So, going to rattle off some more opinions here since...this discussion exists now, too.
First, the positive: the cast really seems to be into it and enthusiastic. That can mean a lot even with a weak script, or in the face of literally everything else going poorly (see: Raul Julia in Street Fighter).
I'm a bit more neutral on the visuals, but from a strictly technical viewpoint the effects look pretty darn good. Subjectively speaking, I think the ghosts are a bit over-saturated in a way that makes them look less surreal and more outright cartoony.
Less positively, a lot of the designs from the Proton Packs to the Ghosts seem to be very, very 'busy' and distracting, especially on ghosts who are also very bright and high-saturation monochrome. That's ultimately down to taste, and the aesthetic may well make more sense with more context, but for now it just comes off looking like they blew their budget on OTT VFX and costumes, and are hoping the visuals will keep people distracted from any holes in the production.
The script feels /really weak/ so far, based on the jokes, bits and implied plot building that we can see. Theoretically, these were chosen on the basis of being some of the best and most audience attractive beats in the film, especially those chosen for the nostalgia pull where they re-visit bits and jokes from the original. They tend to veer towards the forced, and there's quite a bit of wasted dialog where they seem to just be laughing at their own punchline as if they don't trust the audience to get the joke. This is especially noticeable in the visual gag for the Ecto-1, which is essentially the same gag as in the first film, but with more unnecessary attention smeared all over it.
Beyond that, they seem to be strongly playing up for much more of a shallow, schlocky action-fest about ghosts and gimmicks in contrast to the original which was more of a balancing act between comedy and drama, with less of a focus on gadgets except where they served the story in some fashion (to compare: in the original proton packs and ghost traps exist to provide a mechanism by which ghosts can be contained, and are sometimes used to underscore things like the team being less than perfectly secure in what they were doing, whereas in the remake they have ghost punching gear in all likelihood simply because 'punching ghosts' is rad as hell and makes for a solid action beat).
That's not inherently bad, but it is going to tend to miss the nostalgia pull pretty badly for fans of the original, which stands out more as a problem because of how much they clearly /want/ that nostalgia...to the point that the trailer opens as if it's not sure whether it's going to be a reboot or an inheritance.
It's also going to tend to come off as 'dumber' than the original, which isn't great considering what a think-piece Ghostbusters wasn't.
Some people say you can't judge a film by it's trailer, and that's generally true to a degree. But the trailer can still tell you a lot about a production, and it is very much there to be judged. A trailer is a production's attempt at making a first impression, and they need to make enough of an impression to draw people in to buy tickets. It's /there/ to be judged, hopefully favorably, and if it gives a poor showing that bears saying...usually trailers are deceptive /in favor/ of the film, so if the trailer looks bad what's that tell you? Why were /these/ beats chosen as their best foot forward, and why couldn't they present them as better than mediocre?
As far as the lingering discussion re: 'all female leads' goes, I'll repeat what I've said before: it doesn't matter. It really does not. The only reason it seems to is that they're so bent on marketing the fact that they have an all female leads. This isn't about empowering women, it's about exploiting them for social credit and as a gimmick to stir up attention for the film. On it's own, it's as shallow a premise as 'Ghostbusters, but with CGI talking animals' or 'Ghostbusters, but starring Eddie Murphy as all of them' or even 'Ghostbusters, but with dudes'.
It doesn't actually add or subtract anything substantive. It's just a marketing gimmick, and one that is kind of gross in that it actually requires sexism to function. By leaning on it as they have, they are re-enforcing the idea that this is /remarkable/ instead of something that should be /perfectly normal/ and not worth commenting on. It does not speak well to the likelihood that the production is going to have anything more meritorious to discuss, since they haven't really bothered to do so. Much like the trailer itself: if this is the best thing you can put forth about your film, you're doing something wrong.
I'll close here by saying that I honestly hope they prove me wrong and that it turns out the film is better than it looks so far. I'm a long time fan of the franchise, and I'd love to see it really start growing again.
Suppose we'll see how it lands, won't we?
First, the positive: the cast really seems to be into it and enthusiastic. That can mean a lot even with a weak script, or in the face of literally everything else going poorly (see: Raul Julia in Street Fighter).
I'm a bit more neutral on the visuals, but from a strictly technical viewpoint the effects look pretty darn good. Subjectively speaking, I think the ghosts are a bit over-saturated in a way that makes them look less surreal and more outright cartoony.
Less positively, a lot of the designs from the Proton Packs to the Ghosts seem to be very, very 'busy' and distracting, especially on ghosts who are also very bright and high-saturation monochrome. That's ultimately down to taste, and the aesthetic may well make more sense with more context, but for now it just comes off looking like they blew their budget on OTT VFX and costumes, and are hoping the visuals will keep people distracted from any holes in the production.
The script feels /really weak/ so far, based on the jokes, bits and implied plot building that we can see. Theoretically, these were chosen on the basis of being some of the best and most audience attractive beats in the film, especially those chosen for the nostalgia pull where they re-visit bits and jokes from the original. They tend to veer towards the forced, and there's quite a bit of wasted dialog where they seem to just be laughing at their own punchline as if they don't trust the audience to get the joke. This is especially noticeable in the visual gag for the Ecto-1, which is essentially the same gag as in the first film, but with more unnecessary attention smeared all over it.
Beyond that, they seem to be strongly playing up for much more of a shallow, schlocky action-fest about ghosts and gimmicks in contrast to the original which was more of a balancing act between comedy and drama, with less of a focus on gadgets except where they served the story in some fashion (to compare: in the original proton packs and ghost traps exist to provide a mechanism by which ghosts can be contained, and are sometimes used to underscore things like the team being less than perfectly secure in what they were doing, whereas in the remake they have ghost punching gear in all likelihood simply because 'punching ghosts' is rad as hell and makes for a solid action beat).
That's not inherently bad, but it is going to tend to miss the nostalgia pull pretty badly for fans of the original, which stands out more as a problem because of how much they clearly /want/ that nostalgia...to the point that the trailer opens as if it's not sure whether it's going to be a reboot or an inheritance.
It's also going to tend to come off as 'dumber' than the original, which isn't great considering what a think-piece Ghostbusters wasn't.
Some people say you can't judge a film by it's trailer, and that's generally true to a degree. But the trailer can still tell you a lot about a production, and it is very much there to be judged. A trailer is a production's attempt at making a first impression, and they need to make enough of an impression to draw people in to buy tickets. It's /there/ to be judged, hopefully favorably, and if it gives a poor showing that bears saying...usually trailers are deceptive /in favor/ of the film, so if the trailer looks bad what's that tell you? Why were /these/ beats chosen as their best foot forward, and why couldn't they present them as better than mediocre?
As far as the lingering discussion re: 'all female leads' goes, I'll repeat what I've said before: it doesn't matter. It really does not. The only reason it seems to is that they're so bent on marketing the fact that they have an all female leads. This isn't about empowering women, it's about exploiting them for social credit and as a gimmick to stir up attention for the film. On it's own, it's as shallow a premise as 'Ghostbusters, but with CGI talking animals' or 'Ghostbusters, but starring Eddie Murphy as all of them' or even 'Ghostbusters, but with dudes'.
It doesn't actually add or subtract anything substantive. It's just a marketing gimmick, and one that is kind of gross in that it actually requires sexism to function. By leaning on it as they have, they are re-enforcing the idea that this is /remarkable/ instead of something that should be /perfectly normal/ and not worth commenting on. It does not speak well to the likelihood that the production is going to have anything more meritorious to discuss, since they haven't really bothered to do so. Much like the trailer itself: if this is the best thing you can put forth about your film, you're doing something wrong.
I'll close here by saying that I honestly hope they prove me wrong and that it turns out the film is better than it looks so far. I'm a long time fan of the franchise, and I'd love to see it really start growing again.
Suppose we'll see how it lands, won't we?
