Huh, so you can polish a turd. Unfortunately it's a cheap knock off turd rather than the real deal.
Fans "Fix" Ghostbusters Trailer With Recut
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A thousand times better. It even included the only joke that made me laugh in the original trailer.
But in the end it only shows one real thing. That trailers say basically nothing about the actual quality of the movie. There's so many ways to cut bits and pieces of a movie together, each giving a completely different vibe. God knows how the dialogue and general writing will hold up in the final product. Though the original trailer doesn't really inspire much confidence.
But in the end it only shows one real thing. That trailers say basically nothing about the actual quality of the movie. There's so many ways to cut bits and pieces of a movie together, each giving a completely different vibe. God knows how the dialogue and general writing will hold up in the final product. Though the original trailer doesn't really inspire much confidence.
I am not sure if it is depressing that people who do this for a living have no idea how to 'sell' that appeals to original and new fans of a series reboot, or impressed that this teaser would've made me want to see this movie, if I hadn't seen the terrible stereotypes and 'pop culture' references in the 'professional trailer'.Draconalis said:
That's awful presumptuous of you to call them presumptuous of the film.Nimcha said:
I don't like it because even though they cast all women to try something new, they essentially made female Egon, Ray, Venkman, and Winston. The spin is they made them all buffoon characters. Ray and Egon were pretty smart in their field and weren't really bumbling idiots. Not to say that these women are, but this trailer is a lot more about what these funny ladies are doing. It looks like this movie is going to be filled with 1 liners and cheap dialogue aimed for a barrage quick chuckles. We might get a brief moment of serious exposition of someone's past just for the sake of a serious moment where someone cries or mopes as that is part of the formula but it looks pretty hollow so far.
Just to give you a feel for the original tone:
Notice how Winston wasn't a black stereotype, he was just a average guy. Notice the not-over-the-top whacky zany atmosphere. Have a look at the original two trailers and you can see an effort to put an actual touch of horror into the ghost scenes. The light hearted tone of the movie is only there to serve as a counter balance to the horror aspect.
Finally, lets again note that they casted all women (instead of multi-sex) because this movie totally isn't about sexism. Just stating that to show how ridiculous that sounds. This movie is totally about sexism. It only exists for the sake of gender bending, otherwise why is the team not multi-sex if we are attempting political correctness?
This new trailer shows no real regard for the source material. It highly suggests that the movie uses Ghostbusters as a simple prop package to an otherwise standard whacky comedy. You can hold off judgement until the movie comes out but I have seen all I need to to know that this new movie is just trying to be loud, obnoxious, whacky, and make fun of the idea of the ghostbusters. Plus, it is a little racist and a little sexist to be honest.
THIS - so muchZenja said:
The difference in tone from the original two movies' trailers - compared to the almost happy-go-lucky tone of the new movie is undeniable.
The nostalgia centered on the originals was because they balanced funny with slice of life - while this new one... if someone had told me it was an Adam Sandler movie I would not have doubted them.
You can polish a turd - but it will still smell funny - yes this recut is better, but but that doesn't make it good
This works better inspite of the footage and because of the Ray Parker Jr. song. You could have footage of a bunch of urinating dogs set to that song and it would still work. That's the power of music.
Though cutting out most of those horrible jokes does improve it overal. But they're still in there, so...
Though cutting out most of those horrible jokes does improve it overal. But they're still in there, so...
I find it concerning that they accomplished this suckectomy by excising the bulk of the content previously shown.
Not all comedy routines mesh well with all styles. George Carlin's style wouldn't work the same way if he tried it on with Tim Allen's bits, and visa versa. I think some of what we're seeing is this, and it's going to be worse for people who don't click with the comedic styles of the leads to begin with because their suspension is already blown...they come in with little to no faith in the storytellers because they never respected/took interest with one or more of the people they're supposed to be listening to in the first place.
It could work, it could even work with this cast and crew, but it won't work if they don't either have their own routines within the concept (which they mostly seem not to) or adapt their personas to better fit the original roles they're drawing from (which they don't seem to have done).
As always, they might surprise us yet. We won't know for sure whether this thing will flop or fly until it hits the market.
My guess is it'll coast by on the wings of the well-intentioned, the morbidly curious, and the easily entertained before retiring to the dustbin of pop-culture to be drawn out as an example of convenience for anyone's arguments about the next big whatever.
But I could be wrong.
I don't think it's that they have no idea how to sell it, it's that what they're selling is implicitly malformed as thing to sell. This is looking less and less like a reboot and more and more like a mash-up, grafting four different comedic styles onto what amounts to an old 80's routine about ghosts and small business originally written around a particular mix of personalities designed to play off each other.VoidWanderer said:
Not all comedy routines mesh well with all styles. George Carlin's style wouldn't work the same way if he tried it on with Tim Allen's bits, and visa versa. I think some of what we're seeing is this, and it's going to be worse for people who don't click with the comedic styles of the leads to begin with because their suspension is already blown...they come in with little to no faith in the storytellers because they never respected/took interest with one or more of the people they're supposed to be listening to in the first place.
It could work, it could even work with this cast and crew, but it won't work if they don't either have their own routines within the concept (which they mostly seem not to) or adapt their personas to better fit the original roles they're drawing from (which they don't seem to have done).
As always, they might surprise us yet. We won't know for sure whether this thing will flop or fly until it hits the market.
My guess is it'll coast by on the wings of the well-intentioned, the morbidly curious, and the easily entertained before retiring to the dustbin of pop-culture to be drawn out as an example of convenience for anyone's arguments about the next big whatever.
But I could be wrong.
To bad the original trailer allready showed us what the "humor" will be all about:
Female body jokes, female insecurities, quips from the "sassy" big black woman... cause this trailer DOES a better job at being a trailer for the movie then the first one.
The music is the classic song that slowly fades into the new version, we get some action shots, get introduced to the cast. And get to see just enough so that we want to know what the heck is going on in the movie.
But as a said, the first trailer completly ruined it by showing us that this is just your 08/15 chick flick with ghostbusters slapped on to cash in on an old name while trying to shoehorn in feminist agenda. And if you say feminism has nothing to do with it how about googling for that picture where the entire cast and staff holds up silly "girl power" signs in a group photo?
Female body jokes, female insecurities, quips from the "sassy" big black woman... cause this trailer DOES a better job at being a trailer for the movie then the first one.
The music is the classic song that slowly fades into the new version, we get some action shots, get introduced to the cast. And get to see just enough so that we want to know what the heck is going on in the movie.
But as a said, the first trailer completly ruined it by showing us that this is just your 08/15 chick flick with ghostbusters slapped on to cash in on an old name while trying to shoehorn in feminist agenda. And if you say feminism has nothing to do with it how about googling for that picture where the entire cast and staff holds up silly "girl power" signs in a group photo?
It occurred to me that part of the problem with the original trailer is that it violates one of the oldest rules of storytelling, and one that goes double for a largely visual medium like film: "Show, don't tell." If someone is good at something, show them being good at something, don't have a character *say* they're good at it. Don't assume the audience won't get that the joke is that the car is a hearse; it dilutes the joke. I recognize a trailer has less time to convey information than the feature film does, but it's unwise to allow your trailer to imply that the film itself bungles such an elementary feature of good story-telling.
You know, it's entirely possible that some people, maybe many people, do in fact dislike this reboot at least in part for that reason.
But, seriously, what the hell? You're annoyed you aren't getting to criticize people, because of what they aren't saying?
How about trying to engage with what they are saying instead of indulging in a kind of petty pigeon-holing that casts a pall over any and all criticism, no matter how considered or well-founded? How about engaging people at face value in what they actually say rather than presuming to announce what their "true" opinions are? Much less that said super-opinion is the only reason for what they're saying?
How about not trying to show people up as being kneejerk and reactionary in a form that suggests exactly those qualities?
*sigh*Nimcha said:
You know, it's entirely possible that some people, maybe many people, do in fact dislike this reboot at least in part for that reason.
But, seriously, what the hell? You're annoyed you aren't getting to criticize people, because of what they aren't saying?
How about trying to engage with what they are saying instead of indulging in a kind of petty pigeon-holing that casts a pall over any and all criticism, no matter how considered or well-founded? How about engaging people at face value in what they actually say rather than presuming to announce what their "true" opinions are? Much less that said super-opinion is the only reason for what they're saying?
How about not trying to show people up as being kneejerk and reactionary in a form that suggests exactly those qualities?
It's what it boils down to. Of course some people are going to quote me saying they have different reasons but that's not the point. Every reboot gets criticism from 'fans' or whatever they want to call themselves. That's nothing new. But this has been blowing out of proportion for one simple reason. You and I both know what that is.Zenja said:
Yeah no.. thats just like... your opinion man.Nimcha said:
People have given plenty of reasons why this new movie doesnt work out and why its not a good movie.
You just refuse to accept that its not the all female cast that they object to. What they do is critisizing EVERYTHING else about the movie. The shoddy writing, the slapstick forced humor, the CGI, the lack of chemestry between the characters, the painfull stereotypes.
Look, your argument boils down to: "If the cast was all male everyone would like the movie!" to wich i say: BULLSHIT!
Even WITH an all male cast this movie would STILL shit all over the legacy of the ghostbuster movies and couldnt miss the point anymore if they pointed in the other direction.
The humor in the original ghostbusters wasnt slapstick, it was incredibly sarcastic characters making light of an incredibly serious situation aka they where BELIEVABLE. The new characters? Complete stereotypes: The crazy blond, the awkward teacher, the fat girl and the sassy black woman. This is a CHECKLIST movie without heart and soul. And the first trailer showed you everything you need to know to see that this movie is going to be a disastter. This is gods of aegypt bad.
Original Winston wasn't the BLACK GUY and that was amazing. He was the audience surrogate, the everyman. How awesome and rare is that. You have a bunch of weird goofball comic relief characters, and the BLACK guy is the normal one of the group that the audience is supposed to relate to.
Imagine if they had actually gone with the original idea of casting Eddie Murphy for that role? Now, Eddie Murphy's great (at least he used to be), but it would've changed the character entirely from a down-to-earth working man to a wired attention seeker.Winnosh said:
Wait, what?Nimcha said:
People, and by extension the online community, blow silly crap way out of proportion all the time. Remember the TMNT debacle? Or almost any arbitrary "controversy" regarding entertainment over the last decade? Do you seriously think that if it were an all male cast or half male/female that people wouldn't still be raking it over the coals for effectively dropping trow on their nostalgia?
Have you been on the internet long?
The trailer looks bad. It looks like something Sandler would shit out, save for the lack of Schneider, James, et al. It looks like an even worse Bridesmaids with some neon ghosts and a shell of Ghostbusters plastered over the top of it.
Obviously, you know something the rest of us don't.
That definitely would have soured me on the character (though the thought of, what would essentially be, alternate universe Beverly Hills Cop + Ghosts sounds kinda cool in and of itself) a bit.Casual Shinji said:
I actually identified with Winston more than any of the other main cast...which, to me, means they did a pretty damned good job of it.
Are you legitimately saying that Ghostbusters was a bad movie? 2 wasn't really that great, but I personally think it made for a nice sequel.Nimcha said:
I would also say that pandering in of itself is not bad. Pandering is bad when you pander to a demographic who generally had no interest in your product or service in the first place. Also, the fact that the new film has an all female cast isn't what's bothersome (for people who don't live on Youtube at least,) the problem is that the new film has a cast of unfunny people at the helm who happen to all be women.
Sure, I like this trailer more because there's less of it.
We don't know how much of that is specifically in the movie. It's not like a trailer is a binding contract.008Zulu said:
Huh, I didn't think a simple re-cut would make much of a difference, but this was such an improvement!
I actually chuckled a bit when that lady licked that gun this time around
You can't unring a bell, though, the first trailer showed a lot of the "ugly" guts of the movie (and I'm not talking about the slime.)
Like the part where they're hyping up the characters; they have a "brilliant engineer," an "expert in particle physics," and a subway booth worker who "knows the city", (and guess which one the black woman is!)
I actually chuckled a bit when that lady licked that gun this time around
You can't unring a bell, though, the first trailer showed a lot of the "ugly" guts of the movie (and I'm not talking about the slime.)
Like the part where they're hyping up the characters; they have a "brilliant engineer," an "expert in particle physics," and a subway booth worker who "knows the city", (and guess which one the black woman is!)
It amuses me that people can talk about other people's intentions and lack of integrity about their feelings of whether or not they feel they'll enjoy a movie.Nimcha said:
Actually there is a demographic out there that would enjoy a movie that plays off of the things they enjoyed about the original Ghostbusters movie, namely the writing and the comedic camaraderie that Ramis, Murray, Akroyd, Hudson, Weaver, and Moranis had together. It may be impossible to have that combination again.
I feel the real pandering that is happening here is the attempt to strike gold again with a revival of Bridesmaids by way of a gender-swapped Ghostbusters. I don't personally think that formula would work for the people who grew up loving the Ghostbusters movies which are a good portion of the people who'd pay to see another GB flick.
I'm sure there are folks who're shallow as fuck and are predisposed to dislike the movie because its a female cast, but I'd guarantee the majority aren't happy with the presentation of the initial trailer.
Now you not liking "bad 80s movies" is your own subjectivity coming into play, and you've every right to hold your perspective. However it doesn't negate the people who love those "bad 80s movies", of which there are a lot. Those fans are a huge part of the demographic you claim doesn't exist, and they're the ones who will decide whether this is a flop or not as the age groups who grew up enjoying those movies are part of the targeted demographic the studios are using the Ghostbusters franchise to trade off of.
I just think your casual dismissal of the people who made Ghostbusters popular enough to warrant interest in remaking it is short-sighted.
I recently re-read The Princess Pride, and there are scenes I would love to see on the big screen. At the same time, a lot of what made the movie for me was the cast and their chemistry, so while I would like to see those bits in a movie, I still would dread a remake.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
So the exact scenario you're talking about. But using an example that isn't being remade.