-
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 thought that the reddit poster's point is that an all-female cast only came about because of marketing and money/cash grab purposes rather than for the purpose of empowering women.
Is this point sexist?
Don't you think that the loud black street female stereotype kind of confirms that this movie was NOT created with female empowerment in mind?
Do you all not see how these two points don't jive for some people?
I mean, I had my hopes up that this was not the case, and that we'd see some hints of the opposite, but come on. Many posters have commented on that fact alone.
Is this point sexist?
Don't you think that the loud black street female stereotype kind of confirms that this movie was NOT created with female empowerment in mind?
Do you all not see how these two points don't jive for some people?
I mean, I had my hopes up that this was not the case, and that we'd see some hints of the opposite, but come on. Many posters have commented on that fact alone.
BronsonLee
Member
I'd rather use my script context, because I've read a good bit of it and I'm pretty sure you're overreacting
Hari Seldon
Gold Member
The OG started off serious and gradually got more and more ridiculous. There was an actual movie there. They had plot and tension with the crew losing their jobs and having no money. They had cute romance scenes between Venkman and Dana Berrett. It wasn't all gags and stupidity. A little actual character development of Venkman as he goes from not giving a shit to wanting to save people.
My fear from watching this trailer is that it is going down the GB2 route of not really earning the comedy. You can't just go from gag to gag with over the top comedy. That is not ghost busters. You should have a real movie with slowly building subtle comedy and then a burst of ridiculousness at the end. The casting for this suggests they are not going to go this route.
My fear from watching this trailer is that it is going down the GB2 route of not really earning the comedy. You can't just go from gag to gag with over the top comedy. That is not ghost busters. You should have a real movie with slowly building subtle comedy and then a burst of ridiculousness at the end. The casting for this suggests they are not going to go this route.
What's interesting here as well is that while you disagree with this poster's assertion, you aren't calling them racist for liking the movie unlike many posters who throw the word sexist around like it's going out of style.
This is fucking embarrassing.
RepairmanJack
Member
I've missed a lot of the argument regarding the trailer but I think anything taken from Feig's past few movies is that they translate into shitty trailers. Bridesmaids, Heat, and Spy all had almost no buzz going into their release and had pretty formulaic and boring trailers and later gained more success by crazy word of mouth. I look at this trailer and I see the same boring formulaic trailer. I'm not excited but I'll wait to actually see the movie because the last few by him have been pretty good.
MHWilliams
Member
Let's take this as a given. There's no need to remake anything. There's also no need to make sequels. Or original films!
Hollywood is a business. It's there to make money. This does not preclude creative intent, but at the end of the day a creative, original film that doesn't make back its budget is a failure.
You are more likely to make money with a film entitled Ghostbusters, than the same exact film with a completely different name and logo. (And people would say, "Hey, wasn't that essentially Ghostbusters with ladies?")
There's no need to remake Ghostbusters, but there's also no real problem with doing so either. Robocop 2014 didn't erase RoboCop from existence.
Assumes Feig, his production team, or the actors involved made absolutely no creative decisions whatsoever. They hate the property and crapped out the film to get that paycheck!
The studio didn't start with "ALL WOMEN GHOSTBUSTERS," they shopped around the idea of a Ghostbusters sequel until they found a director willing to tackle it. It's all women because Paul Feig likes working with women (Bridesmaids, The Heat, Spy, all say hi!).
This list given involves good actresses, but Feig is trying to do the same as Ghostbusters did before. Cast comedians. Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy are both Groundlings alumni, McKinnon and Jones are both current Saturday Night Live cast members. You don't prefer them? Rock out. But many find them funny and continue to enjoy their work.
this one if taking opinion and trying to assert it as fact.
See above. I'm not even sure how you can try to argue this one with a straight face.
bananafactory
Banned
"great" post? are you joking? that's the same nonsense everyone on the internet has been spewing since this was announced
Again, how is it embarrassing? I think I captured the main thesis in my post above. You could start there, unless you think I'm off base in capturing the main point.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Bobby Roberts
Banned
To be honest, I'd prefer a cast that had some actresses that aren't all from a comedic backgroundfor one. Is that okay? Did the original have all comedians? That poster does list some actresses which would have probably lent a bit more seriousness to the movie.
Edit: Also, I don't think the director or the actor/comedians in the movie hate the property at all. I do think there has been some heavy objection to Feig being involved since his style is quite different than the original, and that his approach to females in movies might not be the right fit. The tone of his movies is not something everyone loves. I appreciate some of the work by these SNL choices, but sometimes there can be too much of one thing and you need a balance. Some of that posters other choices for actresses would have made me excited to see this movie.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
How do you not already know the answer to this before trying to engage in a conversation as granular as the one you're trying to lead by linking to that shitpost?
Tremis
This man does his research.
(Today, 11:46 AM)
Multi-Quote This Message Quote
My capitalist guess is that modern humor is more slapstick and obvious partly because of international audiences. Humor that relies on English puns and native knowledge of American social norms, mores, and stereotypes doesn't always play well internationally, because people don't get it as funny.
When you're making a $150 million movie, it needs to be releasable worldwide to pay back, so the ratio of Ghost Gookakke and other types of physical humor to subtle Americanized puns goes up because it translates across cultural lines more easily.
It's in part the same reason that Iron Man 3 is partially filmed in China and has a scene in the Chinese version where Robert Downey tells a Chinese kid to drink milk.
BronsonLee
Member
It's rhetorical, obviously. The poster already discussed that issue.
It was probably a rhetorical question due to the existence of Winston. Was his actor a comedian?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's not that obvious at all. This is what taking the position you're taking does, and quoting the shitpost you're quoting leads to.
alfredofroylan
Member
Opinions, on a side note the movie's FB page is getting some "interesting" comments.
bananafactory
Banned
1. There is no need to remake it
This is a silly argument. Hollywood is full of sequels and a popular franchise like Ghostbusters wasn't going to stay dormant. They couldn't bring back the original cast and characters so a remake was the logical choice. Whether or not you 'like' that idea is subjective, but despite all the horrible reboots that have happened, there has also been good ones.
2. Tokenism
This entire section is based on a minute and a half of footage and is essentially pure speculation. The poster acts like they know each character completely despite only having one or two lines to draw from.
3. The casting is horrible
Another opinion passed off as fact. On top of that, he cites SNL as a negative despite the fact half of the original cast were SNL alumni.
4. It's sexist to have made this movie
Ridiculous. Again, he says the original was males because they are all really good friends. This one is all female because Feig has a good relationship with Wiig/McCarthy and enjoys working with women and giving them lead roles, and that's who the movie was written for. Nearly every single group of lead characters in a movie have their genders determined prior to casting, so you could say every movie is sexist if that's the direction you want to go.
MHWilliams
Member
Who needs to calm down?
Trying to respond to some of this points.
1. Ghostbusters is a classic.
... So? A dead, forgotten classic? A franchise from the 80s, it's 2016. /trudeau
2. "The film is pure tokenism.
"Everything about it screams box-ticking rather than justifiable or artistic choices. "
Well, obviously. They make movies to make money, lol
3) The Casting is horrible
4)Its not sexist to hate it. It is sexist to have MADE IT AT ALL.
"So there is no need to remake it with a female cast at all. Doing it is actually just an artificial exercise in misandry or more likely just an attempt to cash in on that sentiment.
The point is, the original Ghostbusters team wasnt artificially and deliberately constructed to be 4 men. It was just that the writers also starred in it and were all good friends who worked together well. "
No, it was totally not artificially and deliberately constructed to be 4 men. Nuh, uh.
Eh, whatever, I think everyone seriously needs to take a chill pill or stop trolling, or both.
At least they're original ideas and not derivatives of other horror movies.
Finally got a chance to watch the trailer. This looks like some modern Adam Sandler level of unfunny. That being said saddling this movie with the Ghostbusters name will both cause it to be judged very harshly and also to rake in a lot more money than it would have made otherwise.
Woody Invincible
Banned
Winston was, by far, my favorite Ghostbuster. Somebody has to have some common sense. A bit strange, though, that the non "smart" one is black again.
I do agree that point 4 is overstated here. I don't think it is sexist to make this movie. However, I do think the sentiment that the casting being all-women is necessarily 100% due to promoting female empowerment. It did, and certainly does feel now to some after the trailer, that there may be a girl's version/cash grab/marketing-side to this that we are not seeing.
Even, if this movie is for sure all Feig's domain, with no outside influence, one still wonders were the "Ahhh hell nawww" stuff fits in.
Was that ever Winston's characterization? I took him for more of just an ordinary guy that's suddenly thrust into a world with 3 crazy dudes and some weird paranormal stuff. A character that's kinda a mirror for the audience members.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I saw a fan-edit version of this trailer that was much better. I think the official one goes on way too long.
bananafactory
Banned
Promoting female empowerment isn't sexist. It's creating characters for women and girls to identify with, so that when I have a daughter she can look up at Erin Gilbert and say "Hey, she's so cool! I want to be her!" We should be pushing for more movies to be written for females and racial minorities.
I just watched it, and If I had seen the fan-edit, I'd likely be reasonable pumped at this point.
I just fucking saw it too. Had I seen it like this first I would have been hyped to hell.
I'm really hyped. It pushed a lot of RGB-ish buttons for me, and I'm absolutely, positively cool with that.
And another vote for this being McKinnon's movie.
The first movie had two people turn into demonic dogs and climaxed with a walking marshmallow mascot; the second one, via *very* generous assumptions about the ability of Ghostbusters fans to suspend disbelief, let Ray control the Statue of Liberty with an NES Advantage as if she were a Mech.
If you're arguing that a little Exorcist-ish head-spinning is somehow thumbing its nose at the first two movies and is too absurd, I think you need to find a better example.
And another vote for this being McKinnon's movie.
The first movie had two people turn into demonic dogs and climaxed with a walking marshmallow mascot; the second one, via *very* generous assumptions about the ability of Ghostbusters fans to suspend disbelief, let Ray control the Statue of Liberty with an NES Advantage as if she were a Mech.
If you're arguing that a little Exorcist-ish head-spinning is somehow thumbing its nose at the first two movies and is too absurd, I think you need to find a better example.
You act as though that was a bad thing?
F'd my post up, apologies. Meant ISN'T instead of IS.
They wanna be Avengers. Everyone wants to be Avengers. Except the Avengers now.
Even allowing for the fact that many people are tired of the constant stream of reboots ("cash-grabs," as if an overwhelming percentage of films aren't products meant to generate cash) and that Ghostbusters is particularly well-loved (at least the first one before the dirty cash-grab sequel), this is getting ridiculous.
While I personally think it's a bad trailer, it's just that. Now, we could certainly cite horrible films that have had great trailers and vice versa if we went down that road, but in its function as a first look it's troublesome and I understand people being disappointed. In this trailer. But assuming you have an entire film clocked based on two minutes of footage - some of which likely won't even be in the film - is something else entirely. As is this nonsense with Leslie Jones. If you start posting something along the lines of "her character looks like like a dumb, token street-smart black lady and she's too dumb to even see it, someone needs to explain it to her" you should probably slow the fuck down.
Finally (only because of time constraints!):
The entirety of the post doesn't hinge on this quoted point (goes on to mention that the tone is seemingly different than the original movie, to which my response is that it's a different era, these are different performers coming out of a different SNL - so, no shit? - though that's a different conversation and the post was fair), but even if your personal objections have nothing to do with the gender of these performers, it does seem to be an issue for a great many. I mean, it's nice that we're having fun with that reddit post, but we've had ridiculous shit right here on GAF as well. Remember that whole episode where actors from superhero films visiting sick kids was awesome and proved that they were good dudes, while this cast doing the same only proved that they were a bunch of cynical demons using the kids in order to prop up their evil childhood-ruining feminist movie of doom? I do! It's unfortunate, but that bullshit ingredient was mixed into the bowl a long time ago along with general weariness and nostalgia and now we're all in the shit soup, man.
While I personally think it's a bad trailer, it's just that. Now, we could certainly cite horrible films that have had great trailers and vice versa if we went down that road, but in its function as a first look it's troublesome and I understand people being disappointed. In this trailer. But assuming you have an entire film clocked based on two minutes of footage - some of which likely won't even be in the film - is something else entirely. As is this nonsense with Leslie Jones. If you start posting something along the lines of "her character looks like like a dumb, token street-smart black lady and she's too dumb to even see it, someone needs to explain it to her" you should probably slow the fuck down.
Finally (only because of time constraints!):
The entirety of the post doesn't hinge on this quoted point (goes on to mention that the tone is seemingly different than the original movie, to which my response is that it's a different era, these are different performers coming out of a different SNL - so, no shit? - though that's a different conversation and the post was fair), but even if your personal objections have nothing to do with the gender of these performers, it does seem to be an issue for a great many. I mean, it's nice that we're having fun with that reddit post, but we've had ridiculous shit right here on GAF as well. Remember that whole episode where actors from superhero films visiting sick kids was awesome and proved that they were good dudes, while this cast doing the same only proved that they were a bunch of cynical demons using the kids in order to prop up their evil childhood-ruining feminist movie of doom? I do! It's unfortunate, but that bullshit ingredient was mixed into the bowl a long time ago along with general weariness and nostalgia and now we're all in the shit soup, man.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
There was something about how the comedy was delivered in ghostbusters. Also, I've noticed how during certain scenes, there was a focus on another characters subtle facial expression.
Same goes for Stripes. Maybe it was that era or just Ivan Reitmans style.
Same goes for Stripes. Maybe it was that era or just Ivan Reitmans style.
She's quickly becoming, potentially, my favorite Ghostbuster.
- Status