New Ghostbusters trailer: Not as horrible?

[Zenja]

Ah, so you're going with the Obama Defense for this one, are you? In the early days of his administration, we had Jimmy Carter doing an interview saying that Obama is such an amazing president that there's no way anyone could possibly disagree with him. The only way anyone could go against his agenda would be if they're just straight-up racists, because that's the only logical explanation. It certainly couldn't be that these people have their own opinion on how the country should be run and their opinion goes contrary to Obama's administration. Nah, it's not that. People don't have differing opinions on matters like that. So they're just a bunch of racists, it's as simple as that.

In the case of this movie, we couldn't possibly look at the trailer, see and hear the jokes for ourselves, and come up with our own opinion of "This looks terrible and unfunny." No, no, that just doesn't make any sense. That would imply that we were able to formulate our own opinion on what we've been shown and we somehow think that what we've been shown is a festering pile of dog crap. It has to be that we're just a bunch of sexist bastards still living in the 50's. That's surely why we don't like this movie.

Also: the reason no one complains about the Terminator franchise is because people stopped caring about that franchise after Terminator 3. This will be the first Ghostbusters movie since 1989.

And finally, for anyone saying that a couple bad trailers doesn't mean that the movie itself will be bad, I'll say you're absolutely right. Not all movies with bad trailers turn out to be bad. However the recent example of Batman v Superman reminds us that sometimes bad trailers are indeed indicative of bad movies.

(edited to fix the quote)

I'm just calling it like it is. There's a massive discrepancy with all the hate towards Ghostbusters. Unusually high. I'm just not pretending it doesn't exist.

You are calling it how you see it, not "like it is" (as a fact) - you are using speculation. I will say the downvotes for this movie is unusually high. However, I attribute that to people's distaste for all of the gender politics invading Hollywood and gaming right now. Of which this movie was announced and marketed as "all female" which coincidentally lines up with politics in pop culture right now all while they claim that this movie "totally isn't about sexism" even going so far as to say the casting "purely coincidental". Now, if we are looking at discrepancies, I would say that counts as one and we can't ignore that exists either.

Why is this article not labelled "New Ghostbusters cast announced"?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/new-all-female-ghostbusters-cast-767610

Because it was billed as all female since they announced it and before they had the cast... which I conveniently can't find anywhere except this one:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/new-ghostbusters-film-will-be-series-reboot-20141009

Then to top it off this crap happens:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Announces-All-Male-Ghostbusters-Works-Get-Details-70214.html

Which totally misses the point because people can't see past the sexism politics. It has for all intents and purposes taken over the production. And THAT pisses some people off. So they hate it. Why not just make a Ghostbusters that is more true to the orignals like pretty much every criticism is asking?

 

[katsabas]

I really don't know about this. I wanna give it a shot and hope that the best parts are in the movie. The Ghostbusters were made famous not because of their quippage but because they reacted off of each other. As an example, Avengers was full of one liners but they resulted from character interaction and I fail to see that here.

Also, this film made me wanna see Star Trek's reboot again. I do not care what the fans go on about, ST had the decency to consider the past timeline and actually honor it in its' own unique way. It repsected the legacy it borrowed and THEN used it as a stepping stone. Star Wars did the same. This film however doesn't seem to acknowledge that something hugely popular came before it and because of that, it looks like an ordinary comedy with slapstick humor that uses the Ghostbusters as a selling point.

 

[Zenja]

I really don't know about this. I wanna give it a shot and hope that the best parts are in the movie. The Ghostbusters were made famous not because of their quippage but because they reacted off of each other. As an example, Avengers was full of one liners but they resulted from character interaction and I fail to see that here.

Also, this film made me wanna see Star Trek's reboot again. I do not care what the fans go on about, ST had the decency to consider the past timeline and actually honor it in its' own unique way. It repsected the legacy it borrowed and THEN used it as a stepping stone. Star Wars did the same. This film however doesn't seem to acknowledge that something hugely popular came before it and because of that, it looks like an ordinary comedy with slapstick humor that uses the Ghostbusters as a selling point.

As a Star Trek fan, I like the Star Trek reboot and even the sequel Into Darkness for what they are. Abrams did the series justice and had fun with it considering that when he rebooted it, Star Trek was fading away. The newest one looks like they might be venturing REALLY close to Star Wars territory, but I am pretty forgiving of that considering it is Kirk/Spock. As they put it in TNG "Cowboy Diplomacy" and the like. Abrams style fits the old classic Star Trek pretty well IMO, including the lens flares.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

It wasn't as horrible, but it wasn't good enough to wash off the first impressions from the original trailer. The damage is done and it will need glowing reviews to turn a lot of the public opinion around.

 

[SummerHaze]

lol it must be something funny, i will add it to my 'must see' list

 

[Zenja]

-Snip-

So you hate the film because some websites, who aren't related to the marketing or studio, wrote about it being all-female..? That's it?

No... the movie has been pitched, by the studios and the marketing, as all female cast. Did you not read the articles? The first paragraph of the second article has Paul Fieg himself (the guy at the helm of the movie) quoting that the entire idea behind the movie is an all female cast. The same guy who a week or two ago changed his mind and said that the all female cast wasn't intentional and was purely coincidental.

Columbia Pictures doesn't do their own press. They instead they do press releases where "some websites, who aren't related to the marketing or studio" release information Columbia makes available. What you are asking for doesn't exist. Your method of dismissal allows them zero accountability for press releases. You are looking the other way on a discrepancy.

 

[lionsprey]

new trailer looks better but still shitty and the only joke i thought was funny was ruined by the black woman.

 

[Lightspeaker]

it was a better trailer, I actually chuckled a couple of times. It still doesn't look good, but if that had been the first trailer I probably would have taken a more "wait and see" approach. That said, it's still pointlessly derivative of the original and most of the jokes still fell horribly flat. I'm pretty sure "remember this!?" moments are only going to serve to piss people off at this point.

Pretty much this.

In fact I'd go so far as to say it was a significantly better trailer, a gigantic step up (though that's not saying much considering how poor the first one was). The first one made me wonder how anyone could think that THAT was the film 'putting its best foot forward'. This one actually has some humour and interesting stuff in it. Like some others mentioned the bit with the ghost on her shoulders was pretty good and got a smile out of me (compare and contrast that cringeworthily terrible face-slapping routine from the first trailer). Plus they actually realised that a big part of Ghostbusters' appeal is that its a comedy HORROR; so they mixed in some nicely creepy shots with this new trailer.

I probably still won't see this at the cinema...but I might grab the DVD a bit after its released depending on the reviews.


Frankly I still maintain that (despite the fact people like to rag on Melissa McCarthy) its not the people acting that are the problem (in fact I'd take serious umbrage with anyone who called Kristen Wiig a poor actress), its the writing. The delivery wasn't bad, but the dialogue itself (especially in the first trailer) was very poor. As was some of the attempts at 'humour'. I still find that slime vomit thing painfully unfunny simply because its so over the top. They had gross-out slime humour in the original but it was relatively understated, it wasn't literally a ghost vomiting slime on someone whilst someone else records it. Also the CGI looks pretty woeful in most cases...

 

[KissingSunlight]

I was one of the first to describe this movie as a "Cynical Nostalgic Cash Grab". I still want to like this movie. I like the actresses, director, and the screenwriter (Her previous movie was The Heat). Yet, every time I hear or see something about this movie. I hate it! Even though I liked the first Ghostbuster movie, I thought the second movie wasn't any good. I felt it was one of those movie that people should leave alone. The original was lightning in a bottle. They cast the right people, the right director, and was done at the right time. Imagine, if they tried to be politically correct in the original movie? *shudders* That would definitely ruin the movie. So, trying to make Ghostbusters into some feminist manifesto is really tone deaf. I don't know if I am going to see it or not. If it's out right now, I may skip it. I go to the movies to escape. Not to be scolded about my male privilege. If I wanted that, I'll be online.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Okay is it just me or is this Dan Akroid?! Is this his cameo?!

 

[axlryder]

Okay is it just me or is this Dan Akroid?! Is this his cameo?!

I do see the resemblance, and here I just assumed it was Ramis.

I'm sorry for being a terrible human being.