Fans "Fix" Ghostbusters Trailer With Recut

[FirstNameLastName]

And that just goes to show how subjective that line in the sand is, and how there aren't any ironclad rules on this subject. You ever wonder why those action movies featuring bare chested men often get jokingly accused of having gay subtext?

"Jokingly" being the keyword there.

Also, you didn't see Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Three main female characters, four if you count Phasma, none of whom are sexualized in any way. And that was the biggest movie of the year.

Haven't seen that movie because, contrarily to what one might suspect about me, I'm not gonna like a movie only because it has positive female characters.... if the movie itself sucks.

But yeah, I heard it has positive female characters. And do you know how I found out about it? By reading a blogger complaining that the movie lacked attractive babes.

How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it yet?

 

[Casual Shinji]

But yeah, I heard it has positive female characters. And do you know how I found out about it? By reading a blogger complaining that the movie lacked attractive babes.

So wait, a blogger wrote about the positive depiction of the female characters... and then complained about them not being hot? I don't know where you're finding these weirdos, but I would suggest you don't take their view as the view of (male) movie audiences as a whole. And also, just stop reading them.

How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it yet?

How do you know the new Ghostbusters is so bad if you haven't seen it yet?

The signs. The hefty, hefty signs that remind one of Pixels and other Billy Madison productions. And the overall cheapness of the sets, the visual effects, and the costumes that remind one of not Ghostbusters.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it yet?

How do you know the new Ghostbusters is so bad if you haven't seen it yet?

I don't know it will be bad, and unless I've forgotten about some kind of post somewhere, I don't believe I've said it will be bad. The only two posts about it I've made are as follows.

Eh, I'm not really that much of a fan of the originals; having seen them ages ago I can't really remember much from it at all. Even so, I didn't so much as smirk once through out the trailer, and found myself lightly cringing a couple of times.
I'll wait until it's released before deciding whether it's a travesty (and even then I'll be based on reviews, since I have absolutely no interest in seeing it anyway).

It won't change the quality of the film itself. Speaking of the quality of the film, I would have thought it would take at least a few weeks to become absolutely sick of the raging echo chamber surrounding this film, but apparently days would have been a better estimate.

Basically, I'm pretty much indifferent to this movie, despite it apparently being the worst reboot ever ... until the next worst reboot ever.

Even so, I get what you're saying, you've based your opinion on info surrounding the film, and there is plenty of that, but it just seems weird to declare that a movie "sucks" when you've never seen it and the overall reception is pretty good.

Eh, I'm not going to bother arguing with you. I found the movie to be ... fine, I suppose. It held my attention but never challenged me on any level, so if you aren't interested you aren't really missing anything.

 

[Casual Shinji]

oooo I totes forgot about Total Recall.

The total recall reboot sucked simply because if they had the materials science to tunnel close enough to the center of the earth to hit microgravity during transition, there should have damn well been space elevators everywhere and people living in space habitats.

Them's the wrong quote.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

The best part of this movie so far is Thor guy kicking the door open. For some reason I can't stop watching those 2 seconds.

 

[Qizx]

What annoys me the most is how few people are actually willing to admit they hate this just because they cast some women to play the leading roles.

Yes because that's CLEARLY the only reason to dislike it. Seriously though, I never really cared that much for the originals so gender swapping wouldn't have an impact on me and I STILL thought the trailer was cringe worthy. I even did a thought experiment and imagined all the rolls gender swapped to men/women in the trailer.... Verdict? Still seemed pretty stupid.

What annoys me the most is how few people are actually willing to admit they hate this just because they cast some women to play the leading roles.

That's awful presumptuous of you to call them presumptuous of the film.

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.

Oooooh man,
Yeah like how people DESTROYED the original Star Wars prequels because they casted Vader as a woman...
Except they didn't. They hated it because of how unfaithful to the original it was and how the dialogue was literally painful at points.
(Aside: I don't actually hate the prequels, kinda liked them, but best example I could think of)

 

[Redryhno]

And my point was that all actors are objectified by nature of the job. They are stuck in front of a camera for the viewing enjoyment of everyone watching. If that's not being objectified, then I don't know where you're getting yours.

So. You're telling me Whoopy Goldberg is as objectified as Scarlet Johansson? Same thing?

Or maybe you're just grasping at straws? Look, I know you understood perfectly my point. Anyone understands what sexual objectification is, and anyone understands why I'd pick Goldberg as an example of a non-objectified actress.
Seems to me you're trying to argue the point with meaningless sophisms, just for the sake of it.

Or maybe you're refusing to answer some pretty simple questions so that everyone can understand where you're coming from and maybe have a productive conversation?

You're the one that posted the "objectification" definition as what you were meaning. Which means that our ideas of what objectification means are much the same, yet you want actors to not be objectified. And now you're comparing Goldberg to Johanssen(I really can't answer that question either, haven't seen enough of her movies because I don't really care for her as an actress), which just goes back to me trying to figure out what makes some actors objectified and others not in your eyes. Which you've yet to answer.

All anyone wants is for you to give reasons other than "BECAUSE I SAID SO" as answers. Because so few people actually agree with you as it is but want to understand at the very least. And you're not helping when you continually repeat yourself without answering any of the questions people keep asking you.

Or when you keep talking down to them or latching onto anything in a post that you can blow out of proportion as some kind of attack against your opinion when all anyone is asking is WHY you have that opinion.

 

[Patathatapon]

Even with some stuff that was in the trailer it felt like very forced humor and I don't necessarily think that's the actors fault.

Honestly, When I watch the original Ghostbusters movie that's exactly how I see it. If people consider that good, I don't see much difference between the two.

 

[Zenja]

I understand where you're coming from, but there is an objective element to this, in that the milder the rating the broader the potential audience. That is after all, why studios will fight to make a movie PG-13 instead of R, because R almost inevitably means they will show to fewer people. I'm not arguing that to see an R rated movie is to behold a masterpiece of the cinematic art, just that "PG action comedy" means "Movie you can take the kids to see". No offense, but that is literally the lowest common denominator.

Another good live action sci-fi comedy that is rated PG is Galaxy Quest. I love that movie. Star Trek Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis are all PG. Overboard is a great PG rated situation comedy. Its actually kind of impressive Ghostbusters pulled off a PG rating twice. Seriously, looking through my movies, even School of Rock is PG-13. The overwhelming majority of my movie collection is PG-13. The entire Rocky collection with the exception of part 5 is rated PG. It doesn't take sex and murder to make a good story, it just takes good characters and conflict. Napoleon Dynamite is another comedy on my shelf that is rated PG.

I may be in the minority, sure. But I am one of the people who actually is drawn more to PG and PG-13 titles over R ratings as I find them to be more creative with storytelling. Spiderwick Chronicles, Jumanji, The Sandlot, etc. The list can go on for a while. I find movies like this to have much more charm and personality than most R rated films. However, there is no rating that garauntees a good movie. There is crappy PG movies, G movies, PG-13 movies, and R movies. For whatever reason though I discovered today thanks to your inquiry that the majority of my movie collection is PG-13.

You're not in the minority, you are in the vast majority that is being broadly aimed at by studios. Again, there is a reason why PG/PG-13 is the sweet spot for studios to aim for. Do you know what "Lowest Common Denominator" means, beyond the somewhat pejorative use I put it to?

My mistake, "lowest common denominator" is often used to infer ignorance or lack of quality and rarely used to mean "be inclusive". Additionally, being inclusive generally isn't looked at as a negative aspect. It's hard to view your statement to mean "inclusive" instead of "ignorant studio garbage" when you say:

I have to ask, how many of the people who are talking about this movie now, generally enjoy big studio PG rated films? -snip-

I just can't believe that it's a big number.

Then you attempt to insult my intelligence by asking me if I know what "lowest common denominator" means when I could ask you the same thing since you have a hard time believing these movies even draw in more people. I feel a little like a douche having to toss that back at you but only do it to make you notice your inconsistencies in the discussion.

I don't see being inclusive as any indicator of quality but see it as a positive to include everyone. Many writers out there have to rely on toilet humor, sex, and murder because it is easy due to society's intellectual "lowest common denominator" being able to relate to or 'get' all the content. Besides I find many children under the age of 15 to be more mature and more perceptive than many people above the age of 15. That is also usually an indicator of a responsible parent though and usually its is a parent that is out of their 20s. Teens and 20 year olds have a tendancy to think that toilet humor, sex, and gore makes you more grown up because they only listen to other teens and 20 year olds for advice. Adults are so lame after all.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

The thing is that there was a huge backlash against the film solely because it was an all female cast. Now the trailer being lackluster is a reason to be weary, even upset at the film. But people were raging from the moment it was announced, before the cast was picked, before we knew anything about the movie other than it being a female cast.

Now if all people know about a movie is that their are women in it and the scream. By process of elimination they have to be screaming because it's a female cast. There was nothing else they could be upset about.

And the majority of the backlash like that came because it was marketed as "ALL-FEMALE CAST". It wasn't marketed as a reintroduction for a new generation, a new spin on an older idea, not even a threadbare continuation of the originals.

Like seriously, the majority of marketing on this thing has hinged on the idea of women instead of men, and everything since then has been called. The stereotypes, the humor, the actresses(people even begged Tina Fey to be apart of it since she's one of the few that could pull off the original feel), hell, people even called Chris Hemsworth(though he was one of something like three other names of big hunky hollywood guys at the moment) to be the new Janine. Look at the cast and crew and how hard they've been shilling the idea of "Girl Power" because look at all these girls involved.

Yeah, people threw a holy shit fit over the all-female cast, but that's all this has been since the start. It hasn't been Ghostbusters in anything but packaging because they decided that the female cast was more important to tell the world than literally anything else about what they wanted to do. And the further down the line you go, it's just more and more obvious that's the only idea they had for a movie.

Exactly. This whole "reboot ghostbusters but this time...all the ghostbusters are women! AHAAA!!" It's a completely juvenile gender swap gimmick that's about as clever as a 7 year old gender reversing Zelda "Make Link a girl, Zelda a boy and Ganon a girl! it's soooo clever!"

Spoiler alert but the first film was all male because it was mostly a project constructed of friends. It's not like they set out to make the ghostbusters all male.

 

[Noblemartel]

We also know it's a reboot/remake, which a lot of people, myself included, are getting very tired of. reeboots/remakes/sequels/whatever already have points off them for having that 'safe' factor and lack of creativity, regardless of anything else, and this movie plays it as safe as it can from the looks of the original trailer, appealing to a bridesmaids audiance, and making a movie with bridesmaids sense of humor and calling it ghostbusters isn't exactly a great sounding idea. I mean ghostbusters isn't a masterpiece, but it's sincere and fun, and a sequel/whatever whose only reason for existing is to genderswap the characters is anything but sincere.

I mean i don't hate this movie or the fact that it exists, but i am rolling my eyes at the fact that someone said "hey let's genderflip ghostbusters" and it got made into a movie. It could become a thing now, no more new movies, we just start in the 80s and just genderflip everything, and it's fine that these exist, but it all strikes me as not bringing all that much to the table artistically or in terms of entertainment, when that movie already exists save for a cosmetic change.

I now strangely want a gender flip of Charlies Angels for some god-damn reason and I didn't even like the original.

Edit: I'm unsure if I would keep Charlie himself as a man or not.

 

[PhiMed]

I'll say this much about the original trailer. Aesthetically it was very pleasing. The colors of the ghosts, particularly out in open NYC, do look very nice. That said unless the trailer missed the point of the movie I think it's going to critically bomb. Even with some stuff that was in the trailer it felt like very forced humor and I don't necessarily think that's the actors fault. The only thing that actually got a chuckle out of me in the trailer was "it's a Cadillac" because of the delivery.

I don't know if I agree with you on the aesthetics. The uniforms looked like they got a cheap Ghostbusters Halloween costume from Party City.

 

[PhiMed]

Even with some stuff that was in the trailer it felt like very forced humor and I don't necessarily think that's the actors fault.

Honestly, When I watch the original Ghostbusters movie that's exactly how I see it. If people consider that good, I don't see much difference between the two.

That's because you're cool. You're very cool for not liking something that is almost universally beloved. Congrats on that, chief.

 

[elvor0]

What annoys me the most is how few people are actually willing to admit they hate this just because they cast some women to play the leading roles.

That's awful presumptuous of you to call them presumptuous of the film.

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.

No, you've just decided what it is. You're literally attempting to force people into engaging in your strawman. Go after what people are saying, not just ignoring it because you've decided that they're lying about the reasons they're complaining and are just really "misogynists" or whatever buggery bollocks is the zing word of the day.

 

[happyninja42]

What annoys me the most is how few people are actually willing to admit they hate this just because they cast some women to play the leading roles.

That's awful presumptuous of you to call them presumptuous of the film.

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.

No, you've just decided what it is. You're literally attempting to force people into engaging in your strawman. Go after what people are saying, not just ignoring it because you've decided that they're lying about the reasons they're complaining and are just really "misogynists" or whatever buggery bollocks is the zing word of the day.

I doubt it would change anything. I recall back when Legend of Korra was a hot topic on this forum, I got into probably 4 different thread debates on why the show actually wasn't good. I even went into very detailed, episodic, scene specific breakdowns on why it was poorly written. And after spending a good half hour each time, putting together a coherent argument to support my stance, every time, someone would chime in with "Lulz, you're just butthurt cuz they put a girl in Aang's place." Some people won't actually listen to what anyone says, and will continue to operate out of their own preconceptions. Or, they're doing it intentionally to try and generate conflict in the thread. And we know what that's called, but we can't actually mention it here. so, *shrugs*.

OT: I actually made a point to watch the original ghostbusters trailer from the 80's last night, just to get a comparison about how people are comparing it to the movie. "It's not scary, there is no tension. It's all corny one-liners and gags!" And...sorry but, the original trailer...is just like that. There is no actual tension maintained. It's all corny one-liners and gags, with the goofy sounding theme song playing over it the whole time. And I love the GB movies, both of them actually, but let's be fair here. Don't compare the new trailer to the original movie. Compare the new trailer to the old trailer And frankly, they're about equal in quality in my opinion.