've heard conflicting things on whether this is a true reboot or a soft reboot (like The Force Awakens).

This article (and others) have stated that the original actors won't be back in the same roles.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/bill-murray-details-ghostbusters-reboot-cameo-20150901

Supposedly Aykroyd will be a cab driver, while Murray plays a Walter Peck-like debunker.

No thank you. I'll be keeping it to the original Ghost Buster movies. This movie doesn't seem to have the charm, nor soul as the original movies.

The CG seems utterly dissapointing. It looked so bad. At least Slimer is in... That's something. I guess...

 Compel wrote:
I note you cut off the rest of that sentence in the quote...

Why, were you uncertain of what you said?

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.

It looks awful, with sub par wayans brother style comedy. That exorcist pastiche for example. What is this 1999?

The black woman couldn't be more cliched if they tried, either.

Just looks like a shoe horned remake to me.

Meh.

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!".

Pass.

 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?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

Looks dire.

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.

- Tumblr

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

 Sigvatr wrote:

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.

Seems very paint by the numbers to me. Nothing really bad in the trailer... just nothing that screams amazing.

Could be good, but I think they've gone with the annoying racial stereotype character for "Winston". Not at all how he is in the original movies.

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.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
are you allowed to post positive comments here?

Of course. It's just that most people think it looks like gak.

 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.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
are you allowed to post positive comments here?

No. And why are you wasting time posting, get off of my lawn!

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.