Ghostbusters Trailer - Holy s#!t, how is it this bad?

Kanedias

New member
Mar 4, 2016
16
0
0
It doesn't look that great to me, but I'll reserve judgment until it's actually out. I like the cast, the effects looks solid, but that writing was pretty cringeworthy. That might be what they chose for the trailer though, to appeal to the broadest possible audience.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Robert B. Marks said:
I did a Garwulf's Corner on this, and now that I've seen the trailer twice, well...

I really want to like this a lot more than I do. Frankly, I've got some problems with it.

(Important, though, to keep in mind that this is only a couple of minutes of a full feature film, AND it's trying to ride the nostalgia train for everything it's worth...so this may not be representative of the finished product in the slightest.)

My problems are twofold:

1. Ghost vomit. Not that the original didn't have gross out or low humour (think Slimer and the ghost blowjob), but extended projectile ghost vomit isn't frightening, shocking, or funny. It just seemed excessive.

2. This trailer really felt like the bad Hollywood joke of "It's Ghostbusters, but with WOMEN!" With the exception of one scene (I believe with Kristen Wiig), there wasn't really a moment where the three scientists didn't feel like gender flipped versions of the original characters. And, the "sassy black woman" felt like a characterization right out of Scary Movie (keeping in mind that in the original Winston may have not been a scientist, but he WAS the straight man, and a fully fleshed out character - not a cliche). In the end, I don't care what the sex or colour of any of the characters are, I just don't want them to be retreads or cliches - or, in short, if you're going to give us new Ghostbusters, then give us NEW Ghostbusters.

All that said, there were a couple of things that I liked:

1. I liked the ghost possession idea. It's a neat spin, and I hope that they go somewhere interesting with it.

2. I liked the ghost special effects. The spectral rib cage was quite cool.

Again, though, I think it needs to be stressed that this trailer looked like it was very deliberately riding the nostalgia train, so a lot of these early perceptions may just be a bad trailer. The movie could be very different, and much better.
These are salient points Mr. Marks. The other part that bothers me most happens to be the humor the original film had, which sold me on it for pretty much my entire life, is completely missing. There was a chemistry that existed between Murray, Akroyd, Ramis and Hudson that feels like its completely missing in this. Sure it could be a bad trailer, but I'm also struggling to recall any movie that has had a poor trailer that turned out to be excellent. The opposite has been true, with great trailers hiding awful flicks though.
 

Kanedias

New member
Mar 4, 2016
16
0
0
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Robert B. Marks said:
I did a Garwulf's Corner on this, and now that I've seen the trailer twice, well...

I really want to like this a lot more than I do. Frankly, I've got some problems with it.

(Important, though, to keep in mind that this is only a couple of minutes of a full feature film, AND it's trying to ride the nostalgia train for everything it's worth...so this may not be representative of the finished product in the slightest.)

My problems are twofold:

1. Ghost vomit. Not that the original didn't have gross out or low humour (think Slimer and the ghost blowjob), but extended projectile ghost vomit isn't frightening, shocking, or funny. It just seemed excessive.

2. This trailer really felt like the bad Hollywood joke of "It's Ghostbusters, but with WOMEN!" With the exception of one scene (I believe with Kristen Wiig), there wasn't really a moment where the three scientists didn't feel like gender flipped versions of the original characters. And, the "sassy black woman" felt like a characterization right out of Scary Movie (keeping in mind that in the original Winston may have not been a scientist, but he WAS the straight man, and a fully fleshed out character - not a cliche). In the end, I don't care what the sex or colour of any of the characters are, I just don't want them to be retreads or cliches - or, in short, if you're going to give us new Ghostbusters, then give us NEW Ghostbusters.

All that said, there were a couple of things that I liked:

1. I liked the ghost possession idea. It's a neat spin, and I hope that they go somewhere interesting with it.

2. I liked the ghost special effects. The spectral rib cage was quite cool.

Again, though, I think it needs to be stressed that this trailer looked like it was very deliberately riding the nostalgia train, so a lot of these early perceptions may just be a bad trailer. The movie could be very different, and much better.
These are salient points Mr. Marks. The other part that bothers me most happens to be the humor the original film had, which sold me on it for pretty much my entire life, is completely missing. There was a chemistry that existed between Murray, Akroyd, Ramis and Hudson that feels like its completely missing in this. Sure it could be a bad trailer, but I'm also struggling to recall any movie that has had a poor trailer that turned out to be excellent. The opposite has been true, with great trailers hiding awful flicks though.
http://unrealitymag.com/movies/eight-awful-trailers-for-very-good-movies/

http://io9.gizmodo.com/10-terrible-trailers-for-great-movies-1547279856

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/10905606-good-movies-with-bad-trailers-bad-movies-with-good-trailers

There are a few good movies with shitty trailers out there. I used Google, and you can too. :p
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,330
807
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Sure it could be a bad trailer, but I'm also struggling to recall any movie that has had a poor trailer that turned out to be excellent. The opposite has been true, with great trailers hiding awful flicks though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vntAEVjPBzQ

There's your example of "bad trailer turns out to be good movie." ;)

Anyway, I've been keeping silent about the trailer up until now. My reaction was negative initially, but with everyone treating this like the coming of Gozer himself, I really didn't want to jump on the hate train. So, in fairness, I'll try and give it pros and cons:

Pros

-So it's not a reboot, and the events of the previous films and associated works happened? Personal pro - it's kind of similar to "NuWho," how you could start from series 1 without knowing about any of the old continuity, but that continuity still exists.

-Like the effects myself. Very ethereal, have a creepy vibe, but aren't overly scary. Fits the Ghostbusters tone on that front.

-The three main scientist/enginer characters seem likable enough. They have their counterparts, but they're not entirely flipped. For instance, the particle physicist seems to be the de facto leader (e.g. Venkman), but is more akin to Egon in that she's also the smarts of the group. Likewise, the engineer girl seems to be close to Egon (the tech), but whose personality seems closer to Venkman (apathic about the whole ghost thing). The Ray equivalent seems to be akin to Ray 100%, but while the characterizations will be a con as well, I'll give some credit in that they're not entirely based on the original characters.

-So, in this scenario, while we have a doomsday situation for New York, we have mass ghosts being the threat (seemingly) and new proton pack designs (e.g. the pistols and the punching). That...sounds kinda awesome actually.

-Some good humour (e.g. the "let's go" scene).

Cons

-By virtue of same continutity, one has to ask why ghosts are even an unbelievable thing in New York by this point in time. Also, the plot beats are being followed exactly - three characters form a paranormal hazard organization that removes ghosts for a living, are joined by a fourth who isn't a scientist, get a secretary who's the opposite gender of the main four, and have to save New York when the entire city is threatened. Oh, and their base and transport are practically identical.

-The black girl character is a walking cliche. Sassy, street-smart, loud-spoken, etc.

-Annoying humour (e.g. the possession thing).

-It hasn't convinced me that it needs to exist. Nothing about it screams that this was something the studio wanted to make, as opposed to wanting to cash in on nostalgia.

Overall, I'm mixed. If this was the first Ghostbusters film, I'd probably be far more interested. Looking at it in the context of the wider series, I'm kind of "meh." However, I'll hopefully be able to see it and give it a fair chance. Honestly, this could have looked much worse, but I'm not expecting it to be anything more than decent entertainment that fails to hold a candle to its predecessors.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,829
1,502
118

The first movie was actually very intelligent in that on top of being funny in an actually funny way.
 

Kanedias

New member
Mar 4, 2016
16
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:

The first movie was actually very intelligent in that on top of being funny in an actually funny way.
I think that you're confusing intelligent commentary, or subtext, and intelligence. Ghostbusters was a fun, 80's comedy. Most of what it was, was fun, plus those proton packs were the most amazing thing a young kid could imagine at the time. Frankly, that time has passed, and the time of screwball antics and 80's high concept comedies has largely passed. There's a reason that they're doing a reboot, instead of trying to tell a new story after all.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Kanedias said:
Hawki said:
Since you both basically pasted similar things, I'll reply in kind. None of those trailers were memorably bad for me. Some of them I actually recall being still hyped for, so they don't honestly match up. The Original GB trailer, I don't remember seeing and looking back it certainly is different but its not awful and doesn't evoke feelings like "this movie feels like its going to be shit."
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,829
1,502
118
Kanedias said:
crimson5pheonix said:

The first movie was actually very intelligent in that on top of being funny in an actually funny way.
I think that you're confusing intelligent commentary, or subtext, and intelligence. Ghostbusters was a fun, 80's comedy. Most of what it was, was fun, plus those proton packs were the most amazing thing a young kid could imagine at the time. Frankly, that time has passed, and the time of screwball antics and 80's high concept comedies has largely passed. There's a reason that they're doing a reboot, instead of trying to tell a new story after all.
Yes, the reason is that they have no creativity, so they're taking a fun movie and rebooting it into boring with a conceit that guarantees press instead of actually making a good movie.
 

TheNaut131

New member
Jul 6, 2011
1,224
0
0
Honestly, I kinda just think this is a bad trailer.

I think there are a lot of valid complaints. In my opinion that last joke especially wasn't "thoughtful" funny it was just "low-brow" absurd. Hit or miss for different people but whatever. For the most part however, it was just...basic stuff. Just basic introduction, some lowkey silly moments. Nothing to get excited about but not a lot to actually hate. Well, I suppose you could hate it do to some lofty reason like "an annoying amount of mediocrity and laziness" but that ain't my sorta thing. I think this trailer was just cut together badly.

Plus people have hated this movie since it's literal conception. There's some pre-meditated malice here for very dumb reasons. Saying that they're ugly (the original casts weren't models c'mon), bitching about jumpsuit design (they're plain brown jumpsuits what more do you want) I guess a female only cast is "irritating" cause a lot of people see it as an arbitrary thing but I'm not going to into that cause that conversation is an uphill battle covered in grease.

That being said, the black woman being reduced to the one with street smarts, etc, is sort of a annoying for very obvious reasons. Reasons that the first movie had as well and everyone knows it. Both of the black people in these movies are reduced to just "random guys". Hell, Winston was actually re-written from being a sort of air force major with demolition experience to ...well just a guy who needed money. He was actually supposed to be introduced earlier on in the film.

His fist line in the film is "If there's a paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say." which says a lot of the character but honestly, he's not as characterized as well as the rest of the characters. And having just some random guy join the team isn't such a bad thing, it's just I feel like...well he wasn't much to begin with. I believe Ernie Hudson did well in the role and it works in the movie, but I still feel like his character got miffed. And I'm worried yet wouldn't be surprised if this character ended up the same.

But whatever, maybe it'll surprise or we'll just have another Fan4stic, it doesn't matter...
 

Tiger King

Regular Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
837
0
11
Country
USA
Yeah it doesn't look very good.
My main gripe however is that once again a film franchise from the 80's is being dug up and regurgitated instead of, you know, coming up with fresh new ideas.
 

Lupine

New member
Apr 26, 2014
112
0
0
kiri3tsubasa said:
maninahat said:
It is a bad trailer. If those are the best jokes in the movie, it's going to suck. I blame the trailer more than the movie though - why are we doing this EPIC ACTION trailer routine (for the 4000th time) when this is a quirky comedy about shooting ghosts with lazers?

Also, what's with the black character being the one with the "street smarts"? Is this still the 80s?
Because that was Ernie Hudson role in the ghostbusters.
Not really. His role was to be the blue collar every man that grounds the team. He didn't bring "street smarts" so much as a cool skepticism to the affair that played well with Bill Murray's snarky con-man persona. They were the two unbelievers to counter point the two men of science that actually believed.
 

WonkyWarmaiden

New member
Jun 15, 2010
189
0
0
Um, I'm sorry maybe things changed when I wasn't looking but it used to be that when you saw a trailer for a movie that didn't interest you then you would not go see that movie and move on to something that did interest you.

I get not liking a remake of a favorite movie but, Jesus, ya'll are acting like this movie is going to be worse than Hitler. Take off the nostalgia goggles and quit acting like the original Ghostbusters is some goddamn cinematic masterpiece instead of a fun and cheesy horror comedy from the '80s.
 

Lupine

New member
Apr 26, 2014
112
0
0
Something Amyss said:
Pinkilicious said:
It's funny that...you should mention...Reboot...

http://www.legendariummedia.com/2015/06/08/corus-mainframe-rebooting-reboot/
At this point, ReBoot returning is like Half-Life 3 coming out. I'll believe it only when I can visually confirm it with my own eyes. Also not a good sign that there's been no word on it for almost a year.

rcs619 said:
Pretty much. The last time I saw this amount of hate and doomsaying was for the Devil May Cry reboot, and it actually turned out to be a pretty good game overall. Easily the 3rd best game in the whole Devil May Cry series, so yeah./quote]

I haven't played a full DMC game since the original, but it was so campy and corny and it was amazing to see people treat it like it was sacred ground.

...my, how times have changed!
I'm gonna be that guy. People weren't treating DMC like sacred ground. They were upset that basically all the camp, corn, and over the top fun was going to be cut out for what was in lots of people's minds a "grim re-imagining" or insert any other buzz word for no fun here.

Then combine that with the fact that the head of the project actively antagonized the fandom. Don't get me wrong, plenty of people were probably making mountains out of mole hills and he got fed up with it, but inversely Ninja Theory didn't do the best job understanding what people actually loved about the games which is kind of sad with DMC2 existing. That game is literally a book called "How not to make a Devil May Cry game, because people will hate these changes." And basically they made some of the same obvious mistakes. Tone being one of the biggest.

Also it was a reboot and people are never happy when they hear the r-word in conjunction with a long running series. And to the guy that said it was the third best game in the series...yeah no. Four was better. Four is three on that list because while its story isn't great and they were lazy both with reusing bosses and levels, the gameplay however was some of the best the series has ever had, fluid, responsive, strong enemy AI, and fun with a variety of weapons, skills, and things to do in combat. While DMC was some parts of that but watered down and lacking challenge with some okay twists on the story of the first game, kind of terrible boss and enemy designs (minus one and everybody knows that one) but really amazing environment effects, and okay if somewhat drab characters.

If we're making the list, it probably looks like this.

Devil May Cry 3
Devil May Cry
Devil May Cry 4
DMC
Devil May Cry 2.
 

AyaReiko

New member
Aug 9, 2008
354
0
0
The GB'16 trailer looks like all the bad modern day SNL cliches rolled up in one. It also screams "written by Hollywood committee" too; a bad cliche storm, things they think are cool (but aren't), and overall just sterile as a comedy.

Minimum: Wait for DVD.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
Yeah, no one I know is on board with an all female cast of Ghostbusters (not even my female friends). It gets a general eye roll reaction. "Oh, they gender swapped the Ghostbusters. How original. Tell me why this movie is needed again."

However, after seeing the trailer, it doesn't inspire confidence. I was already losing interest before we even saw our cast as it is taking the concept too serious. However, none of the cast seem to have any charisma. The jokes are aggressively unfunny. They didn't even seem to have a cameo from any of the original cast members, which would give the film some much needed nostalgia credit.

Yeah, they better make a second trailer and bring their A Game this time. Don't go the Batman V Superman route and only finally make a good trailer after the first two hurt any goodwill that the concept might endear.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
Ezekiel said:
I'll ignore it just like I did Jurassic World and Terminator Genisys. Some things should be left in the past.
Same here. Well... I wait for it to come to TV and watch it with a friend and pick at it for fun. We even made a drinking game for every awful joke they make, which comes very often.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
RedRockRun said:
Finally! A safe film that I can enjoy! This film surely passes the Bechdel Test!
Wouldn't be hilarious if this movie still manages to fail the Bechdel Test? It would probably be the funniest joke in the whole movie.