I'll reserve judgement until they release another trailer, hopefully with the old theme song INTACT. The version in this trailer sounded too... somber and self-serious. It didn't fit with the tone of what each scene was trying to convey.
The First Ghostbusters Trailer Ain't Afraid of No Ghost
- Thread starter JaredJones
- Start date
I confuse, is this suppose to be a sequel or a reboot? I mean the cast are just rule 63 of the original cast but the text at the start try to make it a sequel or was that suppose to strap on our nostaglia goggle?
Either way, the impression doesn't look that good in my eyes (I can gaurantee it will be tone down compared to the first film).
Either way, the impression doesn't look that good in my eyes (I can gaurantee it will be tone down compared to the first film).
I wasn't on board with this when I heard Melissa McCarthy was gonna be in it. Does anyone think she is funny? Really, she just tries to be as vulgar as possible and pass it off as humor. If she wasn't in it, I could give it a chance, instead the movie is probably gonna be ruined by her sense of 'humor', say goodbye to the witty banter that made me love the first Ghostbusters.
You're joking, right? I went to see the screening of the first Ghostbusters about a month ago during the Great Digital Film Festival. Of the six movies that I went to see during the festival it was by far the most packed and the (almost entirely young adult) crowed was laughing in every scene, and I was doing that along with them (and I hadn't seen it in so long and was so young I forgot most of the movie).Pluvia said:
While it isn't a comedy for everyone, for those who like the type of comedy at work it's one of the best comedies ever made.
Bunch of damn whiners on this thread. I absolutely am willing to give this a shot because I love the concept of the Ghostbusters since I saw the original movies in the 80's. And this is not a bad trailer, it shows some of the humor and looks kind of epic to boot. They would be doing it wrong if they didn't put the entire city in danger.
The effects look nice.
Slimer is present.
I would still have loved to see it as a continuation, somehow, rather than a reboot.
Maybe that's just a nerdish compulsion on my part.
I had the idea fixed in my head that their slimer would be Bill Murray reprising an ex-Venkman in full on schmooze mode.
Don't know where that came from.
Slimer is present.
I would still have loved to see it as a continuation, somehow, rather than a reboot.
Maybe that's just a nerdish compulsion on my part.
I had the idea fixed in my head that their slimer would be Bill Murray reprising an ex-Venkman in full on schmooze mode.
Don't know where that came from.
I don't know how I feel about this. The trailer had some funny moments... one thing I think is interesting is that the original movie didn't really go in for the lengthy shots of how the tech works (the science behind the toys, so to speak). I seem to recall some more stuff kinda like that in the second movie, with the slime brain/mood scanning, and the toaster, and stuff... oh, and in the original the tech used to identify Dana as human, and Lewis as Vinz Clortho- I liked the... I guess, for lack of a better word, subtlety, to those original scenes.
Possession was a big part of the second movie, and is a ghost staple, so that's cool.
Lots of cg ghosts, but that is to be expected.
I think I agree with Mikeybb for the most part, though- I just wanted more of the original- nerdish compulsion, embraced.
Possession was a big part of the second movie, and is a ghost staple, so that's cool.
Lots of cg ghosts, but that is to be expected.
I think I agree with Mikeybb for the most part, though- I just wanted more of the original- nerdish compulsion, embraced.
- Sep 8, 2014
- 1,109
- 64
- 53
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
Well, the trailer is better then I was afraid of (my expectations were really low).
I might actually get be of meh or sorta alright quality. I truly think they shot themselves in the foot by making it a reboot. There were so many things they could of done with the franchise, but instead they have to reboot as ideas are hard for Holywood.
I might actually get be of meh or sorta alright quality. I truly think they shot themselves in the foot by making it a reboot. There were so many things they could of done with the franchise, but instead they have to reboot as ideas are hard for Holywood.
For me the original movie had witty banter between the four leads that was funny. This new one just has lame jokes that fail. I really wanted to give it a chance but as soon as i saw the librarian ghost i just lost any chance i had for it. Maybe i will give it ago when it reaches Netflix.
Pretty much, yeah.undeadsuitor said:
So, I think that in another context, these four actresses could make a great team. They seem to have some chemistry, and there are a few laughs in the trailer that landed. If it were some other supernatural buddy-comedy, I think they could really make it work.
My concern is that by making it Ghostbusters is that they're kneecapping themselves from the start. I'd much rather them do something fresh, have more room to play around and experiment than trying to fit themselves into something else's shoes.
Basically, it looks more like someone *trying* to make a ghostbusters movie, than an actual ghostbusters movie. It kinda has a fan-movie sort of vibe to it.
Since I'm predisposed already to not like Melissa McCarthy (for many reasons, none of which have to do with her weight except that she uses that as a crutch for her comedy style), I'm already not thrilled for this. There's a lot of things that bother me with this concept, most of which have to do with my aversion for Hollywood cash-grabbing nostalgia reboots. I'm a huge fan of Ghostbusters and of the rare few that liked the sequel, though I recognize the mess it was (but damn Peter MacNicol was a treasure). Its hard on me to see something I loved as a kid and rediscovered love for as an adult due to the jokes my kid self semi-understood. There was an attraction at Universal Studios Orlando that was basically a haunted set from the first movie (the ending's high rise roof) which was a bundle of joy to experience but they have since removed it (as well as Jaws, King Kong and Back to the Future)... and it made me sad to see its gone.
This doesn't help restore any of that loss, nor does it fill the hole Harold Ramis' death has left in me. There just doesn't seem to be that same dynamic between these characters that Ramis, Murray and Akroyd had, plus Moranis, Weaver, Hudson and Potts's supporting characters... the cast is really what made the movie work, more than the script and the setting. There just doesn't feel like there's any of that magic in this. Its soulless, ironic being it deals with untethered souls aka ghosts...
This doesn't help restore any of that loss, nor does it fill the hole Harold Ramis' death has left in me. There just doesn't seem to be that same dynamic between these characters that Ramis, Murray and Akroyd had, plus Moranis, Weaver, Hudson and Potts's supporting characters... the cast is really what made the movie work, more than the script and the setting. There just doesn't feel like there's any of that magic in this. Its soulless, ironic being it deals with untethered souls aka ghosts...
We might not be afraid of no ghost, but Sony is afraid of the backlash they are actively purging the youtube comments section of even non-insulting criticisim.
My personal problem is, it feels like a bad parody of the exorcist with scientists! instead of priests, the characters don't feel like they have a grounding in reality, they are goofy people in a goofy world it seems, which is a stark contrast to the "scarier" version Fieg was promising.
My personal problem is, it feels like a bad parody of the exorcist with scientists! instead of priests, the characters don't feel like they have a grounding in reality, they are goofy people in a goofy world it seems, which is a stark contrast to the "scarier" version Fieg was promising.
http://archive.is/OdtsdUkomba said:
Something like that...
OT: I liked the ghosts, I'll wait before I pass judgement on the characters, but I don't like the equipment (apart from the hearse, that's funny).
This hits the nail on the head. There's a sense of artifice to the visuals as well as to the characters and dialoge that make it feel like it's an adaptation of some non-existent cartoon. I saw someone else compare it to the live-action Scooby Doo movies, and it does look freakishly similar.rcs619 said:
No, that one comes across entirely too but hurt and borderline psychotic. I'm thinking something more professional, probably with old, unrelated, and/or discredited statistics/polls. Something at least passingly creditable if you don't look too deep.crimson5pheonix said: