crazyrabbits
Banned
It's not as unlikely as you might think. Sony was apparently thinking of going after Murray legally at one point for not wanting to appear, and they wanted to keep it quiet.
-
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
It's not as unlikely as you might think. Sony was apparently thinking of going after Murray legally at one point for not wanting to appear, and they wanted to keep it quiet.
Liquidsnake
Banned
I wonder how all this will effect the BO, if any.
TomJoadsGhost
Member
Judging by the way the smelly nerds have responded I think the BO is going to be pretty tolerable at the cinemas for this one.
WordAssassin
Member
So people will stop being confused or wondering why over and over:
This is the reason Feig rebooted instead of continuing from the originals
Sony and Aykroyd tried for decades to get Ghostbusters 3 made. Murray was the hold out, only wanted to do it if "the script was good enough" or he died in the first 10-15 minutes. Writer after writer tried to make a good version of Ghostbusters 3 over twenty years.
Then along came Feig and he was offered the job. He sat down and thought about it and tried to come up with a way to continue the story, but he couldn't think of a compelling idea that HE wanted to tell in the pre-established world. He did not want to write a story where everyone already knew about ghosts. He did not want to write a story where a new team was just given an Ecto-1 and four proton packs. He wanted to write a story about discovery, about humanity discovering ghosts for the first time, about this group of people coming together to figure out a way to stop them.
That is something that cannot be done in a continuation. There is absolutely no reason to waste time on a new team developing new tech when the old tech exists and if anything they just update it. There is no point to have the entire world somehow completely forget that ghosts exist for a second time so that a new team can discover them.
That is why. That is the entire reason from his own lips. He wanted, basically, to do his own take on their origin story.
It doesn't matter if you think it's right or wrong, doesn't matter if it winds up being a good or bad idea, that is the explanation. We've know it for almost a year now and he just reconfirmed it last week. They did try to hire other writers, they did try to do countless drafts of a third movie, they did try to get around the rights from the originals with the actors, nothing was good enough, so they wiped the slate clean. Dan Aykroyd himself could not make a "good enough" third movie, and nobody else could either, so Feig started it over to tell the story of discovery he wanted to.
There it is, you can all lay your minds to rest now and stop wondering. That is why Feig chose to reboot it.
I will never let an opportunity to praise the IDW pass. You can actually buy really nice hardcover editions of both stories, "Total Containment" and "Mass Hysteria" on Amazon, and they're filled with all kinds of artwork and interviews and stuff. The series was actually ended after the final "Mass Hysteria" issue, then they did a crossover with TMNT, but apparently it's back again for a third run.
This is the reason Feig rebooted instead of continuing from the originals
Sony and Aykroyd tried for decades to get Ghostbusters 3 made. Murray was the hold out, only wanted to do it if "the script was good enough" or he died in the first 10-15 minutes. Writer after writer tried to make a good version of Ghostbusters 3 over twenty years.
Then along came Feig and he was offered the job. He sat down and thought about it and tried to come up with a way to continue the story, but he couldn't think of a compelling idea that HE wanted to tell in the pre-established world. He did not want to write a story where everyone already knew about ghosts. He did not want to write a story where a new team was just given an Ecto-1 and four proton packs. He wanted to write a story about discovery, about humanity discovering ghosts for the first time, about this group of people coming together to figure out a way to stop them.
That is something that cannot be done in a continuation. There is absolutely no reason to waste time on a new team developing new tech when the old tech exists and if anything they just update it. There is no point to have the entire world somehow completely forget that ghosts exist for a second time so that a new team can discover them.
That is why. That is the entire reason from his own lips. He wanted, basically, to do his own take on their origin story.
It doesn't matter if you think it's right or wrong, doesn't matter if it winds up being a good or bad idea, that is the explanation. We've know it for almost a year now and he just reconfirmed it last week. They did try to hire other writers, they did try to do countless drafts of a third movie, they did try to get around the rights from the originals with the actors, nothing was good enough, so they wiped the slate clean. Dan Aykroyd himself could not make a "good enough" third movie, and nobody else could either, so Feig started it over to tell the story of discovery he wanted to.
There it is, you can all lay your minds to rest now and stop wondering. That is why Feig chose to reboot it.
I will never let an opportunity to praise the IDW pass. You can actually buy really nice hardcover editions of both stories, "Total Containment" and "Mass Hysteria" on Amazon, and they're filled with all kinds of artwork and interviews and stuff. The series was actually ended after the final "Mass Hysteria" issue, then they did a crossover with TMNT, but apparently it's back again for a third run.
brandonh83
Banned
Yep, it's just one of those things. I'm very open to a new series, hell, I kind of wanted that anyway, but I just simply don't like the kind of humor I'm seeing here. It has nothing to do with it being a new thing though. Honestly if the trailer didn't have that end scene or the vomiting ghost, I'd be defending it right now.
Hellwarden
Member
Man, nothing in that trailer excited me.
It's probably the worst thing I can say about a trailer. It's boring.
Hope the movie is better.
It's probably the worst thing I can say about a trailer. It's boring.
Hope the movie is better.
crazyrabbits
Banned
The problems with the trailer go far beyond "smelly nerds", even to casual audiences. Seriously, just pull up any review of the trailer and see the different reasons why people don't like it:
- problems with the new cast looking like carbon copies of the originals
- being against it from the get-go because they're women
- confusion over whether it's a sequel or reboot (it's the latter, but the wording is very misleading)
- seemingly perpetuating the "sassy black woman" trope via Jones' character
- taking cues from other trailers promoting reboots (excessive establishing shots, slowed-down piano remix)
- jokes that don't work or fall flat
- a reliance on setpieces that seem to be cribbed en masse from the original films
excelsiorlef
Member
That one makes no sense.
Fix that!=O
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Neither the rest.
excelsiorlef
Member
True but that first ones is just whaaaat inducing
crazyrabbits
Banned
Even if we know on GAF that the characters aren't like the originals, it's pretty easy to pigeonhole them from a cursory glance. I've watched multiple reviews where people point out the superficial similarities.
Beerman462
Member
Trailer had some decent moments, but some bad ones too.
This is a reboot, but aren't there going to be cameos of Bill, Ernie, Sigourney and Dan? That won't be confusing. Also didn't dig the blue ghosts. It's Ghostbusters though so I'll give it a shot.
This is a reboot, but aren't there going to be cameos of Bill, Ernie, Sigourney and Dan? That won't be confusing. Also didn't dig the blue ghosts. It's Ghostbusters though so I'll give it a shot.
WordAssassin
Member
I don't think it will be any more confusing than any other cameo ever. Did people think Zombieland was a sequel to Ghostbusters? Because that had Bill Murray actually dressed as a Ghostbuster in it, and in this movie, none of the original cast will be dressed as or playing at their original characters.
excelsiorlef
Member
There's nothing. The closest is McKinnon's hair and a)that's the cartoon and b)nothing else about her body language or behaviour says Egon.
crazyrabbits
Banned
Well, to be fair, it does follow the same character archetypes of the original (fat nerd, skinny nerd, deadpan scientist, blue-collar black character). It's easy to see why people would make that connection.
excelsiorlef
Member
Lol stop.
It's complete nonsense to reduce the originals down to the tiniest identifiers and then say see the new ones are exactly the same.
crazyrabbits
Banned
I know they're not the same because I know the backstory/character breakdowns from people here and what I've read. I'm saying that it's easy to understand why people would think they're similar based on a cursory glance, and in that respect, they're not wrong. It creates a false impression because they haven't read up on it.
Just reading different opinions, that's all.
You need to start to look for better reviewers.
A Link to the Past
Banned
What was described as an argument to why they're the same is that both movies have:
1. The straight character
2. The too-serious character
3. The sarcastic character
4. The outsider character
If that's the comparison, then Ghostbusters has been ripped off a TON.
1. The straight character
2. The too-serious character
3. The sarcastic character
4. The outsider character
If that's the comparison, then Ghostbusters has been ripped off a TON.
excelsiorlef
Member
That literally fits the Ninja Turtles for example
excelsiorlef
Member
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Luke
Leia
Han
Chewie
Leonardo
Raphael
Michelangelo
Donatello
Kirk
Spock
McCoy
Scotty
Ripley
Hicks
Hudson
Newt
excelsiorlef
Member
I'd put Raph as the Outsider, Donnie as the straight man and Leo as the too serious... see what we've done. Now the Turtles are clearly just copies of each other. Fucking palette swapped ninjas
You seem to be make rather large jumps in logic here. Again, I never said ANYWHERE that they are bought or ANYONE is bought that likes the trailer or the roboot. I am pointing out that there seems to be evidence that a segment of the fandom appears to not be acting objectively. Is everyone that hates to trailer of the movie itself sexist? No.
Is it because Sony paid them off? Is it because they were treated to very favorable access and treatment the day before the trailer dropped and thus influenced their feelings? Is it because they love the franchise so much that they refuse to believe anything about it could be bad? Is it because they legitimately really enjoyed it? I have no idea; that is why I am discussing it. It seems like a facet of the whole story worth discussing. I think it's very interesting that there is an effort to organize a YouTube "Like" campaign. I know I have seen a few people say that their is some sort of effort to "Unlike" the trailer by sexists or anti-feminists.
Yes, there are people that like it and there are people that hate it. Honestly, I'm not too fond of the trailer myself. I'm going to watch the film regardless, because I am a Ghostbusters fan. Hopefully I will like it when it's all said and done. Despite being a fan, I'm willing to be objective and say I didn't like what I saw in that trailer.
excelsiorlef
Member
This is the second time you've made insinuations that fan groups are being insincere.
You literally compared them to the Republican establishment last time and heavily implied Sony bought them off or is unjustly influencing them.
I fully believe the upvote movement is a response to the downvote no matter mix of MRAs and fuck reboots groups.
Hell your last post just outright said they weren't being objective and nothing else. You didn't even afford them a chance of sincerity.
Btw what would objective be here?
excelsiorlef
Member
The answer clearly is yes.
No has said otherwise.
That said invoking Ramis' death in that article is gross
Oh and shock he thinks the cast makeup is a gimmick afterall. Well no he'd never dare say a gimmick merely a cold business decision to give the movie insulation from bad press. Lol what the fuck. Female casts can never just exist it always has to have some pandering ulterior motive, if it were 4 men no one would say anything about that. Nevermind that once again it was Feig's idea.
Lol garbage.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
What a shitty article.
Beerman462
Member
You can't be serious. The trailer opens with 30 years ago four scientists saved New York. All 4 cameos are from the original Ghostbusters. I would say that is a very different scenario from Zombie Land, but maybe I'm just being crazy lol.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Whatever possible confusion your alluding to here is likely going to be dispelled by the actual story of the film itself. It's not like people are going to walk into the movie straight after having seen this sole trailer and then ignore the entire narrative of the film except for the moments when Ernie Hudson, Bill Murray, and Dan Aykroyd pop up.
The film itself is going to make it crystal clear this isn't a continuation. So unless viewers are paying almost zero attention, and aren't familiar with the concept of acting, they're probably not going to be confused by the cameos.
Beerman462
Member
I guess we will see since no one has seen the movie yet. At this current time it's a little confusing.
excelsiorlef
Member
Feig has said repeatedly it's a hard reboot.
The trailer shows them discovering ghosts and building tech.
There's nothing there that even visually implies the originals are around. If they were they'd market the shit out of it.
That text was stupid but let's not pretend no one knows for sure yet.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Of course it's confusing. You don't know seem to actually know what you're talking about.
I mean, the trailer isn't helping, but to suggest audiences are still going to be confused DURING THE MOVIE is silly.
Beerman462
Member
You are seeing this as someone who is closely following the movie. I am thinking of this from the point of view of a casual movie goer such as my parents who love the original movie. The trailer alone hints at being a sequel. The movie as you watch it will probably explicitly reveal itself as a reboot. As of now the movie appears as a sequel from the trailer alone.
To assume they won't is equally silly. Thanks for the condescending remark though.
excelsiorlef
Member
Other than the text what said sequel to you?
Beerman462
Member
What else do I need? I watched the trailer. It includes the text and doesn't in anyway explain that the text is outside the context of the movie. If you are following the development of the movie it is apperent that the text is a call on nostalgia. If not it would seem like a sequel. The trailer doesn't have a "This is a reboot" disclaimer.
If they in anyway hinted that it was a reboot like saying 30 years ago the world was introduced to the Ghostbusters, but here is a new story. Not saying that was eloquent, but something like that would help. I feel they are being ambiguous to drum up hype.
meltingparappa
Member
I think the scenes of showing them figuring out everything from scratch again is a pretty large tell of it being a reboot, paired with no direct mention or acknowledgement of the prior events or original team outside of that inexplicable text, Slimer, and some iconography.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No, it isn't.
Beerman462
Member
I don't think that that is immediately apparent from the trailer. Especially with the subway scene that shows a crude Ghostbusters symbol. It made me think of the opening of Ghostbusters 2 where everyone thought they were frauds.
Is that all you got?
PS: Ultraman trailer auto played after Ghostbusters trailer and I didn't know that was a thing.
Shamrock7r
Member
I don't know man. Man of Steel taught me that a lot of people can't understand what's going on/ basic plot progression unless it's spelled out to them by a narrator or something.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
There isn't anything more needed, man! Your stance and mine aren't equivalent, because I've taken the time to know what I'm talking about. Your stance depends on a) people not knowing any better (okay, I can roll with that since most people aren't movie-news nerds like we are) and b) the film then not filling them in at all, either (that's not going to happen).
And since I've already explained this to you once already, the only real response needed to the assertion that my position is equally similar to yours is "No, it isn't."
Heh. There's no way the nature of this story is going to be obfuscated to the point where when the cameos start showing up, people are going to entertain the notion they're playing the same characters they played before. I could see people missing like, a character's motivation due to dialog not explicitly spelling it out, or a character's appearance in one location seeming weird because we didn't see them leave a previous location. Stuff like that is likely bound to pop up and cause plothole hunters to nut in their shorts.
But the idea that people are going to leave this Ghostbusters movie confused as to whether Ernie Hudson's character is really Winston Zeddemore is silly. It's going to become really, really clear very quickly, even for someone avoiding commercials and news reports, that this movie is a complete reboot, and not a continuation.
nkarafo
Member
Nobody said female casts can never exist. There are many classic female protagonist driven movies. Some would probably get the same flack if they were remade with a male cast.
Also, nobody said that in every single case it's pandering. But in this particular case, it feels like it is to many people. And you know what, there's nothing wrong with that. They could still make a good movie, that's what matters. Even the original GB could be pandering, i saw some people commenting on that too. But the thing is that the original worked in the end. This one... doesn't look good so far. To be honest, it looks like shit. I mean, idk, if i was female and looked forward to this movie for empowerment, well, i would feel disappointed to say the least.
My brothers group definitely hasn't been approached or discussed anything with Sony in any regards. I can say that with complete confidence because my brother would have told me. I was worried when he first started doing all the fan shit that he might get sued.
The bunch of them (4 "main cast" in their videos plus a few "extras" and 2 or 3 behind cam people) are just simply hyped for the new movie because it's something they love. My brother initially wasn't happy about the all women casting, then he got over it when he realized that was stupid.
That brings me to a question. People talk about them casting 4 women because "girl power". Why does it have to be any reason other than "These chicks seem like they'd be funny together." Why can't it be that? Why does it have to be some sort of empowering thing either way? As in, why does it have to be they were thinking "Girl Power" when they came up with the concept? Why couldn't they have just wanted the actresses to do it, their gender being irrelevant?
So there were a ton of trailers, and they got focustested to death? Well, there's your problem. A trailer is a commercial where you tell about your product. Inform the audience what you made. Let them decide.
There was no Amazing Spider-Man trailer that said "10 years ago, he saved New York, but now, there's a new guy". The trailer informed us, the audience, that this was a new and shittier Spider-Man.
Them focus-testing their trailers just reaffirms my belief that they have no idea what this movie should be, could be or what it aspires to be.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
That doesn't really follow, though. The movie's already done. They know what it should be, they'd made it. Whether they made it well is the question.
But focus-testing trailers to death isn't a sign that the creative team is confused and lost. Its a sign that Sony Pictures is sort of inept at marketing.
Which it is.
- Status