Well, the start of the trailer says sequel that pays respect to fact there was an original one 30 years ago… but everything else about it just says reboot that pretends it didn't happen.
Ghostbusters reboot
-
-
I dig that arrangement of the main theme tho.
-
Yeah, it's weird how the trailer is presented like that since it doesn't give a hint of any of the events from the originals.
That main theme arrangement is pretty sick tho.
-
Hmmm!…..looks interesting.
-
The absolute hate it gets with all the thumbs down on yt is hilarious. I think it looks really good. And since Spy last year was a super funny movie I have no doubt this director can make this ghostbusters movie work really well.
-
Horrible trailer. Looks more like Scooby doo than anything else. So many cliches thrown together.all this talk about all women cast and being PC yet all the characters are stereotypes, especially the black woman. There is nothing funny in this, not to me. So yeah, i'll give it a thumbs down as well.
-
I want to like this movie and I'm going to see it but I didn't laugh once in that trailer.
That being said I didn't laugh much when I saw the original as a child but I still liked it a lot, it was a very cool movie. I appreciated it more when I got older.
I think the CGI isn't helping. Like the ghost could be grosser and creepier or maybe I'm just not as easily creeped or grossed out. It's off. Hoping when I see it it comes together.
-
I'm sure in the actual movies or maybe future trailers they'll make a few references to the characters and actions of the past. I don't see how they could get away with it otherwise with another ghost attack happening in the city. They're even wearing very similar uniforms and the tech looks to be the same too. Obvious influence that the new characters definitely got from the team 30 years ago. And I'm not just talking about design details make by the movie production team to make us fans happy. I'm talking about the characters in-universe getting the ideas from the actual ghostbusters team 30 years ago.
I mean, there's no way they come up with those tech and uniforms without going 'Oh yeah, this is based off so and so or that event that happened 30 years ago'. The whole 4-person ghostbusting team is probably a direct inspiration for them too.
-
Horrible trailer. Looks more like Scooby doo than anything else. So many cliches thrown together.all this talk about all women cast and being PC yet all the characters are stereotypes, especially the black woman. There is nothing funny in this, not to me. So yeah, i'll give it a thumbs down as well.
I think the woman cast is because the actresses are funny actresses.
Accusing this one of PC casting is also pretty rich considering the Winston character from the original is the most token black man to ever be used in a movie.
Seriously it's "three funny comedians who work together really well plus some black guy".–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I'm sure in the actual movies or maybe future trailers they'll make a few references to the characters and actions of the past. I don't see how they could get away with it otherwise with another ghost attack happening in the city. They're even wearing very similar uniforms and the tech looks to be the same too. Obvious influence that the new characters definitely got from the team 30 years ago. And I'm not just talking about design details make by the movie production team to make us fans happy. I'm talking about the characters in-universe getting the ideas from the actual ghostbusters team 30 years ago.
I mean, there's no way they come up with those tech and uniforms without going 'Oh yeah, this is based off so and so or that event that happened 30 years ago'. The whole 4-person ghostbusting team is probably a direct inspiration for them too.
Who cares.
Ghostbusters worked because it was a silly movie where established SNL affiliated comedians bounced off eachother with dry humor, and also some goofy stuff with ghosts happens. Plus maybe the best movie theme song in history helps.
That's it!The Ghostbusters mythology is the most unimportant thing in the world. I hope it's a total reboot.
-
@Monkey:
Accusing this one of PC casting is also pretty rich considering the Winston character from the original is the most token black man to ever be used in a movie.
Seriously it's "three funny comedians who work together really well plus some black guy".Winston has some of the best lines in the original by far though and Ernie Hudson's relatively straight-laced delivery is what makes them great. Had it been Eddie Murphy as originally intended, I don't think it would have worked half as well as it did.
-
Winston has some of the best lines in the original by far though and Ernie Hudson's relatively straight-laced delivery is what makes them great. Had it been Eddie Murphy as originally intended, I don't think it would have worked half as well as it did.
I dunno man, he's always seemed insanely awkward to me in that. Not the actor, the role.
-
Wasn't the intention of the role to be awkward because Winston was just some guy they hired on to help out and didn't have any interest or experience in the paranormal?
-
@Below:
Wasn't the intention of the role to be awkward because Winston was just some guy they hired on to help out and didn't have any interest or experience in the paranormal?
Har har ?
-
The rle was originally for Eddie Murphy. Presumably, had he been involved, the role would have been bigger with more lines and screentime. But he worked well as the straightman as is.
Anyway, I'm totally fine with the all female cast. The marketing pitch of "Ghostbusters with girls!" is cringey because that's how they sold it, but as an actual film? It's fine. The original cast was all guys and no one batted an eye. If they're funny is the important thing.
It's a little sad to see the effects looking all CG with no practical, but that's to be fully expected… and they match the look.
I mean, there's no way they come up with those tech and uniforms without going 'Oh yeah, this is based off so and so or that event that happened 30 years ago'. The whole 4-person ghostbusting team is probably a direct inspiration for them too.
The majority of the trailer feels like its a full blown reboot, right down to some of the sequences and lines being samey to the original.
It's only the first couple seconds that they're saying "We know there was an original film and its a classic, we're not dissmissing it or pretending it sucked or that ours is going to be better. We're here to honor it with a new take thats exactly the same but different."
Which is the way to go with a reboot like this, especially when you can't get the originals involved or its been this long. (As opposed to what they did for say, Robocop or SPiderman.)
I mean, why deal with the baggage of there having been past events if you're not even getting the bonus of that cast returning?
-
Saw the trailer. It wasn't bad, but it could have been funnier. Hopefully, that means that they didn't show the best two minutes out of the entire film, the way most trailers do.
-
@Monkey:
Who cares.
Ghostbusters worked because it was a silly movie where established SNL affiliated comedians bounced off eachother with dry humor, and also some goofy stuff with ghosts happens. Plus maybe the best movie theme song in history helps.
That's it!The Ghostbusters mythology is the most unimportant thing in the world. I hope it's a total reboot.
Of course the leads of the movie and their chemistry was the reason for its success along with whacky ghost hijanks. I wasn't talking about any ghostbuster mythology. Just surface level stuff like equipment, uniforms, and past members. Anyway, what I said about the new movie possibly referencing the "past" seems to be impossible. I just looked it up and the movie seems to be a complete reboot. I was in the mindset that the movie was actually a sequel so of course they would reference the past. That not being the case it'd make sense for all the things in the trailer to be "new" and that increases the tension and stakes because New Yorkers have never experienced this before.
All in all, it's for the better. They don't have to live up to some in-universe past precedent. They're the frontiers.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
The majority of the trailer feels like its a full blown reboot, right down to some of the sequences and lines being samey to the original.
It's only the first couple seconds that they're saying "We know there was an original film and its a classic, we're not dissmissing it or pretending it sucked or that ours is going to be better. We're here to honor it with a new take thats exactly the same but different."
Which is the way to go with a reboot like this, especially when you can't get the originals involved or its been this long. (As opposed to what they did for say, Robocop or SPiderman.)
I mean, why deal with the baggage of there having been past events if you're not even getting the bonus of that cast returning?
Yep. When I heard about the Ghostbuster film some months ago the first thing that popped in my mind was "sequel" rather than "reboot" and then it left my mind for a few months until I saw this trailer, and then when I saw "30 years ago" it just reaffirmed my position. So yeah, now that I know it's actually a reboot obviously they won't be making any references to past characters or events.
-
@Monkey:
I think the woman cast is because the actresses are funny actresses.
Accusing this one of PC casting is also pretty rich considering the Winston character from the original is the most token black man to ever be used in a movie.
Seriously it's "three funny comedians who work together really well plus some black guy".Did i say anything against woman cast? I'm just saying the didn't do anything different and it's 2015/2016, a black scientist could have been the norm, and they aim at a different audience than the original movie. And even if they are funny actresses, there is no funny material in the trailer.
-
I had a feeling I wouldn't be attracted to this when I saw the director. I'm just not a fan of this particular type of comedy (and of McCarthy), which is sadly quite prominent in modern movies. Vacation, The Heat, The Internship, We're The Millers, all of Eddie Murphys recent films etc.
While I do realize there was a gigantic marshmallow man in the original film - which is great -, there is way too much stuff going on here. I'm always an advocate for 'less is more'. Too many neon-ghosts. Too colorful. That may be an odd complaint but, you know, a marshmallow man is far uniquer in a bleaker world. Here he'd just blend in. This is also why I like Raimi's Spidey world over Webb's. A ghost is realer in such a world. The original movie mixed comedy with seriousness. The people were real (somewhat), not comedy sketches.
But that's not what they are doing here. They are doing 'one slap too many' jokes. Again, I expected this, thus not interested.
-
Did i say anything against woman cast? I'm just saying the didn't do anything different and it's 2015/2016, a black scientist could have been the norm, and they aim at a different audience than the original movie. And even if they are funny actresses, there is no funny material in the trailer.
I think the trailer looks OK, but yeah, this really threw me off. As someone who didn't see the original in full until a few years ago, I never felt Winston, AKA the Black One worked; he's an outsider to the main trio, and he shows up faaaaaaaaarrr too late to get integrated well.
And when you look at Hudsons anecdotes on the matter, it becomes kinda cringey.
@Ernie:
When I originally got the script, the character of Winston was amazing and I thought it would be career-changing. The character came in right at the very beginning of the movie and had an elaborate background: he was an Air Force major something, a demolitions guy. It was great.
Now I’ve heard, over the years, that the part had been written for Eddie Murphy—all of which Ivan Reitman says is not true. But it was a bigger part, and Winston was there all the way through the movie …
The night before filming begins, however, I get this new script and it was shocking.
The character was gone. Instead of coming in at the very beginning of the movie, like page 8, the character came in on page 68 after the Ghostbusters were established. His elaborate background was all gone, replaced by me walking in and saying, “If there’s a steady paycheck in it, I’ll believe anything you say.” So that was pretty devastating …
30 years later, I look back at the movie and it works very well the way it is. I think the character works with what he has to work with. But I’ve always felt like, “Man, if I could’ve played that original character…” (entertainment weekly) -
Like the Ghostbusters gear. Like the ghost possession angle. Not feeling the characters at all. Not because they're not the originals (I loved Janine ghostbusting in the cartoon and the comic when she and others became Ghostbusters after the originals disappeared), but they seem like 2D characters with no depth. It's like the movie will be a by-the-books Hollywood reboot/sequel. Afraid of being too original but knowing fans would rage if certain aspects were left out. It's a lose-lose situation.
-
It's a reboot so touching on familar aspects and plot developments but with different characters is a must. Now, if they accomplish what Star Wars did with creating great characters in a rehashed plot it'll get a pass. It can be by the books with a twist and difference here and there, and still be a great movies if the characters sell it well.
-
All these reboots and sequels trying to mess with my head.
At the very least the Ghostbuster theme overwrites the Fuller House intro nicely. Thanks for that. -
Looks like a Ghostbusters movie to me at least. Comedy: Check, Ghosts: Check, characters that are one dimensional but likable in some ways: to be determined but looking like it so far. Overall I got a slightly positive feeling, mainly because that little Exorcist joke got me and the characters didn't give me the vibe of being grating. There have been too many trailers that have comedy in them where the characters come off as unlikable, but this one managed to make me neutral about them overall. Funny thing is how I've seen comments about how people hate this because the characters seem like stereotypes than anything else. I haven't watched Ghost Busters in a long time (and have only seen it once), but I don't recall the characters being anything but stereotypes. Three were basically nerds that were laughed at until they were proven right, then token black guy. If they were expecting grade A character development, they are looking at the wrong franchise.
I'll wait until I hear reviews about it, because trailers for the most part don't do it for me these days. Especially comedy movies which are hard at times to make good impressions of since scenes will be out of context.
-
After multiple viewings of the trailer I now kinda get some of the disappointment with the teaser trailer, still not gonna say the movie is already garbage. But yeah, where as the first movie was a really good movie with comedy in it, if you just take this first trailer, it looks to be a straight up remake and a amalgamation of callback jokes and just skits one after the other.
-
The general response for this seems to be either its awful or its alright. That's not good. Quite frankly I think it looks rather dull and phoned in. Like they didn't try.
-
Quite frankly I think it looks rather dull and phoned in. Like they didn't try.
Exactly; it's yet another '80s remake that nobody asked for but seems to have even less effort put into it than usual.
-
Someone recut the trailer. It's way better like this.
Also shorter.
-
Someone recut the trailer. It's way better like this.
Also shorter.
The fact that they cut out most of the dialogue, the opening text that makes it look like a sequel, and pretty much all of the character interactions while actually adding elements from the original soundtrack with the result being a lot better trailer is a pretty bad sign.
-
-
is it gonna kill those hollywood writers if they write a black character that isn't an annoying manifestation of racial stereotype?
fucking hell man, i thought now after star wars did it best with fin that everyone will follow suit. but nope, it seems we're still at the times where phrases like "oh hell naw!" amuses people. -
@superv:
is it gonna kill those hollywood writers if they write a black character that isn't an annoying manifestation of racial stereotype?
fucking hell man, i thought now after star wars did it best with fin that everyone will follow suit. but nope, it seems we're still at the times where phrases like "oh hell naw!" amuses people.They're all stereotypes. One's a nerd, one's a geek, one's black and one's fat, all with their respective shallow "quirks". To top it all off they have a hot secretary in Chris Hemsworth they're obviously gonna comically drool over. It's basically stripping everything down to the bone and treating it like a cheap throwaway comedy with pretty CG. There's gonna be plenty of slapstick, fart joke humor, "how's my hair" type quips, and just lame lame subtle "did ya get it, cause x is y!" jokes. The more I think about it the more it insults me for treating its audience like 10 year olds boys.
-
It just doesn't look good.
And lol that Thumbs Up/Down ratio on YouTube hahaha.
IMDb lists the film's budget to be $153 Million. Holy shit. -
for treating its audience like 10 year olds boys.
You mean the traditional main demographic for this franchise, including the cartoon that ran for like 8 years?
-
@superv:
is it gonna kill those hollywood writers if they write a black character that isn't an annoying manifestation of racial stereotype?
fucking hell man, i thought now after star wars did it best with fin that everyone will follow suit. but nope, it seems we're still at the times where phrases like "oh hell naw!" amuses people.Thing is Leslie Jones is pretty much always like this on SNL. Even in the Weekend update stuff. She's ultra typecast but I honestly don't think she can act outside of that without it being wonky. I feel that this is pretty much her. 24/7.
-
You mean the traditional main demographic for this franchise, including the cartoon that ran for like 8 years?
Demographic is a factor, I get that, but it shouldn't be the factor that spearheads a series or franchise. Pandering to a certain pocket of people alienates other people who are interested and want to see something more out of the idea. It encourages lazy writing overall.
-
Terrible trailer this movie is going to bomb very hard lol
-
Well, Ghostbusters was THE great big thing i had as a child.
The trailer felt like just another goofy comedy, where we have more of enough of.
Ghostbusters was always something special beside the funny cast that worked brilliantly of each other.
I think here is one big problem..while it being good to cast funny members like in the original, it still felt different with that whole sci-fi scenario surrounding it.
The humor worked because it was embedded in a great world full of paranormal activities, while the new movie seems just to focus on those gags while having some special effects.It´s unfair to say the new movie will fail in that regard, especially to a movie, that had so much time to grow on us, but iam pretty sure they were just going for a gag filled redo with the new hip girls crew. And the original was simply more than that and made it to this day special.
-
The movie looks painfully "by the book-standard remake". They show part of the 3rd act and it couldn´t be more lame… so the best think they can imagine for the end is a lot of ghots (and possible a giant form of the final ghost to fight). The whole problem i see with this new film is that no scene is going to be scary and it is a shame, because they did write some great scary moments in the original.
-
Not really hyped about this. And I'd be equally not hyped if they did it with males again.
It's like, I don't see… the point? Except money, of course.
What's next, Groundhog Day with Amy Schumer?
-
Demographic is a factor, I get that, but it shouldn't be the factor that spearheads a series or franchise. Pandering to a certain pocket of people alienates other people who are interested and want to see something more out of the idea. It encourages lazy writing overall.
I think the demographic of the original movie was all kinds of messed up.
it had somewhat of a sexual scene with possessed Sigourney, the famous "This man has no dick!", Dan Aykroyd's "dream", and other subtle jokes for adults.
So I'm not really sure the original movie was for kids? if it was rated anything less than PG back then, i don't think it would now.@Cyclone_Baroness:Thing is Leslie Jones is pretty much always like this on SNL. Even in the Weekend update stuff. She's ultra typecast but I honestly don't think she can act outside of that without it being wonky. I feel that this is pretty much her. 24/7.
I didn't know that. I guess i dislike this movie a little bit less now?
-
Not really hyped about this. And I'd be equally not hyped if they did it with males again.
It's like, I don't see… the point? Except money, of course.
What's next, Groundhog Day with Amy Schumer?
Groundhog Day actually would make some sense to get a sequel. Like remember when the time loop finally ended, here's the twist: In fact, the loop actually didn't end, but instead it will loop every 20+ years instead of every day. That has a lot of potential.
-
A lot of potential to flop. :happy:
Lol at this trailer comment:
"Nice to see a new addition to the Wal-Mart value bin in a year." -
@superv:
I think the demographic of the original movie was all kinds of messed up.
it had somewhat of a sexual scene with possessed Sigourney, the famous "This man has no dick!", Dan Aykroyd's "dream", and other subtle jokes for adults.
So I'm not really sure the original movie was for kids? if it was rated anything less than PG back then, i don't think it would now.
I didn't know that. I guess i dislike this movie a little bit less now?I dunno. I still am not loving it. It's a casting choice misfire I think. It could have been an opportunity to actually use the original Winston's background. But not use Leslie. Someone was saying Aisha Taylor could have worked in this role. But I'm also not a fan of Leslie. She's fairly obnoxious and overly loud.
Trying to just bill this as a comedy also seems like a mistake overall though.
-
While I'm not heavily invested in this franchise, I'm still interested given that Kirsten Wiig and McCarthy have both surprised me before so I want to see what sort of stuff they're capable of bringing to this. The original ghostbusters was so much of classic Murray so it should be interesting to see it without him.
Also, a sizable number of the criticisms I see seem to be less problems with what the movie may become and more with how trailers are done these days. The trailer as a whole was designed to look like every other generic summer blockbuster and as a result highlights pretty much nothing original about the movie.
Someone was commenting this movie doesn't have scary portions, but… how do we even know that at this point? The classic one also didn't have scary stuff in the trailer either. Which is honestly all just as good though, because scary movie trailers are also pretty cringe-worthy. I don't disagree it's a pretty unremarkable trailer, but... same applies for the trailer of most movies we've had in recent times. From recent memory only Force Awakens stands out for me as being interesting, and most of that was the fact it was star wars. -
Deadpool trailers.
-
It could have been an opportunity to actually use the original Winston's background.
I meant to mention this earlier but, since it's been brought up again, the novelization includes the full bit where he lists his qualifications and the scene in the film works a lot better.
Same for how the film is drastically improved by leaving out the philosophical bum segments, which are also in the book.
-
The trailer makes it feel like a typical Kristen Wiig/Melissa McCarthy type of comedy with the Ghostbuster name splattered on it.I could maybe enjoy this if it didn't look like a shameless marketing ploy to revive an old franchise.
-
Deadpool trailers.
Nope, didn't do much for me either.
Maybe this is one of those things where I just don't have a soul.
-
The trailer makes it feel like a typical Kristen Wiig/Melissa McCarthy type of comedy with the Ghostbuster name splattered on it.I could maybe enjoy this if it didn't look like a shameless marketing ploy to revive an old franchise.
THIS. It unfortunately feels that this is exactly what it will be. Maybe, just maybe, whoever cut the trailer just did a piss poor job, but I doubt that the trailer isn't representing what the movie will be already.