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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/18 16:04:43
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,
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/03 14:21:36
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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.
If memory serves, Winston Zedmore was an average Joe off the street who got the job when he replied to the advert
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
A streetwise African-American woman who gets angry and starts slapping people...
I thought we left the 1960s stereotypes behind?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
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
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
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.
Damn Liberal newspapers made me post that comment
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
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.
Honestly, my biggest worry is how badly they'll butcher the theme song to make it hip and modern.
"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
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.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/03 21:59:10
(building)
(less)
)