User 73706
Banned
"i would give opinion, but I can't acause the neogaf agenda would get me banned"
#SayNoToFeminazis
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ghostbusters (2016) Trailer #1 (Feig, Wiig, McCarthy, McKinnon, Jones)
- Thread starter Rootbeer
- Start date
- Status
"i would give opinion, but I can't acause the neogaf agenda would get me banned"
#SayNoToFeminazis
Triggerhappytel
Member
I've generally kept an open mind about this reboot and I couldn't give a toss about the gender swaps, but that was a really poor trailer. Hope it's just a bad choice of clips rather than their best foot forward.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Why does this even have to be a question? Would you question if it starred four men?
No.
Anyways. I think my reaction to the trailer and this movie in general would be somewhat different if this was a sequel instead of a reboot. I don't think this will be terrible, but why remake such a good, classic movie? They should be rebooting/remaking bad movies instead, trying to make them good. The only thing you get with movies like these is getting the "ok, but not as good as the original" stamp and then they fade into oblivion.
That being said, regardless of the movie's final quality, McKinnon is going to steal this, and she's so far the only one I like. Her design is just plain amazing.
Lelz. And there it is. GJDM
Bobby Roberts
Banned
What I'm arguing is that Ghostbusters (or even Back to the Future, really) were actually "family movies." They weren't.
Like I said upthread, the 80s was pretty landmark in basically taking the leash off marketers, and this coincided with the boom of home video: You ended up with situations where stuff that was never created with the intention of catering to or being primarily watched by children was being served up directly to them. Sometimes with the parents nearby, sometimes as a babysitter while the parent was off doing other shit. But in the '80s, corporations were allowed (and took advantage of) the opportunity to sell shit straight to kids in a way they never had before. So they did, regardless whether the shit they were selling was actually for them or not.
It's stretching very thin the definition of "family film" when you allow it to encompass "anything anyone has ever watched with their parent in the room." The distinction comes when the filmmakers intentionally aimed their film at an all-encompassing audience. Kids can (and should) watch and read stuff that wasn't made for them. That's a pretty important part of adolescence, really. And in most cases, it's probably best that there's a parent there to help make sense of some of that shit. But that doesn't retroactively make a thing "for kids" or "Family friendly" either.
But I do agree that there's a bit more worry about whether children are going to be damaged/scarred by being introduced to adult themes/concepts in their fiction now than there was in the 1980s. I guess the argument there is whether that worry is all that warranted (I'm not sure it is, myself).
Anyway: Ghostbusters isn't a kids movie or a family film. Neither is Back to the Future, really.
OricWindstar
Member
The last joke fell pretty flat, but otherwise looked pretty good. I actually like the way all the ghosts look a lot.
SolidSnakex
Member
Pixels is also a one-off movie with no established following. I'd say a better comparison would be to the Jem and the Holograms reboot. That has a rabid following just like Ghostbusters. This is the like/dislike bar for it
EliteArtist
Member
Trailer could have been better. There were rumors that the studio didn't know how to market it, and it shows here.
Plus I really hope the whole ghost possession bit doesn't enable McCarthy to just do her usual schtick. I'd like to see her go one film without resorting to it.
Plus I really hope the whole ghost possession bit doesn't enable McCarthy to just do her usual schtick. I'd like to see her go one film without resorting to it.
GabeTheGrouch76
Member
On the other hand, it has the ghost library sequence and several ghosts from the original (if it was just Slimer, that's fine because he's kinda become a cast member/mascot of the series proper).
So it may not be a shot-for-shot remake, but it's not exactly staking completely new ground at the same time either, especially given that --as previously noted-- both of those aforementioned elements appeared in the sequel to the original.
BronsonLee
Member
Because the other three are probably going to be dumb as hell from a social standpoint
Felt like a Spy Kids movie sequel with all those flashy gadgets and effects.
Gotta sell the merch, I guess.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
Ghostbusters is supposed to be schlubby, dirty and sardonic. This feels more like a regular blockbuster than a Ghostbusters.
I'm not against them doing a reboot, but it would work better as like a gray and depressing tv-show with Maria Bamford, Chelsea Peretti, Chris Rock and Louie.
More Louie, less SNL.
Visually it's great though, feels like a big playset.
I'm not against them doing a reboot, but it would work better as like a gray and depressing tv-show with Maria Bamford, Chelsea Peretti, Chris Rock and Louie.
More Louie, less SNL.
Visually it's great though, feels like a big playset.
I had all this shit as a kid. In fact, thats probably why I loved Ghostbusters so much - because I played with all the toys.
Im both disappointed and excited. Love ghostbusters, and I'm excited to see another, but the tone doesn't feel quite right to me.
That said I liked 21 Jump Street which was way goofier than the original, so maybe this will be ok too.
maniac-kun
Member
I think the main problem is that i dont like the cast. This and very bad cg.
Oh god. I think I had every one of these fucking things. The slime that you'd pour through the fire house would harden and become disgusting within a matter of days...
I had all this shit as a kid. In fact, thats probably why I loved Ghostbusters so much - because I played with all the toys.
I hope it isn't just the token black person crap
excelsiorlef
Member
Pixels is also a one-off movie with no established following. I'd say a better comparison would be to the Jem and the Holograms reboot. That has a rabid following just like Ghostbusters. This is the like/dislike bar for it
Jem was a blatant disaster. This is not comparable to Jem lol.
The slime was the exact same thing as the ooze from the TMNT toys haha.
JeTmAn81
Member
You mean like in the original movie?
Actually Winston was the only black guy but he wasn't played off as "street" or anything, just an outsider to the group of white scientists.
This trailer was underwhelming.
D
Deleted member 10571
Unconfirmed Member
This was freaking fantastic. Love it. The very first joke was crappy, but also very Ghostbusters, and I loved everything else. Ghost design is great, equipment design top notch, Ecto looks great and so do the Ghostbusters.
Can't wait.
Can't wait.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
So your saying you are okay with that? That YouTube comments are just inherently sexist so no need to call it out on this all female reboot of Ghostbusters.
I never understood the nostalgia for Jem. I don't have particularly fond memories of it as a cartoon.
I do remember wanting to be She-Ra for Halloween though. Had a lot of She-Ra toys to go with my H-male-man toys.
I think we're arguing the same thing here, although maybe I'm not as well-spoken at the moment because I'm sneaking in some posts while I'm supposed to be working
. I wasn't trying to claim if the original was intended as a family film or not, more that this modern version is very probably going to be a very deliberate family friendly film, while the original was created in a time were they were much more allowed to make the film they wanted without having to worry about offending younger audience members (or their parents) - and the audience didn't worry about it so much either, back in the day. In the end all I was trying to say was that I think it's highly unlikely a ghost is going to perform oral sex on one of the female ghostbusters in the new movie. I don't disagree with anything you said.
excelsiorlef
Member
Characters are different. Situations are different. Nods shoud be expected it's not a remake.
MrCunningham
Member
There was an extended scene in Ghostbusters II where Ray got possessed by Vigo and tried to crash Ecto 1a and kill everyone in the car with him. But that scene was cut out of the movie. Little bits and pieces of the sequence were used during the music montage of the movie with Egon and Peter looking paranoid. Both montages from Ghostbusters 1 and 2 were made up of deleted scenes.
Us negroes aren't smart enough to be scientists.
I love that this movie was lauded for being so progressive but it's still just a shit load of white people and one streetwise sassy negro. Can't wait!
What's wrong with Kristen Wiig?
Yautja_Warrior
Member
Hmmmm ok, maybe a little too much on the comedy side, hopefully it's just how the trailer is cut and the movie plays out a little more straight but overall it wasn't too bad.
But what really made me pay attention was the shot of the original Firehouse and the text at the start (30 years ago, 4 scientists saved New York) which kind of implies it might not be a total reboot after all.
If that turns out to be the case, those confirmed cameos could actually turn out to be the original team !!!!!
That would be pretty awesome if true and they would have done a great job of throwing us a red herring, saying they were just random characters played by the original actors.
I won't get too excited yet, incase it's just clever marketing for this trailer though.
But what really made me pay attention was the shot of the original Firehouse and the text at the start (30 years ago, 4 scientists saved New York) which kind of implies it might not be a total reboot after all.
If that turns out to be the case, those confirmed cameos could actually turn out to be the original team !!!!!
That would be pretty awesome if true and they would have done a great job of throwing us a red herring, saying they were just random characters played by the original actors.
I won't get too excited yet, incase it's just clever marketing for this trailer though.
Where did I say I am ok with that? Youtube comments are disgusting on just about every Youtube video.
excelsiorlef
Member
Ray is briefly possessed at the end of GB2, the deleted scene makes that part make way more sense. It's kind of a non-sequitur in the original cut.
Raitosaito
Member
Trailer music sucks, and was kind of cut weirdly. Content seems pretty good.
Yeah that wasn't a good thing either. But I thought things would have changed up a little since then.
brandonh83
Banned
Yep, exactly the same shitty slapsticky-Scary Movie type humor I feared from Paul Feig. I was hopeful that maybe he knew what he was doing and some of the ghost stuff looked fun, but this tone of humor completely misses the mark. Should be more dry and less in your face. It's just grating to me. The Wayans' may as well have written it.
excelsiorlef
Member
Don't expect it.
It was more just the trailer tipping its hat to the original. Outside of the world of the movie.
Also pretty sure that's these Ghostbusters' firehouse
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Ha! Yeah, on that we agree - and yeah, we're essentially saying the same shit, but in different words. Apologies for dragging that out.
Sounds about right.
It's not a good cartoon. It's very bland and boring with corny as hell morality lessons and songs. I re-watched a few episodes with some friends on Netflix and found it not enjoyable to watch, just to make fun of later with friends.
- Status