The First Ghostbusters Trailer Ain't Afraid of No Ghost

DemomanHusband

New member
Sep 17, 2014
122
0
0
Im Lang said:
DemomanHusband said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
FPLOON said:
"Ah hell naw I ain't fuckin' with no ghost!"
"That ghost's one jive-ass turkey!"
"I'm the fuckin' Keymaster! You dig, Gatekeeper?"
Yup. This now totally needs to happen.
Other than that, the effects reminded me that the live-action Scooby-Doo movie was suppose to be a PG-13 "parody" of the concept...
The whole trailer gave me that vibe. Considering I mildly enjoyed that movie... I don't know what to make of this.
The trouble is that the PG-13 "parody" stuck to the original cast of characters and applied them to a world that wasn't entirely kid friendly. For the most part, the actors and actresses played their parts beautifully (I especially liked the people that played Daphne and Shaggy) and it felt like you were watching the cartoons grow up in a way that didn't require the message "we're ready to be new, edgy, and something you've never seen before!" being plastered on your eyeballs by making inverting the genders of established characters, changing their names, then keeping their archetypes and roles in the hopes of milking a combination of nostalgia and novelty.

Although I could be biased, considering that the parody movie was one of the first DVDs (or was it a VHS?) that I got to watch. I still think Shaggy's actor was the best fit between actor and well-established character ever.
You know that the original Ghostbusters was rated PG, right?
Yeah, but I'm talking about how the live action Scooby Doo fared. Scooby Doo was approved for younger audiences as well, but the parody was considered a bit more racy, right? All I'm saying that the Scooby Doo live action movie did what it did well, and understood that in order to captivate an audience's nostalgia, you most likely need characters that connect back to that nostalgia.

Archetypes in of themselves do not a nostalgia-worthy character make. You can't just make a kooky, nerdy girl, give her a poofy haircut, and call her... Whatever her name is in the movie and assume that fans of Egon will immediately like her. Is she even supposed to be the Egon analogue? I thought I saw her building and testing equipment for the team, but I also got a Ray vibe from her with how she tried to force that hat/wig jokes.

What's so hard about sticking to what works, Hollywood? I thought you'd been successfully charged with that sin several times over!
 

ccggenius12

New member
Sep 30, 2010
717
0
0
Siege_TF said:
That stupid grin on the library ghost's face put me right off, then a female anatomy joke because that's funny for the whole audience, then some filler, plot spoilers, laser traps and proton knuckles, and finally 'The power of pain compels you' because we don't want to trigger anybody by using the C-word. Edgy, but safe. The best kind of comedy.
Pretty sure she said "The Power of Patty compels you", seeing as that's her name, if that necklace is any indication. Clearly she's not JUST a sassy black woman. No, she's an independent black woman who don't need no man to run her life, not even Jesus.
OT: I'm thoroughly nonplussed about the whole thing. Did we really need a librarian ghost that looks fake by comparison to the original, despite having decades worth of technological improvements behind it?
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
faefrost said:
Is anyone else shocked by just how much really really bad exposition is going on in that trailer?
Yeah, it's almost as bad as Reitman's previous works, like Ghostbusters and Evolution.

JimB said:
Dunno. Ask all the people who insist I have no business saying Batman 5 Superman: Dawn of Franchise Merchandising looks shitty based on the information they give us in the trailers.
A few of which seem to have changed positions now that Ghostbusters has a trailer.

undeadsuitor said:
im sorry their hot secretary is body shaming you
Hot? I'm impressed they managed to de-sexify Thor.

MarsAtlas said:
A real shame since the cast is actually pretty good.
You would literally never know it from this trailer. And given this is the only time I've seen a couple of these people, it's really hard to believe this is a good cast.

canadamus_prime said:
It looks impressive, but I already hate the 4 leads. In the original the four leads were clearly identifiable and distiguishable:
Egon - poindexter type scientist.
Ray - Over eager enthusiast.
Venkman - Womanizer
Winston - The Everyman.

With these, as I could tell, you have the loud obnoxious one, the other loud obnoxious one, the sciencey one, and.... uh that's about all I could gather.
You have the joyless one, the zany one, the black one, and the clumsy awkward one.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
Well considering that my expectations were somewhere lower than Satan's asscrack I am pretty comfortable saying the trailer exceeded them.

Still not watching it. It looks like a very expensively made fan work to me.
 

Havtorn

New member
Aug 27, 2012
15
0
0
Idunno, I've seen worse trailers. I am a bit confused, though. I was under the impression that this was a reboot, but it does seems like the trailer implies that the events of Ghostbusters 1 and 2 still happened? I would prefer that to a reboot, sure, but then a lot of it seems very reboot-y. Like... why a hearse again?


ravenshrike said:
Seriously though, no male secretary is going to be that buff.
I've coincidentally worked with a couple of very active, in one case even world-class, competitive body builders. They all had desk jobs. Yes, it looks a bit out of place but think about it: You can't really show up to a manual-labor type job if you put yourself through the extended periods of absurd training and starvation that these guys put themselves through. You'd just collapse or hurt yourself.

Also, the obvious answer; An model-level attractive secretary? Who ever heard of such a thing in a movie?
 

VoidWanderer

New member
Sep 17, 2011
1,551
0
0
I was reserved about this movie. But I felt very lacklustre about it. There just seemed something off, about the whole thing. Then I watched the trailer. We went from a movie about three scientists who were in danger of losing tenure because their research into the Paranormal was not panning out. So they set up shop for themselves. They don't stumble into the plot of the movie until quite a ways into it.

With this reboot, which they refer to, which is like the Robocop reboot actually refer to the original movie, we see the Firehouse. Then there is the first encounter of the trailer. 'Class 4', great effects for the ghost, then it vomits ectoplasm? "It went everywhere. Into every crack."

This is where my hope for this movie buckled. Did we really need to know this? Was this really that crucial information to make it into the trailer? The rest of movie just further sinks my hopes. References to studying the paranormal which is great, but wouldn't they have already found that ectoplasm is like goo and goes everywhere? Sightings all over NYC and scientists can help? Sure, I can buy that. Then we get introduced to the brilliant engineer, who demonstrates a bear trap would expect to see at a rave... The Quantum Physicist 'the best there is'. And then the nail in my hope, the intro of the token black woman. Why couldn't she be a scientist or engineer? Why does she have to be 'generic black woman from the city #2865'? Seriously, what the hell movie! This is worse than the original movie, where all he wanted was a steady paycheck, and I thought that was a brilliant move. And her scenes are like they went and got every generic black woman trope and slammed it into a 'Generic Black Character' mold. If they had tried to change things up slightly, I would've been impressed. But the trailer just feels bad. I wanted to look forward to this movie, but I am disappointed.
 

Dandres

New member
Apr 7, 2013
118
0
0
So glad to have been old enough to see the originals movies before the remakes but glad that I have no nostalgic feelings towards them. So yes I will happily go see it in the theater. Glad they did not cast Kate McKinnon in a serious role.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Annnd... The black team member is the one non-scientist, she's "street smart", and she gets to say "Aw, hell no!".

Didn't see that one coming...

I'll give it half a point that at least there was a minimum of McCarthy doing pratfalls and no obvious fat jokes, but nothing in that trailer actually made me laugh, and it was clearly trying. That's probably not a good sign.
 
Jan 19, 2016
692
0
0
Callate said:
Annnd... The black team member is the one non-scientist, she's "street smart", and she get to say "Aw, hell no!".

Didn't see that one coming...

I'll give it half a point that at least there was a minimum of McCarthy doing pratfalls and no obvious fat jokes, but nothing in that trailer actually made me laugh, and it was clearly trying. That's probably not a good sign.
Yeah, the complete lack of actual laughs seems like a pretty major red flag. I was skeptical about this whole enterprise from the start, and nothing in this trailer has dissuaded me from thinking that it's all a terrible misfire. It'll probably still make money though, even Adam Sandler movies seem to.
 

Beetlebum

New member
Oct 14, 2011
39
0
0
Oh dear. That wasn't very good at all.
Blue CGI puke turns into green real puke, and a vagina joke(?).
And then we get a one sentence or scene definition of the main characters, like we're watching a Saturday morning cartoon show. Leader, smarty, goofy and sassy. Sassy seems to hit critical sassy levels, though, I'm not sure the audience can take it.
CGI ghost look crap, but it's a trailer, most CGI in trailers look crap.
After that, possession, as if it's new. But the whole plot of the first one was build on ghost/daemons possession of two individuals.

Then sassy slaps a ghost out of leader. It spoils the scene and the joke for the movie and makes the ghost seem weak. And with sassy shouting in our faces we get to the title with horrid dubstep remix theme.

Can't wait to be called a misogynist for not liking a trailer.
 

SirSullymore

New member
Mar 26, 2009
423
0
0
Bbleds said:
Well, I'm for one am excited. Nothing stands out as exceptionally great, but I think others can agree that an idea of doing something very different than the original in a remake/sequel is at least worthy of some praise. Especially in recent years with almost every remake consistently the same the plot/character set up with 1 or 2 modern updates, and then generally missing the themes and points that make the original enjoyable.

Not saying it's automatically great because they're using an all female lead cast, but considering that some of the most memorable remakes veer greatly from the original (The Fly and Scarface for example) it's a good start.
IDK, maybe I'm crazy but how did this feel very different to you? It looks like a pretty samey remake to me, I mean the first seen in the trailer was almost identical to the first seen in the original.
 

DemomanHusband

New member
Sep 17, 2014
122
0
0
Im Lang said:
DemomanHusband said:
Im Lang said:
DemomanHusband said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
FPLOON said:
"Ah hell naw I ain't fuckin' with no ghost!"
"That ghost's one jive-ass turkey!"
"I'm the fuckin' Keymaster! You dig, Gatekeeper?"
Yup. This now totally needs to happen.
Other than that, the effects reminded me that the live-action Scooby-Doo movie was suppose to be a PG-13 "parody" of the concept...
The whole trailer gave me that vibe. Considering I mildly enjoyed that movie... I don't know what to make of this.
The trouble is that the PG-13 "parody" stuck to the original cast of characters and applied them to a world that wasn't entirely kid friendly. For the most part, the actors and actresses played their parts beautifully (I especially liked the people that played Daphne and Shaggy) and it felt like you were watching the cartoons grow up in a way that didn't require the message "we're ready to be new, edgy, and something you've never seen before!" being plastered on your eyeballs by making inverting the genders of established characters, changing their names, then keeping their archetypes and roles in the hopes of milking a combination of nostalgia and novelty.

Although I could be biased, considering that the parody movie was one of the first DVDs (or was it a VHS?) that I got to watch. I still think Shaggy's actor was the best fit between actor and well-established character ever.
You know that the original Ghostbusters was rated PG, right?
Yeah, but I'm talking about how the live action Scooby Doo fared. Scooby Doo was approved for younger audiences as well, but the parody was considered a bit more racy, right? All I'm saying that the Scooby Doo live action movie did what it did well, and understood that in order to captivate an audience's nostalgia, you most likely need characters that connect back to that nostalgia.

Archetypes in of themselves do not a nostalgia-worthy character make. You can't just make a kooky, nerdy girl, give her a poofy haircut, and call her... Whatever her name is in the movie and assume that fans of Egon will immediately like her. Is she even supposed to be the Egon analogue? I thought I saw her building and testing equipment for the team, but I also got a Ray vibe from her with how she tried to force that hat/wig jokes.

What's so hard about sticking to what works, Hollywood? I thought you'd been successfully charged with that sin several times over!
What works, changes. That's why movies like Zoolander 2 flop, because "high concept" comedies are basically dead, and good riddance. I don't care how well someone tries to make Beverly Hills Cop (for example) today, it will not do particularly well doing the same thing. It would come off as cheesy, because in the 30+ years since the time those movies were popular, we all grew up and got jaded.

Making a movie involves guessing what will work by the time the movie is funded, shot, edited, and finally released (years after pitching). Sometimes people who are only good at one thing (Michael Bay) make a ton of money and wield a lot of influence for a very long time. The problem with criticism that only generically complains about archetypes and comparisons to older movies, is that it's easy to make, and useless. You need to think in terms of people who need foresight, not the benefit of what you imagine to be your 20/20 hindsight. Never mind that all of this is based on a number of assumptions from a single trailer.
Well, I can't say much about Zoolander 2 since I didn't actually watch it, but I know that I've been told it was quite literally a retread of the first Zoolander. When I talk about 'what works', I mean taking an established franchise and not changing anything about its established characters and relationships. Setting can change, story is obviously going to change whether it's a prequel, sequel, reboot, so on and so forth. Hell, a few character traits can change as well. Characters should grow and become new people, even if most writers would rather just write them into a nice, easily identifiable rut. But pulling a gender flip and relegating all comedy writing to Adam Sandler levels isn't really the kind of change anybody wants to see.

Also, let's not act as if there is anything more to a big budget Hollywood movie beyond its trailer in this day and age. Especially a comedy. If Batman v. Superman can casually throw out Doomsday, the presence of Wonder Woman, and Zod's Corpse right out into the open knowing full well that people will still fill seats for it, then I doubt the new Ghostbusters film is going to be very concerned about giving away its best jokes or plot points early. My assumptions are also not borne from the trailer alone, they pretty much revolve around this whole production. The audacity of the new leads visiting some pretty damn ill looking children in the hospital in costume comes to mind. The general inability to distinguish who does what in the cast that only is compounded by the fact that the trailer fails to differentiate them at all beyond 'This one's wacky because hat and wig!' and 'This one's punchin' a ghost outta her!' also left quite an impression on me.
 

Objectable

New member
Oct 31, 2013
867
0
0
Man, I did not know the Escapist was in Central New York, cause there's a shit ton of salt here.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
LegendaryGamer0 said:
From that trailer, who else wants a Blaxploitation Ghostbusters with four sassy black women catching ghosts? I'm pretty sure it's a bad thing when a trailer sells me on something that it isn't trying to sell, as well as not existing.
I don't want this. I can't really describe how much I don't want this. Though it does touch on something I found funny in the trailer, the blatant "I'm the Down to Earth Black Stereotype for this movie, while all you people got the book learning!" I mean, they didn't even try and sugar coat it! Part of me was kind of impressed at that, while the rest just sort of rolled my eyes.

OT: Meh, it's probably going to suck, they're trying too hard in my opinion. But hey, maybe this will be the movie that lets Melissa McCarthy do something funny other than "Fat Woman Tries/Fails at Physical Comedy" schtick they've got her on. I really think she could be just a straight up funny woman, but they never seem to give her a chance to do regular comedy, and instead just toss her ass around so we can laugh at the fat lady failing.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Something Amyss said:
canadamus_prime said:
It looks impressive, but I already hate the 4 leads. In the original the four leads were clearly identifiable and distiguishable:
Egon - poindexter type scientist.
Ray - Over eager enthusiast.
Venkman - Womanizer
Winston - The Everyman.

With these, as I could tell, you have the loud obnoxious one, the other loud obnoxious one, the sciencey one, and.... uh that's about all I could gather.
You have the joyless one, the zany one, the black one, and the clumsy awkward one.
Yes. The zany one = the loud obnoxious one. the black one = the other loud obnoxious one.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Yes. The zany one = the loud obnoxious one. the black one = the other loud obnoxious one.
Sure. And Egon's the annoying snarky one and Venkman's also the annoying snarky one.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
I don't want this. I can't really describe how much I don't want this. Though it does touch on something I found funny in the trailer, the blatant "I'm the Down to Earth Black Stereotype for this movie, while all you people got the book learning!" I mean, they didn't even try and sugar coat it! Part of me was kind of impressed at that, while the rest just sort of rolled my eyes.
In fairness, this isn't a black thing. Common sense almost always beats scientific knowledge in movies and TV.

The unfortunate thing is that this is one of the few franchises where science and intellect actually rule. and ghosts can be bested by a ***** slap.

But hey, maybe this will be the movie that lets Melissa McCarthy do something funny other than "Fat Woman Tries/Fails at Physical Comedy" schtick they've got her on. I really think she could be just a straight up funny woman, but they never seem to give her a chance to do regular comedy, and instead just toss her ass around so we can laugh at the fat lady failing.
Not a movie, but I enjoyed McCarthy in the series Gilmore Girls. They started off with physical comedy and moved away from it. There were a couple mentions later on, but mostly it died off. Also, she didn't rely on goofy faces. So there's at least somewhat of a foundation to build off of. The unfortunate thing is that nobody seems to have tried.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Something Amyss said:
canadamus_prime said:
Yes. The zany one = the loud obnoxious one. the black one = the other loud obnoxious one.
Sure. And Egon's the annoying snarky one and Venkman's also the annoying snarky one.
That's not how I remember either of them. Venkman was a womanizer and Egon... I can think of a good way to describe Egon.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
18,156
2,555
118
Something Amyss said:
Not a movie, but I enjoyed McCarthy in the series Gilmore Girls. They started off with physical comedy and moved away from it. There were a couple mentions later on, but mostly it died off. Also, she didn't rely on goofy faces. So there's at least somewhat of a foundation to build off of. The unfortunate thing is that nobody seems to have tried.
You know, I keep forgetting she was in that show, and that she actually gave a very charming performance. I guess 5 years worth of obnoxious pratfalls will do that.