A Link to the Past
Banned
Explain, if you would.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ghostbusters (2016) Trailer #1 (Feig, Wiig, McCarthy, McKinnon, Jones)
- Thread starter Rootbeer
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Explain, if you would.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Is this meant to mean something? That site has all sorts of shit with decent scores.
It means "the consensus doesn't agree with you", hence for most people Spy is an example of a good movie with a bad trailer. From Paul Feig.
Therefore, it is also possible that for most people, Ghostbusters could be a good movie with a bad trailer. From Paul Feig.
What you personally thought of Spy doesn't enter into it much.
Stallion Dan
Member
IMDB is user reviews. Unless you're suggesting that the only users who voted for it on IMDB are Rotten Tomatoes reviewers, I think you're just not paying attention.
Again, any shit gets decent reviews. They're a meaningless stat.
It means "the consensus doesn't agree with you", hence for most people Spy is an example of a good movie with a bad trailer. From Paul Feig.
Therefore, it is also possible that for most people, Ghostbusters could be a good movie with a bad trailer. From Paul Feig.
What you personally thought of Spy doesn't enter into it much.
Again, when nearly every movie gets good reviews and only few are panned, it shows the system is rather useless as a measurement of quality.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Again, any shit gets decent reviews. They're a meaningless stat..
Then the very statement of "x is shit" is pointless because it applies to anything. You may as well have said nothing at all.
EDIT: And thanks Joe for clarifying my point. :v Shit gets plenty of shit, Dan. It seems to me like you arbitrarily think this is the case whenever these sites do not agree with you.
Again, when nearly every movie gets good reviews and only few are panned, it shows the system is rather useless as a measurement of quality.
Can you elaborate? I've never heard any issue with user reviews over-rating films consistently. The only cases I ever see that in are sequels and adaptations.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
There are tons of films that are remakes of older films that don't shit on legacy of the originals
Again, are you trying to argue that "shitting on the legacy" (and the "legacies" in question are almost always inflated to some degree based on nostalgic attachment, unless you wanna argue for the strong, lasting legacy of things like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Starsky & Hutch, and Robocop) was 100% intentional on the part of the creatives hired to make the film? Because that's a bad argument. Again, nobody making these films sets out to make a bad movie. Almost every bad film ever made was started with the intention of knocking it out of the park.
You're starting from the premise that Hollywood's gone "reboot crazy" and I don't agree with it, and I certainly don't agree with the idea that films borne directly from the same Hollywood machine in the first place are somehow more sacrosanct simply because you first saw them during a time in your life where your awareness of how the sausage got made was near zero.
It's not like Ghostbusters was some sort of lovingly crafted indie flick. Columbia Pictures paid popular comedians to make them a movie so they could make money. It's a Hollywood movie. Hollywood made it. Hollywood sold it to you. Hollywood licensed the logos to slap on blankets and backpacks.
That is the legacy. That you had fun taking part in that legacy doesn't mean it's somehow not the commercialized big-budget pop product it is.
Pop songs get covered all the time. Some are good. Some are shitty. The shitty ones aren't inherently shitty because a studio paid the bill. They're shitty because an artist took a swing and missed. Just like any number of "original" movies that you flick by on Netflix on your way to the latest big-budget blockbuster from the last 10 years.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Boondock Saints is a bad movie. It's like training wheels for people who haven't seen a Tarantino yet.
BronsonLee
Member
Rotten Tomatoes especially has some questionable ratings for films such as Equilibrium, Home Alone, Boondock Saints to name a few.
I love Equilibrium and Boondocks Saints, but they're flawed as hell.
Look, RT in particular isn't great at this. Star Trek 2009 has like a 95. TFA has like a 93 or some shit. Use it as a barometer for how the particular audience for that film feels about it, and move on.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's cool, I like Alien 3.
A Link to the Past
Banned
There are lots of great movies that have bad reviews so just going by the general consensus isn't always the best way to look at films. Rotten Tomatoes especially has some questionable ratings for films such as Equilibrium, Home Alone, Boondock Saints to name a few.
Personal opinion is all that should matter in the end, not what everyone else thinks.
Personal opinions inherently counter-act each other. IMDB user reviews demonstrate that personal opinions are generally favourable towards Spy. Ultimately, saying that Spy is shit because you don't like it as a response to a post pointing out that Spy had a bad trailer but upon release was generally enjoyed actively contributes nothing. It doesn't agree or disagree, it doesn't offer a counter or consenting point, it doesn't even provide additional elements to make the discussion more interesting.
BronsonLee
Member
It's cool, I like Alien 3.
The fuck
A Link to the Past
Banned
Exactly. People can choose to like any movie regardless of flaws. I see reviews as a measurement of how other people feel but I never allow that to influences how I feel about a movie.
That's cool, no one suggested that RT should influence how anyone feels about a movie.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
There are lots of great movies that have bad reviews so just going by the general consensus isn't always the best way to look at films. Rotten Tomatoes especially has some questionable ratings for films such as Equilibrium, Home Alone, Boondock Saints to name a few.
Personal opinion is all that should matter in the end, not what everyone else thinks.
We're in a giant thread discussing the general reception to a trailer. How films and their trailers are generally received is, you know, relevant. Especially for films from the same director.
Obviously I have my own personal opinions about films that have nothing to do with listening to "general consensus" or reviews or, say, weird fanbases that inexplicably spring up around movies like Boondock Saints.
crazyrabbits
Banned
It's cool, I like Alien 3.
Enough blood's been shed over that film already, LOL.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Pfft lies
You like Resurrection
I mean, Resurrection is better than 3
Stallion Dan
Member
Can you elaborate? I've never heard any issue with user reviews over-rating films consistently. The only cases I ever see that in are sequels and adaptations.
Are you serious? With pretty much any user reviews looked at in mass it is pointless. People tend to watch movies they think they will like, which instantly makes it a skewed towards positive outcome, then you get stuff like agenda voting, then there is the fact that most people won't even use the full scale.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Are you serious? With pretty much any user reviews looked at in mass it is pointless. People tend to watch movies they think they will like, which instantly makes it a skewed towards positive outcome, then you get stuff like agenda voting, then there is the fact that most people won't even use the full scale.
Vote stuffing can happen from those who enjoy and dislike a movie. Heck, this thread has had people accuse both sides of doing as such with this new movie. Can you show evidence that suggests that fanbases engage in votestuffing more so than hatebases do/
gutter_trash
Banned
my take is that they took advantage of Harold Ramis' death and tossed his three script ideas into the trash and allowed Paul Feig to come up with this 2016 crap.
if Harold Ramis was still alive; this Feig film would have not have been allowed to be
if Harold Ramis was still alive; this Feig film would have not have been allowed to be
A Link to the Past
Banned
my take is that they took advantage of Harold Ramis' death and tossed his three script ideas into the trash and allowed Paul Feig to come up with this 2016 crap.
if Harold Ramis was still alive; this Feig film would have not have been allowed to be
That's a really weird take, and if I may hazard a guess, doesn't actually come from anything. It basically suggests a conspiracy against Ramis lol
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I can see where you're coming from, and it's true, just saying Spy is shit adds nothing to the conversation. I haven't seen spy so I can't say if I like t or not.
I wonder how many people generally review a film or leave a score though. I think it's important to keep in mind there are probably a lot of people who either liked or disliked it and just don't voice their opinions online about it.
It would be cool if there was a rating system at the end of movies so everyone can vote before leaving the theatre, maybe like a phone app or a tablet attached to the seat...something like that could be neat. It'd be interesting to see movie ratings with that sort of system.
The CinemaScore you sometimes read about in box office articles is a poll of moviegoers taken on opening night for new releases.
WordAssassin
Member
I liked the international trailer a lot more even though I couldn't tell what they're saying. I'm so mad the boob joke made me laugh out loud, it's so dumb but it caught me way off guard. But I love absurdist comedy too so there's that.
It's obvious now that this Ghostbusters is just going to have a different tone, comically, from the original. I've said it before in this thread but now that we have two trailers it's pretty clear. GB was very dry, subtle, sarcastic humor in a relatively quiet, low energy movie. GB16 is high energy with a lot of physical comedy. There's no reason to say "that's not Ghostbusters" it's just not the Ghostbusters we're used to.
The past 20+ years of Ghostbusters 3 scripts being shot down over and over and over and over and over and over and over again contradict this idea.
Especially since he passed away well after the movie had been announced. Even the cast had been revealed before he died. Come on.
It's obvious now that this Ghostbusters is just going to have a different tone, comically, from the original. I've said it before in this thread but now that we have two trailers it's pretty clear. GB was very dry, subtle, sarcastic humor in a relatively quiet, low energy movie. GB16 is high energy with a lot of physical comedy. There's no reason to say "that's not Ghostbusters" it's just not the Ghostbusters we're used to.
my take is that they took advantage of Harold Ramis' death and tossed his three script ideas into the trash and allowed Paul Feig to come up with this 2016 crap.
if Harold Ramis was still alive; this Feig film would have not have been allowed to be
The past 20+ years of Ghostbusters 3 scripts being shot down over and over and over and over and over and over and over again contradict this idea.
Especially since he passed away well after the movie had been announced. Even the cast had been revealed before he died. Come on.
Again, are you trying to argue that "shitting on the legacy" (and the "legacies" in question are almost always inflated to some degree based on nostalgic attachment, unless you wanna argue for the strong, lasting legacy of things like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Starsky & Hutch, and Robocop) was 100% intentional on the part of the creatives hired to make the film? Because that's a bad argument. Again, nobody making these films sets out to make a bad movie. Almost every bad film ever made was started with the intention of knocking it out of the park.
Some films are made with creative decisions at the fore. You have auteur writers/directors/actors, who produce movies with intelligence, integrity and vision. These can still be big budget, heavily marketed films. Pretty much any classic Hollywood film since the blockbuster era has this.
Other films have financial concerns at the fore. Producers controlling production, studios overruling directors, endless rewrites, films made because they can be marketed about the brand or the stars, rather than holding up as artist works in their own right. Aka cynical film making.
For the latter camp, they don't set out to make a bad film. They're just going it about the wrong way if they thing they can make a successful one. Did you read the leaked Sony emails? The studio controlling everything to do with Spider-man saw the atrocious third Raimi outing and the critical flops of the Webb films. The studio was cramming in as many characters for marketing purposes, and overruling the directors control and vision. The studio ignored critical feedback from Feige around how to do the characters and films justice. No one involved in the last three Spider-Man films wanted them to fail or get a critical mauling, but it was their own fault they did.
In the case of Ghostbusters, it seems to be a poor script, a reliance of gross out gags and sliapstick, adn a shoehoring of the old cast into cameos for the sake of it, while not having a clear view on if its related to the originals or its own thing. Whether that they fault of Feig alone, or Sony Picture doing what Sony pictures does best. It's not a coincidence that Sony Pictures is how to so many high profiles flops in recent years. The email leaks gave ample evidence of why their films fail.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Pfft lies
You like Resurrection
How dare y--
I mean, Resurrection is better than 3
HOW DARE YOU
A Link to the Past
Banned
How dare y--
HOW DARE YOU
I would feel immoral if I thought any differently
WordAssassin
Member
Is it just me or is there a longer version of the theme remix in the international trailer?
More hope it's not just a track they cut for the trailers but something I will eventually be able to buy.
More hope it's not just a track they cut for the trailers but something I will eventually be able to buy.
brandonh83
Banned
It's obvious now that this Ghostbusters is just going to have a different tone, comically, from the original. I've said it before in this thread but now that we have two trailers it's pretty clear. GB was very dry, subtle, sarcastic humor in a relatively quiet, low energy movie. GB16 is high energy with a lot of physical comedy. There's no reason to say "that's not Ghostbusters" it's just not the Ghostbusters we're used to.
I think Ghostbusters can be a lot of things, I just want it to be good. The humor here looks like it's for the lowest common denominator. I'm fine with it not being the deadpan humor of the original, or anything like the original even, but I'm definitely asking for it to be something much, much better, more creative, more witty than what it looks here. Just because it's different from the original doesn't mean it has to be bad. And maybe it isn't, but these trailers aren't doing it any favors.
I was even starting to get over the possession scene-- just a bit-- and then this trailer came out and had things that are just as lame, if not worse. Also if Alien 3 is garbage, Resurrection is hot garbage.
No, Ramis died in February 2014. Feig's involvement was first reported that August, and the cast wasn't announced until January 2015.Especially since he passed away well after the movie had been announced. Even the cast had been revealed before he died. Come on.
But I don't believe they "took advantage of his death", either - it was just the last nail in the coffin of developing a Ghostbusters film as a sequel.
I was even starting to get over the possession scene-- just a bit-- and then this trailer came out and had things that are just as lame, if not worse.
They even have a scene with a person not being catched by the crowd at a concert and falling to the ground! HILARIOUS!
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Aka cynical film making.
Here's the kernel at the core of why I've been responding: cynical filmmaking isn't endemic to remakes. I understand why people can and do percieve it to be the case, and I'm not saying cynicism doesn't factor in to some of the bigger failures of remakes (or original films, for that matter). I'm arguing that the perception is skewed due to an unwilligness to approach the movie fairly due to the film having already stepped on someone's nostalgia footies by dint of it's mere existence.
It's essentially sliding down the path to a "good ol' days!" argument that doesn't stand up because the good ol' days were just as crass and cynical as now. They just hadn't learned to optimize the machine for the shifting market.
To even address "cynicism" in the process seems slightly beside the point, because it suggests there's some sort of optimistic altruism working to some degree on the flip, when that's not largely the case. At some point going down this line of argument, you're going to dead end at the fact these are multibillion media conglomerates bankrolling commercial product. There is no point at which cynicism of some sort won't enter into the equasion.
It's more meaningful to look at the specifics of a movie and make the judgment rather than to use a busted measuring stick calibrated via an ideal that more or less doesn't exist.
WordAssassin
Member
I think Ghostbusters can be a lot of things, I just want it to be good. The humor here looks like it's for the lowest common denominator. I'm fine with it not being the deadpan humor of the original, or anything like the original even, but I'm definitely asking for it to be something much, much better, more creative, more witty than what it looks here. Just because it's different from the original doesn't mean it has to be bad. And maybe it isn't, but these trailers aren't doing it any favors.
I was even starting to get over the possession scene-- just a bit-- and then this trailer came out and had things that are just as lame, if not worse. Also if Alien 3 is garbage, Resurrection is hot garbage.
I'm in agreement about just wanting it to be good. I'm not gonna make any final call until I leave the theater.
Honestly, I would probably even be fine if the movie came out and all the jokes fell flat as long as the story is good.
brandonh83
Banned
Honestly, I would probably even be fine if the movie came out and all the jokes fell flat as long as the story is good.
As bad as the humor seems to be, it can be hard to get a real grasp on things until you actually see it. Some of these scenes may not even be in the film proper. I've been very down on the trailers, but because I love Ghostbusters and want this to be good, and when I say Ghostbusters I mean the property, not specifically the original film, which I love but is only one version. I want the best for this and I'm not one of the butthurts for whichever reason.
WordAssassin
Member
No, Ramis died in February 2014. Feig's involvement was first reported that August, and the cast wasn't announced until January 2015.
But I don't believe they "took advantage of his death", either - it was just the last nail in the coffin of developing a Ghostbusters film as a sequel.
Shit, you're right, I'm still not used to it being 2016 yet. I need to get on that. I botched my Google-Fu and thought they happened in the same year, with the cast announced last January and then Ramis passing shortly after. 4s and 5s are different numbers, gotta keep reminding myself of that.
But the first point still stands. Aykroyd tried and failed for over 20 years to get a GB3 made. The reboot has nothing to do with his death. I'd say it's more tied to the 30th anniversary that just happened than anything else. Gotta capitalize on that anniversary. By releasing a movie two years later. *facepalm*
my take is that they took advantage of Harold Ramis' death and tossed his three script ideas into the trash and allowed Paul Feig to come up with this 2016 crap.
if Harold Ramis was still alive; this Feig film would have not have been allowed to be
Nah, the last movie Ramis made was "Year One" Even if the new Ghostbuster's is bad, Ramis was fine with putting out bad movies.
excelsiorlef
Member
Nah, the last movie Ramis made was "Year One" Even if the new Ghostbuster's is bad, Ramis was fine with putting out bad movies.
Ramis never made another movie that touched GB 84
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
You are once again dead to me!I mean, Resurrection is better than 3
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Ramis never made another movie that touched GB 84
Groundhog Day found its own level of greatness, though. I wouldn't compare the two directly, but they're both pretty well loved.
Groundhog Day wasn't so easily merchandisable, of course.
Groundhog Day found its own level of greatness, though. I wouldn't compare the two directly, but they're both pretty well loved.
Groundhog Day wasn't so easily merchandisable, of course.
Yeah, Groundhog Day is a pretty excellent movie in ways that Ghostbusters really wasn't gunning for. Groundhog Day can make me cry pretty much every time. This is coming from a guy who's made $2,000 proton packs.
Just watched the international trailer and got bummed out over the boobie joke and slapstick.
A Link to the Past
Banned
You are once again dead to me!
im ok with this
#Resurrection4lyfe
excelsiorlef
Member
Groundhog Day found its own level of greatness, though. I wouldn't compare the two directly, but they're both pretty well loved.
Groundhog Day wasn't so easily merchandisable, of course.
To be fair I didn't know that was Ramis.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Yeah. I think Ramis was actually prouder of having done Groundhog Day than he was Ghostbusters. Or at least I think I remember an interview saying as much.
Then again, he didn't direct Ghostbusters, he just helped write it. So it makes sense that Groundhog Day would mean a little more to him.
Unfortunately Groundhog Day was also the movie that caused the weird falling out with Murray.
Then again, he didn't direct Ghostbusters, he just helped write it. So it makes sense that Groundhog Day would mean a little more to him.
Unfortunately Groundhog Day was also the movie that caused the weird falling out with Murray.
Stallion Dan
Member
Vote stuffing can happen from those who enjoy and dislike a movie. Heck, this thread has had people accuse both sides of doing as such with this new movie. Can you show evidence that suggests that fanbases engage in votestuffing more so than hatebases do/
That is just evidence of why the scores are worthless, a bunch of stuff votes on both ends in a already skewed system.
BronsonLee
Member
Unfortunately Groundhog Day was also the movie that caused the weird falling out with Murray.
Everything I've heard/read about Bill Murray makes me have the impression that he's a jackass tho
Bobby Roberts
Banned
That is just evidence of why the scores are worthless,
Christ
Um, no.I mean, Resurrection is better than 3
A Link to the Past
Banned
That is just evidence of why the scores are worthless, a bunch of stuff votes on both ends in a already skewed system.
If both occur, then they cancel each other out. If anything, I've seen far stronger hate pre-viewing for Spy than I saw as far as praise goes, so if anything, the score is deflated. Seriously, you sure do try pretty hard to justify making pointless posts and ignoring the points of the posts you're replying to.
Um, no.
Oh yes yes yes. David Fincher probably agrees.
MagnaderAlpha
Member
Oh.... wow.... that sounds awful.Sooo umm yeahh, this seems to confirm that Reddit post:
The whole thing is here... https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbuste...een_an_early_version_of_the_new_ghostbusters/ Spoilers, I guess?
The Assembly Cut is superior!Oh yes yes yes. David Fincher probably agrees.
Everything I've heard/read about Bill Murray makes me have the impression that he's a jackass tho
He comes across bipolar. This is a guy who has no issue party crashing etc. I mean sure it would be cool as fuck to have Bill Murray suddenly crash your party but then you hear how he reacts to a bunch of fans destroying their phones etc.
Can't be easy the whole celebrity thing but he really does seem to have multiple sides to his personality
- Status
- Not open for further replies.