The First Ghostbusters Trailer Ain't Afraid of No Ghost

[Cheesy Goodness]

I found myself cringing throughout the entire thing. It was painfully unfunny and tonally confused. It also featured all the tripe you see in modern trailers. Some parts reminded me of a bad action movie and not a single thing made me crack a smile. The CG ghosts looked straight out of Scooby-Doo as well. I hated it!

 

[happyninja42]

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.

True it's not a black only thing, but there is a specific trope, I think "The Magical Negro" is the one that applies here. Where you have a cast of mostly white people, and then one black person. And they are portrayed as being the "down to earth", and "in touch with their roots" person. Who spends the whole movie, reminding the out of touch white people about the simple pleasures of life. Usually some really smart, but socially awkward white person. Or a rich, but unhappy white person. That's the trope this felt like. I mean hell, she flat out said "You've got the book learning, I've got the street smarts." If that's not a classic example of The Magical Negro, I don't know what is.

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.

That's right, she was in that show, I keep forgetting about that. I think that might be why the back of my brain keeps telling me "She can be funny on her own, not just because she's fat comedy." I used to watch the hell out of that show, and she was always an amusing character. Hopefully she can get back to that in the near future, that type of comedy I mean.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Yes, and you can choose to be reductive and so can I.

The snark is what I remember of both of them.

But apparently, it's different because ponies.

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.

In fairness, I have a tendency to watch the show, even after all these years. Makes it a lot easier to remember her role. Especially since the movies I've seen her in have been largely forgettable.

True it's not a black only thing, but there is a specific trope, I think "The Magical Negro" is the one that applies here. Where you have a cast of mostly white people, and then one black person. And they are portrayed as being the "down to earth", and "in touch with their roots" person. Who spends the whole movie, reminding the out of touch white people about the simple pleasures of life. Usually some really smart, but socially awkward white person. Or a rich, but unhappy white person. That's the trope this felt like. I mean hell, she flat out said "You've got the book learning, I've got the street smarts." If that's not a classic example of The Magical Negro, I don't know what is.

Possibly literally magic, since she can slap the ghost outta ya!

I'm just annoyed at the larger trend because it's so common not only on pop sci fi, but science fiction in general. I mean, I know a future where aliens don't invade or the machines don't take over would be boring, but it gets a bit lazy that these things can only come about because apparently, the scientists were all huffing glue when designing Google + or whatever.

That's right, she was in that show, I keep forgetting about that. I think that might be why the back of my brain keeps telling me "She can be funny on her own, not just because she's fat comedy." I used to watch the hell out of that show, and she was always an amusing character. Hopefully she can get back to that in the near future, that type of comedy I mean.

The sad thing is, they're doing a new Gilmore Girls show with much of the original cast already announced as returning. She will likely not, because there's more money in doing shitty movies. She could literally go back to doing that, and maybe someone would hire her for something other than lame fat jokes and prat falls afterward.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

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.

Now they just have to do something about the 44K dislikes to 29K likes.

Those are terrible numbers, and Sony have every reason to be afraid about that.

I'm sure they're already writing up an article on how sexist people are, it's a great smoke screen.

http://archive.is/Odtsd

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).

Holy shit, someone got paid to write that? And they're claiming it's purely the men who are mad at this trailer? If that author was projecting any harder, we could use them to watch movies.

 

[DemomanHusband]

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.

We have Adam Sandler movies in the first place because some vocal people want nothing about their favorite movies to change.

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.

If you were making these points after actually seeing the movie, it would potentially be possible to take them seriously.

Firstly, did I say 'nothing' had to change? You're quoting a passage in which I say that a franchise's characters should not suddenly be changed, but should still be allowed to grow as people. I don't think Adam Sandler has any 'franchises' aside from his friend Kevin James making a name for himself in 'Fat Mustachioed Man Falls Frequently 1 and 2'. In short, you're missing the point. Whether it's on purpose or on accident, I won't try to guess.

Furthermore, why should things about people's favorite movies change? Would you like a sequel to Wreck-It Ralph where Ralph and his friends are replaced with walking, talking browser windows displaying Twine 'games'? Why can't a filmmaker create a new property with new, identifiable characters without slapping a needless association to a popular film franchise on the cover? Honestly, having seen the new Ghostbusters trailer, I'd prefer it to be spoken of as an homage instead of a reboot. If they went whole-hog and basically made Airplane! for Ghosts, I might be on board.

And hey, while we're talking Ghostbusters, why see the movie when the trailer makes it quite clear that it won't be good at all? Zoolander 2 gives every indication that it is what everyone has said it is. More Zoolander, more of the same, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The setting of the movie changed, the time period, things like that. In the end though, nothing drastic was done to make the designation as a sequel meaningless. Batman v. Superman's trailer lets me know it's going to be far too many minutes of Zack Snyder meticulously making every single superhero and villain on screen seem distraught with their morals and situation, gazing down at the floor and muttering profound trailer quotes between passable action sequences.

Your argument is the same argument leveled by people who have seen a gameplay trailer for an upcoming game, know the developers and how they operate, and make a judgement based off of that. To both arguments, I offer a counterpoint. I don't need to taste shit in order to be sure that what I'm looking at is shit.

 

[happyninja42]

True it's not a black only thing, but there is a specific trope, I think "The Magical Negro" is the one that applies here. Where you have a cast of mostly white people, and then one black person. And they are portrayed as being the "down to earth", and "in touch with their roots" person. Who spends the whole movie, reminding the out of touch white people about the simple pleasures of life. Usually some really smart, but socially awkward white person. Or a rich, but unhappy white person. That's the trope this felt like. I mean hell, she flat out said "You've got the book learning, I've got the street smarts." If that's not a classic example of The Magical Negro, I don't know what is.

Possibly literally magic, since she can slap the ghost outta ya!

xD I have to admit, the "The Power of PAIN compels you!" Did get a bit of a chuckle out of me.

I'm just annoyed at the larger trend because it's so common not only on pop sci fi, but science fiction in general. I mean, I know a future where aliens don't invade or the machines don't take over would be boring, but it gets a bit lazy that these things can only come about because apparently, the scientists were all huffing glue when designing Google + or whatever.

Yes, we can agree that lazy writing and plot elements suck. I'm just so confused with the plot of this. At first I was under the impression that the events of the first Ghostbusters didn't happen, but this trailer clearly acknowledges those events. But they're acting like this ghost stuff is all new, unfounded territory. Well if you acknowledge that a giant fucking ghost marshmallow dude stomped around town, and ghost Titanic rolled into port, and tons of other things, then why is anyone really surprised by more ghosts? How are these 4 women breaking new ground? I just, I don't get it. Some elements seem to be making this out to a sequel, other seem to suggest reboot. They're mixing their elements and it's making mah brain hurtz!

That's right, she was in that show, I keep forgetting about that. I think that might be why the back of my brain keeps telling me "She can be funny on her own, not just because she's fat comedy." I used to watch the hell out of that show, and she was always an amusing character. Hopefully she can get back to that in the near future, that type of comedy I mean.

The sad thing is, they're doing a new Gilmore Girls show with much of the original cast already announced as returning. She will likely not, because there's more money in doing shitty movies. She could literally go back to doing that, and maybe someone would hire her for something other than lame fat jokes and prat falls afterward.

One could hope. Because I've seen her on talk shows and other various PR related things, and she's genuinely funny, and quick witted. They just never seem to actually capitalize on that fact when they cast her for a movie. Which is a shame. But oh well, we'll see. This movie has a slim chance of being good in it's own right, I can see tiny glimmers of something that might be good, I just fear that it's the magic of trailers, and the final result will be something terrible. *shrugs*

Sidenote to something you mentioned before about the dubstep song. I actually liked it. The original song was synth enough anyway, so an updated synth version is perfectly fine in my book.

 

[Dead Metal]

So wait, did they just make a vagina joke? She has slime in every crack, and as a woman she has a vagina, so the implication is yes, slime in her vagina. Because she's a woman. And women, traditionally, have vaginas.

I think that sums up this whole mess perfectly. Its a reboot and the jokes literally are "We are women." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say every single punchline could be replaced with "and I'm a woman" and the jokes wouldn't lose a single ounce of humor.

What's the problem with a vagina joke? Especially speaking in the context of Ghostbusters, the original had its fair share of dick jokes. So I fail to see why a vagina joke would suddenly be not OK.

 

[Qizx]

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

Points for the joke.

Points off for the content.

I don't really see any salt, I see a lot of "Well I didn't expect it to be good, and it looks bad." as well as a lot of "it looks bad." I don't really see anyone crying about how this is ruining their childhoods or whatnot. Maybe I have a different definition of salt but saying "Yeah that trailer looks like crap," isn't salt to me.

 

[Yuuki]

Looks like a pure gender swap with all the wit, humor and charm thrown out the window. When this movie flops it's only to further damage the chances of female leads ever getting taken seriously. Well done Sony Entertainment.
Oh, what must Bill Murray be thinking...

 

[DemomanHusband]

Did we watch the same Ghostbusters movies?

I don't think Adam Sandler has any 'franchises' aside from his friend Kevin James making a name for himself in 'Fat Mustachioed Man Falls Frequently 1 and 2'. In short, you're missing the point. Whether it's on purpose or on accident, I won't try to guess.

Every Adam Sandler movie is part of a franchise called "Adam Sandler does his funny voices" or "Adam Sandler's writing team tries to recapture the magic of Sandler's funny voices."

Furthermore, why should things about people's favorite movies change? Would you like a sequel to Wreck-It Ralph where Ralph and his friends are replaced with walking, talking browser windows displaying Twine 'games'? Why can't a filmmaker create a new property with new, identifiable characters without slapping a needless association to a popular film franchise on the cover? Honestly, having seen the new Ghostbusters trailer, I'd prefer it to be spoken of as an homage instead of a reboot. If they went whole-hog and basically made Airplane! for Ghosts, I might be on board.

If the sequel to Wreck-It Ralph is made a few decades from now? It won't be marketed primarily to me, so I don't really care. I'm glad that you're moving on to stating things in terms of what you'd prefer though, instead of what should be, or objective standards. That's progress.

And hey, while we're talking Ghostbusters, why see the movie when the trailer makes it quite clear that it won't be good at all?

Because I'm not a hyperjudgemental megaconsumer looking for an excuse to rage? I'll do what I always do, wait until the people who I know share my taste write their reviews, and make a judgement call. I really value my time, so I don't waste a ton of it anticipating what a movie that hasn't been released will be like. There is nothing to be gained, unless you enjoy getting in fights online.

Zoolander 2 gives every indication that it is what everyone has said it is. More Zoolander, more of the same, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The setting of the movie changed, the time period, things like that. In the end though, nothing drastic was done to make the designation as a sequel meaningless. Batman v. Superman's trailer lets me know it's going to be far too many minutes of Zack Snyder meticulously making every single superhero and villain on screen seem distraught with their morals and situation, gazing down at the floor and muttering profound trailer quotes between passable action sequences.

Your argument is the same argument leveled by people who have seen a gameplay trailer for an upcoming game, know the developers and how they operate, and make a judgement based off of that. To both arguments, I offer a counterpoint. I don't need to taste shit in order to be sure that what I'm looking at is shit.

Very eloquent.

I do believe we did watch the same movies. The growth won't necessarily be substantial or all that notable, especially when it comes to movies that have a healthy share of comedy to them. But to imply nothing at all changed about the characters between Ghostbusters 1 and 2 might indicate your answer for you. As for Adam Sandler's cavalcade of crude humor, I'm going to go ahead and say that what you're talking about falls more into the genre of movies he likes to make. Adam's gotten to the point where his comedies are a complete different sort of film, a grand advertising romp with Adam and the gang slowly going mad. Not so much a franchise as it is a framework for what they generally do.

Also, not caring about the quality of a franchise's next incarnation kind of defeats the purpose of being a fan of something, doesn't it? Just brushing off a reboot/sequel/prequel made after so many years with a 'Well, it isn't marketed to me, so I don't care if it's good or not' is kind of sad. Apathy like that is why these low-quality nostalgia bait-and-switch films are made.

Also, where have I 'raged' in these posts? I've been civil. I'm not even sure where you're trying to go by calling me a 'hyperjudgmental megaconsumer,' so I'd appreciate and explanation of that on. I'd say I'm just the regular kind of judgmental, and the regular kind of consumer. After all, I'm judging a film on all the facts presented to me thus far, the details about its production and the media circus surrounding it. I'm a regular consumer because... I consume media, I suppose. On another note, you're not the first person who has stated that they 'value their time' too much to discuss media on a site dedicated to news and discussion related to popular media, and the phrase makes just as little sense as it did before. If you're so busy, why even come to the site? Why discuss the quality of a new film in a thread about said new film if the presence of an opinion contrary to yours might arise? Furthermore, is this really a 'fight'? I'd just call it a discussion. Maybe a debate, if you want to get a little spicy. Is my lack of agreement that threatening?

Oh, and lastly, what's wrong with being a little brief and straight to the point now and again? Eloquence isn't the sole marker of quality. Does the word shit automatically disqualify an argument from being worthy of your time?

 

[Kanedias]

Jesus Christ, it's just a movie guys, this is getting out of hand.

 

[Yuuki]

Jesus Christ, it's just a movie guys, this is getting out of hand.

You're new here, welcome. This is quite normal in these forums.

 

[Li Mu]

This. Looks. Like. Garbage!

Hey, remember when the Ghostbusters were people we could buy as genuine scientists, and not awkward looking cartoon characters who are a walking punchline? Remember when back in 1984 the visual looked great, and not like post-2000 Tim Burton picked his nose and rubbed it all over the screen?

I agree! What the hell is with the ghosts looking less realistic than the ones in the original? How have we gone backwards? They look like they've been ported directly from Hotel Transylvania.

In the original, they looked like scientists. Even Peter came across as a real slacker who had intelligence but couldn't be bothered to apply it. I know plenty of people who are gifted but lazy.

In the trailer we're expected to believe that they are scientists because they say they are. I wasn't buying it.


I found the whole trailer not even mildly amusing. It left a bad taste in my mouth; like sour milk.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

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

Iknowrite?

As for the movie, eh. I'll wait until it comes out, then read a couple reviews. Anything else feels premature.

 

[Something Amyss]

What's the problem with a vagina joke? Especially speaking in the context of Ghostbusters, the original had its fair share of dick jokes. So I fail to see why a vagina joke would suddenly be not OK.

Same reason hot secretaries are suddenly a problem now that it's a hot dude.

 

[happyninja42]

What's the problem with a vagina joke? Especially speaking in the context of Ghostbusters, the original had its fair share of dick jokes. So I fail to see why a vagina joke would suddenly be not OK.

Same reason hot secretaries are suddenly a problem now that it's a hot dude.

Oh that muscular guy is supposed to be their secretary? Interesting, didn't get that from the trailer. For some reason, I'd like to see him be the in house "stress reliever" for the team. That they've got this understanding polygamy going on with the guy. After a hard night of ghost busting, you need to unwind! Good thing we've got Hot Stud McGee on staff to handle this problem for us! Of course that won't happen, but I'd like to see it happen, and that they don't even really make any mention of it. It's just an understood thing between the 5 of them. Or whatever sexual combinations work for them, girl on girl, girl on guy on girl, whatever.

Is the guy some known actor? I couldn't make him out from the one shot of him they gave. Is he a comedian or something, to fill that role from the first movie?

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh that muscular guy is supposed to be their secretary? Interesting, didn't get that from the trailer. For some reason, I'd like to see him be the in house "stress reliever" for the team. That they've got this understanding polygamy going on with the guy. After a hard night of ghost busting, you need to unwind! Good thing we've got Hot Stud McGee on staff to handle this problem for us! Of course that won't happen, but I'd like to see it happen, and that they don't even really make any mention of it. It's just an understood thing between the 5 of them. Or whatever sexual combinations work for them, girl on girl, girl on guy on girl, whatever.

Is the guy some known actor? I couldn't make him out from the one shot of him they gave. Is he a comedian or something, to fill that role from the first movie?

Chris Hemsworth, AKA George Kirk and Thor, and I wouldn't have known he was their secretary if I didn't already know.