Support NeoGAF

[yanipheonu]

Looks pretty alright actually. Though the fact I didn't laugh once during the trailer is a bit concerning.

My only real sore spot is that I hate the new uniforms. I mean, it's not like the originals were fancy, but they were iconic enough that you'd see them plenty of times at Halloween parties, in cosplay and even cameo in other movies.

These ones seem generic.

 

[Sanjuro]

I had part of a franchise, but I straightened it.

 

[B33]

All of what you're saying is why I'm still giving it a chance. There's context and the rest of the movie to judge. However, I can explicitly see how, in this example, that sliming scene is handled, compared to how it's handled in the original. I also want to reiterate once again that I'm not even trying to compare it to the original. I don't need it to be the original. I'm just saying the kind of humor in the original doesn't annoy me with wacky hijinks and yelling and slapping. It doesn't do that. I don't like that kind of humor, and it's all over this, the trailer even ends with it, and it once again reminds me of those Wayans horror movie spoofs. It ended with that Exorcist joke that most horror spoofs still find funny, even though it's never really been funny, but here it is yet again.

I'm judging what I'm seeing in the trailer. You're absolutely right that the final film could be better than what's here. Some of these scenes may not even be in the final film, it happens all the time. I am however upset with the brand of humor seemingly on display, so I feel like I can call it out with legitimacy. Even if these same jokes are in the movie, I'll still dislike them, but that doesn't mean I'll hate the entire thing. I'm still seeing it. I'm just saying that criticizing things about a trailer is not inferring that I've seen the movie or have written a full review.

Fair enough. I give you kudos for still planning on seeing it.

My argument is that the original film has a mixture of jokes and not everything is gold. It has its faults. It has slapstick moments and lowbrow moments, but what makes it great is that those are used sparingly, and there's a refreshing setup for those moments to elevate them. It wisely let its leads mix physical humor with dialogue and improvise.

Performers like Buster Keaton knew how to setup gags and make an audience laugh with little to no dialogue. Bill Murray's work is clearly influenced by Keaton.

I get where you're coming from because I'd rather watch Buster Keaton, Bill Murray, Stephen Chow, or Charlie Chaplin's brand of comedy than a Wayans family comedy.

But the brand of humor you dislike does have a broad appeal, which is probably why it's in the first trailer and great comedies have relied on some of those moments in their marketing because it's easier.

My hope is that the final cut of the new GHOSTBUSTERS has a nice balance of comedy and uses moments of slapstick and gross humor sparingly.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I decided to check out the trending feed, and saw this:



Yeesh.

Holy shit. Yeah..YEAH..no.

 

[mcrommert]

I decided to check out the trending feed, and saw this:

Yeesh.

Saw this comment on AV Club writup

I don't mean to sound sexist but there's a valid reason why we can't have lady Ghostbusters. Their menstrual cycles agitate the ghosts. You get them in one group, they sync up, and now Times Square is infested

 

[Lucky Seven]

It wasn't as bad as I expected, but honestly the trailer was not good enough to wash away the stigma. I don't think people are going to like it. I can see this being decent, at least.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

But I can counter your example with bad trailers for good or even great films. SPY is one of them.

A bad trailer doesn't always mean a bad movie.

You can say, "Hey, that's not a good trailer. I've concerns about the movie." But dismissing the entire movie and assuming the entire thing is going to be what the marketing shows isn't full-proof.

If I went solely off a trailer (the first one, I might add), I would have missed many great movies.

Oh, it's not that I disagree with you or anything (who would actually judge the entire thing from just the trailer? That's what redbox / netflix is for), but ultimately that doesn't mean we don't do it anyway, with almost random results from it too. That's why I brought up Gods of Egypt. Clearly nobody has seen the fucking thing, but everybody feels like they have by watching the trailer. Asking people not to judge (not the same as withholding judgement for the whole) is overdoing the critic thing, in my opinion.

Between BobbyRoberts and some other posters, I feel like this thread is people rediscovering cultural media critical theory, with saying 'but it's not bad because cohort relevance' and 'but it's not bad because based on something'. Look, these discussions are old and have already been dealt with and tossed in favour of Death of the Author, which can be slightly dumbed down and paraphrased as: "just look at the damn thing and tell us what you think". If there is a wonderful movie in the whole of this, that's great, wonderful even. But if that's the case then this trailer did not show, and thereby sell, me that movie. So I would be entirely validated on skipping it in cinema, which is what I'm doing.

 

[Jonm1010]

Thread kinda reminds me of the "Spy" trailer thread from a while back. People went in HARD on that movie and basically judged it all from that shot of McCarthy falling down while on her scooter.

To be fair that trailer was one of the most dreadful betrayals of the film it was marketing that I have seen in a long time.

I don't know how any marketing team could look at that film and think, you know what, fuck using the interesting satirizing the film does of Mellissa McCarthy films, fuck the hilarious spy trope jokes, fuck using some of the hilarious set ups early on to give audiences a feel for the film, fuck the hilarious supporting cast, lets market this like a generic PG-13 esque Melissa McCarthy falls down and makes fat jokes movie #5.

To which they literally had to butcher the editing of the movie to make work for the trailer.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Sure.

I mean it was. Spy was about the most skilled agent in the room getting passed over repeatedly because she didn't look hot and suave.

McCarthy's character was the most competent spy in that movie.

 

[Fitts]

Doesn't look as bad as I expected, but still terrible. Lots of cringeworthy/obvious humor too. Doesn't feel like a Ghostbusters film at all.

 

[brandonh83]

My hope is that the final cut of the new GHOSTBUSTERS has a nice balance of comedy and uses moments of slapstick and gross humor sparingly.

I want a good movie. That's really all I'm asking for. I just think it can be funny without resorting to the same stuff you see in other horror comedies. Vomiting, smacking, screaming... it's not funny to me, it's more like it's over the top with outrageous performances in place of clever writing. The humor in the original doesn't really make a point of itself, it felt very natural, like it wasn't trying to be funny but the actors and script created something very modest out of it without extravagance.

I pretty much enjoy all forms of Ghostbusters so far and the original movies aren't what I believe to be the be all, end all of it. I think franchises are allowed to exist in a multitude of forms, hell look at how many comic book variants there are, yet rebooting superhero movies or anything else is criminal. I don't have that mindset at all, but the humor here is too blatant and predictable, not at all what I wanted to see. But we'll see how the actual movie turns out.

 

[Bucca]

Was it mentioned how dope the theme is?

Cause damn.

 

[Jonm1010]

Sure.

Then you didn't see the film. Or if you did you were too drunk and should probably try again sober.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Wow, polarized.

It'll happen given there's not one but two camps of people that will hate this movie no matter what

 

[Kabuki Waq]

that looked pretty bad.

 

[Faynwulf]

The one thing that turns me off this Movie is the fact that this is a complete reboot. Why would they do that? That feels especially bad after getting this.

The trailer looks "ok", looks like a standard 2016 comedy film. Nothing in the trailer that makes me want to watch it... Aside from the name and that Slimer looks pretty good.

 

[ginger ninja]

I am surprised because this honestly looks pretty great.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

It'll happen given there's not one but two vamps of people that will hate this movie no matter what

That's next, isn't it?

 

[Cloggerdude]

I was looking forward to this, but the trailer just kinda made me go....meh.

It's not bad and I'm sure it will definitely have parts that will make me laugh, but the trailer was super average.

 

[B33]

Oh, it's not that I disagree with you or anything (who would actually judge the entire thing from just the trailer? That's what redbox / netflix is for), but ultimately that doesn't mean we don't do it anyway, with almost random results from it too. That's why I brought up Gods of Egypt. Clearly nobody has seen the fucking thing, but everybody feels like they have by watching the trailer. Asking people not to judge (not the same as withholding judgement for the whole) is overdoing the critic thing, in my opinion.

Between BobbyRoberts and some other posters, I feel like this thread is people rediscovering culture critical theory, with saying 'but it's not bad because cohort relevance' and 'but it's not bad because based on something'. Look, these discussions are old and have already been dealt with and tossed in favour of Death of the Author, which can be slightly dumbed down and paraphrased as: "just look at the damn thing and tell us what you think". If there is a wonderful movie in the whole of this, that's great, wonderful even. But if that's the case then this trailer did not show, and thereby sell, me that movie. So I would be entirely validated on skipping it in cinema, which is what I'm doing.

I understand what you're saying, but entertainment marketing can be a fickle and misleading thing. It's natural for us to make assumptions based on it, but they can be wrong.

One of the reasons people panned CRIMSON PEAK was for not having many scares because that's how it was marketed. The director of the film didn't intend for it to be what Universal's marketing team ultimately created to sell it.

I get that whether or not you like something is subjective and what may appeal to me may not appeal to you and vice versa.

Out of curiosity, what if you hear good things about the film and the general consensus turns out positive, even though the marketing doesn't appeal to you?

Would you have a change of heart?

I did with SPY and I'm happy I did.

 

[Toth]

I don't get how the professor would be laughed out of her job for saying ghosts are real when we had two serious events in NYC INVOLVING ghosts. They already tried the whole 'it was mass hysteria' angle in the second movie.

 

[excelsiorlef]

That's next, isn't it?

Ha ha ha. I knew someone would see that typo.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

The one thing that turns me off this Movie is the fact that this is a complete reboot. Why would they do that? That feels especially bad after getting this.

Are those meant to be the characters from this film in the corner of that pic?

 

[McLovin]

Looks like a fun movie, honestly better then I was expecting.

 

[IsntChrisL]

It's just not a funny trailer. At all.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Ha ha ha. I knew someone would see that typo.

😁

 

[UraMallas]

Looks pretty safe. I'll give it a go.

Agreed. Safe is the exact word I would use for it. Kind of dampens some of my hype but I loved Bridesmaids so I'm hoping they are just saving the best for the actual movie.

 

[Syriel]

I don't get how the professor would be laughed out of her job for saying ghosts are real when we had two serious events in NYC INVOLVING ghosts. They already tried the whole 'it was mass hysteria' angle in the second movie.

Because those events didn't happen in the world of the new film.

There never was a Ghostbusters.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't get how the professor would be laughed out of her job for saying ghosts are real when we had two serious events in NYC INVOLVING ghosts. They already tried the whole 'it was mass hysteria' angle in the second movie.

Reboot.

 

[Disxo]

Was it mentioned how dope the theme is?

Cause damn.

Have my doubts about the trailer, but the theme is awesome!

 

[yanipheonu]

Man the way movie positions itself is actually super confusing. It say "30 years ago" implying a sequel, then clearly shows plot that implies a reboot. If I didn't know better, I'd be legitimately confused if it was a sequel or a remake.

 

[bigwinnerx]

I'm a fan of all of them, so, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Toth]

Because those events didn't happen in the world of the new film.

There never was a Ghostbusters.

What? The opening says otherwise.

 

[stufte]

Ernie Hudson is definitely Patty's Uncle, owner of the hearse.

 

[Amon37]

Looks like just the same old Mellisa McCarthy comedy formula but this time in a Ghostbusters wrapping.

 

[Faynwulf]

Are those meant to be the characters from this film in the corner of that pic?

No, those are the Ghost Smashers.

 

[King Al B]

Who you gonna call?
Summer

 

[Mister Wilhelm]

I had no real opinion of this movie until today, didn't really care that they were rebooting with an all-female team.

This is one of the worst trailers I've ever seen. I cringed throughout.

EDIT: Just watched it a second time. I think the thing that got to me the most was how the token black team member blatantly states she doesn't know anything about science, but she's joining the team because she's a sassy New York girl.

WOW.

 

[Dalek]

What? The opening says otherwise.

*sigh*

Those words are referencing the fact that a movie came out 30 years ago. Not that the events of that film took place in this new movies continuity.

 

[Tesseract]

Looks fun

 

[Wingfan19]

What? The opening says otherwise.

Sony's marketing fails(?) again. It's a complete reboot, the opening is just using your nostalgia to get you hyped with a clever "is it/isn't it" tag line.

 

[Jonm1010]

I don't get how the professor would be laughed out of her job for saying ghosts are real when we had two serious events in NYC INVOLVING ghosts. They already tried the whole 'it was mass hysteria' angle in the second movie.

This is a hard reboot. I think the trailer is just speaking to the audience, not the world this story will occupy in. And honestly your point about GB2 is a good reason for why this film needed to go that route.

Ghostbusters 2 honestly butchered the idea of a smart continuation of the world building of the first film. On re-watch when I got older the whole "mass hysteria" angle just helped set the film up for failure.

You can't just hand wave away the impact a giant Marshmallow man wrecking fucking havoc in one of the worlds most iconic cities would do to society.

 

[Sanjuro]

Then you didn't see the film. Or if you did you were too drunk and should probably try again sober.

Nah. I saw the film. Maybe you were drunk!

excelsiorlef is on point.

 

[B33]

I want a good movie. That's really all I'm asking for. I just think it can be funny without resorting to the same stuff you see in other horror comedies. Vomiting, smacking, screaming... it's not funny to me, it's more like it's over the top with outrageous performances in place of clever writing. The humor in the original doesn't really make a point of itself, it felt very natural, like it wasn't trying to be funny but the actors and script created something very modest out of it without extravagance.

I pretty much enjoy all forms of Ghostbusters so far and the original movies aren't what I believe to be the be all, end all of it. I think franchises are allowed to exist in a multitude of forms, hell look at how many comic book variants there are, yet rebooting superhero movies or anything else is criminal. I don't have that mindset at all, but the humor here is too blatant and predictable, not at all what I wanted to see. But we'll see how the actual movie turns out.

Fair enough.

I, too, hope it turns out to be good.

 

[Lego Boss]

What was that film that came out last summer? Pixels?

Reminds me a lot of that.

 

[RockTurtle]

meh doesn't look that bad, i expected worse.

the trailer didn't make me want to see it at theaters, might give it a rent on redbox

 

[G.O.O.]

Trailer wasn't great, but then again Spy had terrible advertising and ended up being quite fun.

The female cast is the most interesting part to me... but the black sidekick ? oh boy, I really hope she's more than that.

 

[stufte]

Trailer wasn't great, but then again Spy had terrible advertising and ended up being quite fun.

The female cast is the most interesting part to me... but the black sidekick ? oh boy, I really hope she's more than that.

Sidekick? She seemed like an equal part of the team to me...

 

[Jonm1010]

Nah. I saw the film. Maybe you were drunk!

excelsiorlef is on point.

There was not any typical Mellissa McCarthy fat humor in Spy. In fact it was the opposite. She is this fucking badass who is only brought down, mostly, by her incompetent and prejudiced peers and colleagues.

What could be construed out of context as anything symbolizing fat jokes is in context those around her trying to actualize their prejudices of her by forcing her into things like the old persons costume.

 

[B33]

Sony's marketing fails(?) again. It's a complete reboot, the opening is just using your nostalgia to get you hyped with a clever "is it/isn't it" tag line.

(Spoiler about casting from IMDb)

Spoiler

Aren't Murray, Hudson, Weaver, and Aykroyd reprising their roles? That'd lead me to believe it's a "soft reboot" (like JURASSIC WORLD).