The First Ghostbusters Trailer Ain't Afraid of No Ghost

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
When I heard about the initial idea for the movie, I was emphatically on board. It sounded like an cool idea. One that could work quite well, provided the writing was good.

When I saw the cast, I was uncertain, but still on board with the idea. Each actress had her merits and, (again) provided the writing was good, they could play the roles well. My optimism remained.

When I saw that Paul Feig was directing and writing, my optimism began to fade. Fast. But I thought, "Maybe he won't inject his usual brand of humor. Maybe he'll try to do the classics justice without trying to make Bridesmaids: Ghosts." So, though dramatically bated, my optimism hung on.

When I saw the production photos of the costumes, props, and ghost effects, my remaining optimism turned to disappointment. The whole production had an amateurish look to it. Like a fan film starring self-dressed cosplayers. Even so, I thought if the comedy worked out, the film could at least be passable entertainment.

But now that I've seen the trailer, all I have to say is:
Fuck you Paul Feig. You had a chance to do something awesome with this. And while I am fully aware that trailers often lie, the evidence of this production being garbage continues to stack up. I could be wrong, and the movie could turn out great, but the more I see the less I'm convinced that's going to happen.

Oh well. I just hope this doesn't kill the franchise's viability outright.

MC1980 said:
That looks like a not very good Paul Feig movie.
So basically...it looks like a Paul Feig movie?

webkilla said:
If this was an all-male cast, it would be an Adam Sandler movie. Actually comparing this to Pixels for how its treating the IP its working with seems ironically apt.

The grit is gone. The original movies were all grounded in a slice-of-life realism (with ghosts and anti-ghost tech ofc)

Take the token black member of the team: Originally it was a black every-man who was just in it for a paycheck, who got in over his head. Now its a sassy black mammy with street-smarts - can you say painfully generic stereotype?
Holy hell, you've nailed it. Seriously. This is precisely what it feels like.
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
Am I alone in thinking the CGI ghosts actually looked pretty great?

Not horror scary, but enough to be unsettling, which is what it should be, this is supposed to be a comedy after all, it's a remake of ghostbusters, not the Exorcist.

That said, there seems to be pretty much the same plot happening as the original - Ghosts appearing all over New York, parading up and down the streets etc. I'm getting really fed up with these modern "soft reboots" which basically take all the set pieces of original great movies and just redo them with different actors and cheeky references to the (better) originals. Jurassic Park, Star Wars VII, now it would appear Ghostbusters is just going to be a copy of the first.
 

Count_A'ight

New member
Dec 29, 2010
49
0
0
I'm getting a Pixels vibe from this trailer, which is somewhat appropriate as Pixels was basically trying to ape Ghostbusters with 80's video game characters subbing for the ghosts.

As for remaking Ghostbusters, see Robocop 2014. The producers decided to do their own thing that basically ignored what made the character great and the fans rejected it. Mainstream audiences rejected it because it just didn't look like a good movie. Does anybody even remember they remade Robocop?
 

deshorty

New member
Dec 30, 2010
220
0
0
After a couple of viewings, I think I know what I dislike about this trailer/what I'm most worried about. It seems like they are trying to make a Ghostbusters movie with action (nothing wrong with that), but they may put too much attention on the action, rather than focus on comedy. Very much ready to get burned by this movie. I hope I'm wrong though.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
May 3, 2020
1,620
81
33
Country
Free-Dom
Jute88 said:
RealRT said:
Who you gonna call?
The Extreme Ghostbusters when I will need to see a true followup to the original cast.
I thought I was the only one.


I still remember the creative monster designs the show had.
Just to say...

Still one of the snazziest intros to a kid's cartoon. And the monster designs in that were downright awesome. Like, 80's horror-inspired levels of awesome.
 

johnnyboy2537

New member
Nov 28, 2012
37
0
0
Slice said:
johnnyboy2537 said:
That movie looks painfully bad. I've had enemas more comfortable and less awkward than this trailer.
Maybe you're just expressing a preference for one hobby over another?
Enemas aren't a hobby, nor are they fun. They are however, less painful then modern Hollywood reboots.
 

otakon17

New member
Jun 21, 2010
1,338
0
0
Kuala BangoDango said:
I was actually pleasantly surprised by the trailer. I thought it was decently funny, but then I am into cheesy humor. I can easily imagine the original characters doing these exact things and making the same jokes.

Now, whether they put the best parts from the movie into the trailer or not we'll find out.

I do agree though that some of the "Hey, we're scientists! See? Scienc-y stuff! (ala the dry-eraseboard, etc.)" may have been a bit overplayed but, due to it being a short trailer, some of the context of those situations wasn't shown so I'd have to see the full events to better judge.
You can imagine WINSTON smacking RAY in the face as he lays possessed on the ground and Ernie Hudson screaming "THE POWER OF WINSTON COMPELS YOU!" with Dan Akroyd going "That's gonna leave a mark!" afterwards? Truly?

*imagines it in his head*

<youtube=VRaoHi_xcWk>

I weep for folks first encounter with the Ghostbusters is gonna be this stale bread bowl of a movie. I got a slight jump out of the new Librarian Ghost and not a single chuckle out of anything from the trailer. Hell even the GHOSTS looked unimpressive, boilerplate "ghosts" that you'd find on an automated haunted house ride. It's gonna be bad I think, I don't want it to but it is.
 

KaraFang

New member
Aug 3, 2015
197
0
0
Mahorfeus said:
Well, I was forced at fork-point to watch the trailer. It... wasn't that bad. Maybe I am just desensitized to shitty movies, but to me this just looks mediocre, a rental at best. Maybe it's just getting crucified since it's a continuation of a beloved franchise.

I thought the ghost effects looked pretty neat. The piano tune didn't do it for me; hitting the nostalgia keys worked for say, Jurassic World, but it just seemed out of place here.
Effects looked neat? Really?

you're telling me that this:


looked better than this??



I know which looks more like an ethereal ghost Vs a GCI special effect... and it ain't the 2016 one.
 

direkiller

New member
Dec 4, 2008
1,656
0
0
This trailer looks about as good as Gods and kings, and I have a feeling it will do just as well.
 
Oct 22, 2011
1,223
0
0
Okay, maybe it's because i had zero expectations whatsoever, but, aside the awful last line, that trailer didn't come off as bad as comments made it to be. Just a resounding "eh".
 

Kuala BangoDango

New member
Mar 19, 2009
191
0
0
otakon17 said:
You can imagine WINSTON smacking RAY in the face as he lays possessed on the ground and Ernie Hudson screaming "THE POWER OF WINSTON COMPELS YOU!" with Dan Akroyd going "That's gonna leave a mark!" afterwards? Truly?
Not Winston, no. Winston's character was way too serious for something like that. But I can easily imagine Ray doing it to Peter, or Peter to Ray.

I think that's one mistake people are making is that they're, like you did, trying to do a 100% comparison of the new characters with the old characters as if this were one of those superhero origin story re-makes they do every few years with a different actor playing the part of Superman and Spiderman. In this movie the original characters didn't die and get reincarnated as women. They clearly state in the trailer that this is decades later from the events in the original movies and these are completely new characters who happen to be women (and comedians of course). Different names, different backgrounds.

I do think though that the new movie did try to make it too similar to the original in some ways. If indeed these are completely new characters in the Ghostbusters universe then they didn't HAVE to have 3 white women and one african-american woman. Why not 2 white and 2 african-american, or an asian-american, or Indian-american, Russian, or anything else? Or heck, why not have 5 ladies instead of just 4, or 3 ladies and 2 men? By using the same quantity and racial makeup they DO invite direct comparisons with the original cast which I would think they shouldn't want. Same thing with having another library scene.

I agree though that this movie should NOT be people's first introduction to the Ghostbusters universe. Anyone interested in seeing this movie SHOULD watch the originals first if they haven't seen them before. I'd say that, though, to anyone about ANY new series based off and old one. People should watch the original Star Wars movies before the sequels/prequels. Same with Superman, and Batman, etc.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
ravenshrike said:
You mean the particle accelerators which were built on top of three mortgages on a single property with $97,000 a year INTEREST payments?
You understand the entire point of that joke was how disproportionate the payments were, right? Like, are you seriously misinterpreting a joke to try and justify why they can't have a Chris Hemsowrth that's no more dressed down than Janeane was?

Fine.

In 1997, the grade of lasers that would be required for a continuous use storage facility still cost hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. That's just running them, without any power considerations whatsoever. The grid would also require massive amounts of power, as noted by Egon (though no firehouse that I'm aware of could provide sufficient power to run an array of them) and they would likely have needed permits and clearance in 1984 just to acquire them. Hell, in the 90s, you couldn't even have them within a mile of school or residential zones.

Screw Walter Peck, the military should have been involved.

The Ghostbusters were already running into the millions based on tech alone in 1984. And you're going to argue over what they could afford to pay a secretary because they hired the first guy off the street and paid him 11k--another joke.

And ignoring the bit were we don't know the current team is on the same sort of budget. For all we know, they could afford Thor himself.

Happyninja42 said:
Oh, well that's promising at least. I find him pretty damn funny, so I think he'll be able to carry his weight in this comedy just fine. Hopefully they'll have some good chemistry between them, and make for some funny scenes.
If nothing else, he's hot charming, so there's that.

The least I can say is he certainly can't hurt the movie at this point.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
WinterWyvern said:
Aww darn. I for one was kind of intrigued by the idea of a movie with four female protagonists that don't follow typical Hollywood beauty doll standards and who actually crack jokes.
I still am intrigued, that movie is worth seeing on such concept alone. But I'm sad to see that it will likely flop, and we won't see a movie with four female protagonists that don't follow typical Hollywood beauty doll standards and who actually crack jokes... for another century.
Aren't you the one who basically hates how the film industry is filled with constant reboots and sequels? I might be mixing you up with someone else, but I could have sworn you've made multiple threads on the issue.

OT: I'll be honest, I never really cared for Ghostbusters in the first place, so I had very little expectations going into this trailer. I kinda thought that at least one joke would make me crack a smile, but I guess this just isn't my kind of humor. I think some of the jokes would have worked well for me, but they all felt incredibly forced.