Ghostbusters Trailer

[Satriales]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

because the studio game today is all about franchises and Sony doesn't have any at the moment, beyond Spiderman. so they need to resuscitate Ghostbusters as an entire world of content

SLIMER: ORIGINS

[JoeBanks]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

And I'm still asking: "Why?"

because the studio game today is all about franchises and Sony doesn't have any at the moment, beyond Spiderman. so they need to resuscitate Ghostbusters as an entire world of content

[StoryWriter]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

And in a related report (announced yesterday, Jan. 16 2019) ...

"A sequel to the original Ghostbusters is being planned for 2020
The female-led 2016 reboot will be ignored"
Ghostbusters 2020

And I'm still asking: "Why?"

[Max Otto Schrenck]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

A year after watching the 2016 GHOSTBUSTERS, and I remember nothing about it except Kate McKinnon with a flamethrower or something. Whereas, despite having not seen it for a good two decades, and having only seen it twice, I remember a few dozen scenarios, scenes, characters, etc. from the original GHOSTBUSTERS. In short, like so many remakes and sequels, the "new GHOSTBUSTERS" seems like nothing so much as a cookie-cutter transposition and dumbing-down of the old one.

And at what expense of financial resources and lost man- er -- PERSON-hours, of work?

There's a simple answer to this, thanks to tech, that will allow us to dispense with all these pricey remakes and the inevitable disappointment that follows.

Simply make a program to convert the original film and whatever memorable sequels came out of the resultant franchise to the latest version of MOTION-CAPTURE ANIMATION, and replace the original characters and all their deplorable non-woke features with all new, intersectional characters of your choice.

Not only that, but using on-demand tech (perhaps slightly upgraded) such as you find on any cable system, you can enable the home viewer to choose the intersectional pathway by which the recast movie is presented.

Take GONE WITH THE WIND, for instance. As it is presently, an onscreen horror of every kind of bigotry and toxic stereotype imaginable. But imagine it redone with a multi-racial cast of transsexuals, with, say, Kristen Stewart as Rhett Butler and Ja -- er somebody Smith as Scarlett O'Hara.

For a simple add-on fee of $2.95, you can get a whole 'nother movie with a whole 'nother message.

And if the storyline and its attendant message of "I'll take responsibility for my own future" is too non-prog for ya, then for an additional $1.95 you can have your choice of different plot points and outcomes -- all neo- if not nonbinary of course, and all happy, as in a 1930s-era Soviet tractor factory flicks.

Somebody is going to make a ton of money off this idea. But don't repeat any of the above. I have to patent it first.

[Madbandit]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

Riiiight. You and all the other haters suddenly stopped caring about the fact that it was led by women. Oh, wait:



Posted less than a month ago!



Nah, I just enjoy pointing out people's hypocrisy and attempts at deception for all to see.



Again, when people make an argument, they usually try to prove it with evidence. A trailer is only two minutes long. If you can't point out any specific words or dialogue or images in that short period of time that support your argument that it looked like a "social studies essay", then it's more likely you are just projecting your own biases onto it rather than highlighting what's actually there.



Aww, someone's a little scared of an intense Internet discussion? How on Earth are you going to survive in Hollywood?

I'm not scared. Just bored.

[FoxHound]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

The script to me lacked epic in almost everyway. For eg. Our first scare in the original was inside the NYC Public Library. One of the largest such institutions in the US -- awesome location! And our heros creep silently through the dark, eerie labyrinth of bookshelves looking for an entity -- epic!

In the new one we're in some mundane two-story historical mansion -- yawn. Then a door opens on its own - scary stuff. Then Wiig gets projevtile vomitted on - ugh. That's your bloody opening scare?! It felt like something you'd come up with in five minutes. Why not a haunted MET? Or another famous location? It's New York City for crisps sake. You got epic landmarks left and right.

It's like the new ID4 blowing up Canadian Parliment. So so dull.

[sherbetbizarre]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

Didn't care for ... the dance part

Is that back in the movie now? It was cut out the theatrical version, and glimpsed in the end credits.

[Jiminho]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

The movie I think lost a lot of steam at the midpoint, never to recover. It's not a Ghostbuster movie in a sense that it's a sort of spoof of the genre, a movie that doesn't take itself seriously.

Like many of the "let's improvise" flicks, some hits, lots of misses.

I lost it when Hemsworth talked about the importance of Hot Dogs. Really funny improv.

IMHO, best parts: Hemsworth, Leslie Jones, Kristen Wiig because she's always great.

Meh: Kate McKinnon.

Didn't care for McCarthy, the vilain (as usual) , the dance part, the cameo, the VFX, the story, Garcia characters.

Average movie, bad Ghosbusters.

[jboffer]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

So, I had said just about the trailer:

Exactly what I expected out of Feig, who has said in the past it's OK that the scripts he films aren't funny, the actors/actresses will make them funny.

Every attempted joke looks like they were just winging it, and that's probably not a coincidence.

It's out on video now, and I should have known better to rent it when I already had low expectations. But the reviews weren't awful and my friend wanted to watch it.

Surprisingly, much worse than I would have ever guessed. Zero redeeming qualities, for me. Not one character, plot point, scene or joke I'd keep if starting all over (that I can recall). The moment the new Fall Out Boy rendition of the theme song played, we quit watching, and I had to finish it on my own the next day. It didn't get better.

There are plenty of misogynistic *******s out there, but I wouldn't doubt the word of anyone who actually saw it.

Also, I'm not opposed to remakes, sequels and reboots at all, but it is getting tiring that 9/10 of them blow the opportunity completely.

[FoxHound]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

Finally saw it today. Like most have said, it was funny, but what it lacked was the actual scares / fright of the original. This felt like a cartoon with all its over-the-top CGI and gags. I don't think it was even possible for a kid to be frightened by this. Wheras that dog thing really ****ed me up as a kid.

All and all it felt like just another forgettable blockbuster Hollywood screwed up.

[kintnerboy]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

They did. But we live in an age where you can lie in bed and binge watch Stranger Things on your IPad. There is no mystique left. There are endless discussions on the Internet about films from the time they're announced. There are "leaks" from people who saw previews. Nothing is a delight or a surprise anymore unless it's an indie that lives on word of mouth, just like the big films used to. We live in an era of spectacle. And even that's wearing thin. The best content is on your TV or computer or phone now. I'm so fortunate that even though my dream forever was to write movies for the big screen that my first opportunities were TV. The new Ghostbusters is just a symptom of the desease that's killing film in theaters. Spectacle without content. Female leads or not. Most of my produced, and for that matter, unproduced content has female leads, not because I'm trying to do that but because my ideas run that way. My life is filled with fabulous females and you write what you know. I love female centric content. I hated Ghostbusters because it was bad filmmaking. And because the content on TV in all its new delivery systems is getting so good, people are recognizing the lack of it on the big screen and staying away accordingly.

I think television is many times richer than film, and I am grateful for it, and I hope to play a part in developing a series of my own some day.

I think storytellers have been terribly handicapped by trying to shoehorn complex stories (I'm thinking of things like Donnie Brasco and Heat and even Boogie Nights) into feature running times when they clearly should have been single-season television series.

At the same time I wish Hollywood paid more attention to simpler stories that are clearly meant to be movies (comedies and thrillers, mostly) instead of worshiping the almighty IP above all else.

It's also amusing to note that the perception of Ghostbusters failure lies strictly with the opening weekend box office, whereas Stranger Things' *success* was defined by it's meme quotient as the most blogged-about Twittered-about show of the summer, since no one really knows how many people paid to watch it.

[EdFury]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

I think part of the over-protective love for the original Ghostbusters (which was openly derided by people who referred to the now grownup fans as 'man babies') had nothing to do with the gender of the remake or the sanctity of the original (it really wasn't THAT great to begin with), but rather an expression of nostalgia tempered with a regret over something that doesn't exist anymore.

If you were lucky enough to be 12-15 in 1984, you probably went to see Ghostbusters in June and then again in July and August and then September again. The whole appeal of summer movies was the ritual of going over and over with your friends, because movies played forever, and that's gone now when Deadline decides which films live and die by Friday afternoon.

Something else that's missing: If you turned on a radio that summer you would immediately hear a soundtrack song like Let's Hear It For The Boy or Against All Odds or Footloose or The Heat Is On or I Can Dream About You or When Doves Cry or - of course - Ghostbusters.

Movies used to be everything.

They did. But we live in an age where you can lie in bed and binge watch Stranger Things on your IPad. There is no mystique left. There are endless discussions on the Internet about films from the time they're announced. There are "leaks" from people who saw previews. Nothing is a delight or a surprise anymore unless it's an indie that lives on word of mouth, just like the big films used to. We live in an era of spectacle. And even that's wearing thin. The best content is on your TV or computer or phone now. I'm so fortunate that even though my dream forever was to write movies for the big screen that my first opportunities were TV. The new Ghostbusters is just a symptom of the desease that's killing film in theaters. Spectacle without content. Female leads or not. Most of my produced, and for that matter, unproduced content has female leads, not because I'm trying to do that but because my ideas run that way. My life is filled with fabulous females and you write what you know. I love female centric content. I hated Ghostbusters because it was bad filmmaking. And because the content on TV in all its new delivery systems is getting so good, people are recognizing the lack of it on the big screen and staying away accordingly.

[kintnerboy]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

I think part of the over-protective love for the original Ghostbusters (which was openly derided by people who referred to the now grownup fans as 'man babies') had nothing to do with the gender of the remake or the sanctity of the original (it really wasn't THAT great to begin with), but rather an expression of nostalgia tempered with a regret over something that doesn't exist anymore.

If you were lucky enough to be 12-15 in 1984, you probably went to see Ghostbusters in June and then again in July and August and then September again. The whole appeal of summer movies was the ritual of going over and over with your friends, because movies played forever, and that's gone now when Deadline decides which films live and die by Friday afternoon.

Something else that's missing: If you turned on a radio that summer you would immediately hear a soundtrack song like Let's Hear It For The Boy or Against All Odds or Footloose or The Heat Is On or I Can Dream About You or When Doves Cry or - of course - Ghostbusters.

Movies used to be everything.

[StoryWriter]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

It made $121 million at the domestic box office, which is almost its entire production budget. That's not bad at all.

People at Sony said it would have to make $400 million (worldwide) to be considered a success. Then when it was obvious that wasn't going to happen, they said it needed to do $300 million to break even. When they figured out they weren't going to make that number and fall at least $70 million short they claimed that the merchandising sales would make it a success. Now the toys are in the discount racks.

Sony has essentially fired Paul Feig and is relying on Ivan Reitman to do another Ghostbusters cartoon TV series. Reitman will also to be doing the next Ghostbusters feature film -- which will be animated (according to what I've read.)

Many critics claimed it was just not a well made movie. One ripped Feig for "not understanding how different lenses worked", "horrible edits, that had characters 'teleporting' from one side of the room to the other", "pointing a camera at the four women, hoping they would ad lib something funny" and claiming that he "filmed it like it was a 90s sitcom". Ouch!

Scott Mendelson, with Forbes, really wanted it to be a success, but said the movie was too expensive and could have been made for much less. Interestingly enough, he thought the controversy over the four women leads helped its box office. He said that without the controversy and with four male leads, it would have probably done less.

Just my two cents.

[FoxHound]

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

Another likely reason it underperformed is it's inability to match the original actors screen presence. Mellissa McCarthy is no Bill Murray by a factor of 10, Wiig is no Dan Akroyd by a factor of 5 and Kate McKinnon is definitely no Harold Ramis.

Upon further thought, if I could choose the most bankable female stars right now, I'd probably cast Amy Shumer and Tina Fey in the lead roles. Now that is a Ghostbusters movie I would wait 2 years in line to see.