• 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.

Ghostbusters (2016) Trailer #1 (Feig, Wiig, McCarthy, McKinnon, Jones)

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

Bill Murray = a Skeptic. His lines arent good and he's kinda stiff "WHY ARE YOU PRETENDING TO CATCH GHOSTS??!! THATA GIRL!!!" he gets killed when pushed out a window by the rock concert dragon ghost. He convinced the GGB's to let it out as proof in their tiny chinese restaurant HQ. (Did I mention everyone is stupid in this movie?)

excuse me

Oh God
OH GOD
thats awful! and the international trailer confims part of it, so did the MAttel toy leak of the big bad of the film
the no ghost logo becoming the final form

This is shaping up to be hot garbage! why? every time i have hopes for this film to be good and reboot the franchise more stuff comes out that makes it look like its just going to be embarrassing.

I hope Feig accepts this for what it is if the film does badly, that its a terrible script and not some mysoginistic agenda as he keeps claiming when he tars anyone who dislikes the trailer and/or film with that brush
Its really getting on my nerves the rhetoric thats stating if you dislike this its because you are sexist
 
So why is having stuff that we have (reddit, YouTube, selfie sticks etc) in the modern day bad in a movie set in the modern day? Like, this type of complaint happens all the time and I don't get it
 

nkarafo

Member
So why is having stuff that we have (reddit, YouTube, selfie sticks etc) in the modern day bad in a movie set in the modern day? Like, this type of complaint happens all the time and I don't get it
I haven't seen the movie, obviously, but most of the movies i have seen using relevant references from our every day lives etc, they usually don't use then to build good jokes. Most of the time these references are just... there. And yet they still focus on them during certain scenes as if it's funny only because they exist.

Like, here, this guy is using a selfie stick. So that's funny. Why? Because, you know, it's a selfie stick. Okay... Oh look, they are using Youtube. Let's focus on the fact that they are using Youtube. Because I KNOW THIS! Haha, so funny!

Edit: you were talking about the movie itself right? Because if it's only about the behind the scenes material then, yes, i don't see it either.
 

Waldini

Member
When someone attempts to make a "sequel" with a different cast and starts messing around with an "classic" this is the shit you get.

That being said, I'll reserve judgement untill I've actually seen the movie. People tend to burn everything down to the ground which results in bad-reputation before the movie is even released. I feel kind of bad for everyone involved...

Sure, this will never-ever top Ghostbusters '84 but it MIGHT be fun. Maybe people need to judge after they've seen the movie instead of judging a movie from a shitty trailer.

And that Reddit post? L.M.A.O. The internet. Such a great place to be.

"O! Let's post that I've seen the movie!" ... after the trailer hit ... after the movie finished filming, after some "leaks". Everytime a movie (like Star-Wars EP7, remember the BS rumors?) comes out ... people start posting bullshit. Some might be true, some might not.

Again, I'll go see this. It's like ... people forget to enjoy movies and love burning it to the ground without ever going to see it themselves. Easier to jump on the hate-wagon I guess.
 
The trailer isn't very good. Now this is a comedy, and likely a raunchy one so they can't use the best bits in advertisements, but nearly everything fell flat to me.

I'll need to see something better before I commit to a ticket.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egs6RfGenvg&feature=youtu.be

New international trailer with new scenes. I found some of this legitimately funny. The "is it a race thing or a lady thing" is very on the nose but I think its a better trailer.

I still didn't laugh. The only person I can see saving this is McKinnon. That shot in which she kind of instinctively half-crouches behind McCarthy for a split-second while shooting the beam was legitimately cool.
 

efyu_lemonardo

May I have a cookie?
interesting international trailer. It feels better to me but then again almost all changes seem to be made to appeal to men, probably at the expense of appealing to women.

curious to hear a woman's opinion.
 

SonnyBoy

Member
The international trailer was somehow even worse than the US trailer. Other than the fact the changed "Four scientists" to "four friends" (going to assume that's because Patty doesn't play a scientist in this and they wanted to move away from that given the heat they have caught for it.)

Also noticed they cut out the "You know this science stuff" just showing further that they are acknowledging it is wrong and stereotyping.

Which only strengthens my resolve not to see it. They're only moving away from it in the trailers, unless I'm mistaken.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Seems like quite a few of the jokes will be based on the fact that they're women. In every crack, lady or race thing, ghost boobs... That... seems like the wrong way to go.

You mean how the original movie had a joke about one of the guys getting his dick sucked by a ghost?
 
I know that wasn't his point, I was just adding to his point that it's juvenile humour for a clearly young demographic.

That's depressing as hell :(

You mean how the original movie had a joke about one of the guys getting his dick sucked by a ghost?

It's the movie's lowest point too and yet still somehow less dumb in execution than anything I'm seeing here. It's a dumb scene, yet brief, and really the only aspect of the film I could really criticize. These trailers have already provided a multitude of things to criticize by comparison.
 
I kind of came to terms with the fact that I probably wouldn't enjoy a lot of the humour in this movie for the simple reason that its kind of that way with most modern comedies for me.

I'm not saying that I don't enjoy the movies overall, but i'm waay to old old (or staid) to be the target audience for these things anymore so a lot of the jokes just leave me feeling a little uncomfortable rather than amused.

To me the actual ghostbusting stuff looks cool though, and they've managed to capture the quality that the old team have in that they're a bunch of people you really wish you could hang around with.

I'm still looking forward too it, maybe not a day one thing (skipped school to see the first showing of the original) but I definitely want to see it.
 
You mean how the original movie had a joke about one of the guys getting his dick sucked by a ghost?

To be fair, the original film balanced a lot of cheap humor with serious subject matter (it's incredible at building tension then relieving it with jokes). So far, all we've seen from this are cheap gags. There could be serious material, but we just don't know if it's there yet.
 

Henkka

Banned
You mean how the original movie had a joke about one of the guys getting his dick sucked by a ghost?

I just feel stuff like the ghost boobs joke is not something a person in real life would ever do or say. It's a self-aware reference to the fact that it's a reboot with women, as opposed to men. It feels off.
 

Blablurn

Member
I will watch it for the blonde

and for the new theme

i understand the hate

but i will still watch it

fuckkkk

oh nooo

since it has ghosts it will probably not be shown here in china

fuuu
 

neorej

ERMYGERD!
interesting international trailer. It feels better to me but then again almost all changes seem to be made to appeal to men, probably at the expense of appealing to women.

curious to hear a woman's opinion.

Anecdotal evidence, my GF was not amused by either trailer. FWIW, she turned off Bridesmaids 30 minutes in and she has seen Ghostbusters once 10 years ago.
 

Corpekata

Banned
The international trailer was somehow even worse than the US trailer. Other than the fact the changed "Four scientists" to "four friends" (going to assume that's because Patty doesn't play a scientist in this and they wanted to move away from that given the heat they have caught for it.)

Also noticed they cut out the "You know this science stuff" just showing further that they are acknowledging it is wrong and stereotyping.

That aside we have a boob joke and then the obligatory reference to race and gender as a joke mixed in alongside terrible slapstick skit like humour that has been done a million times over (missed crowd surfing gag, puke gag, boob gag, clumsy gag, movie reference gag, swooning over the character so he/she gets the job gag) I could go on but you know what I mean.

Frankly the ladies starring in it deserve better than this garbage writing, let's hope the actual movie is much better and this is just a terrible set of trailers, it isn't completely out there to suggest the movie still may turn out to be watchable despite the terrible trailers, it certainly isn't looking good though at this point.


Why would changing the four line have anything to do with Patty? It's referencing the original Ghostbusters, which also was just 3 scientists and 1 average joe type.

If anything it was probably changed because a bunch of nerds were like "Ernie Hudson wasn't a scientist!"
 
There are times when Leslie Jones looks a little bit like an out of shape Terry Crews. I'd love to see them in a movie together where they have to dress up as each other for some reason. Like maybe Leslie can't go to a date she's been looking forward to, so Terry shows up with her clothing and makeup on. Then Terry can't get to the meeting in time, so Leslie shows up in a suit.

I bet that could actually work.
 
Watched the international trailer. Still not really feeling it. I chuckled at the moshpit bit.

Patty is the only one making me laugh here.
 
Better, and Hemsworth speaks!

I do really like that closing shot. A lot. Overall the look of the movie, the colors and art direction are very good to me. I love that it looks really cartoony and the movie does seem to have a lot of energy. I'm extremely ambivalent about some of the humor I'm seeing, but it could be minor if the rest of the movie is good and has better humor. I wish Patty had more to do than yell and have racial jokes. Maybe she does, but they're not painting her in a better light yet.
 

GavinUK86

Member
That Leslie Jones mosh pit joke made actually laugh out loud. Even though it might be a cliche, she has good timing and her delivery cracks me up.
 
That Leslie Jones mosh pit joke made actually laugh out loud. Even though it might be a cliche, she has good timing and her delivery cracks me up.

As much as I think the actual writing could be better, her delivery was very good there. Who knows the cast might make up for some of the writing pitfalls, I just wish it didn't have said pitfalls. But I've been warming up to it the more I watch it admittedly. Maybe I just really want to like it. It is Ghostbusters after all. I don't think I'm going to know either way until I walk out of it.

Also Hemsworth is just killing me. He's having a shitload of fun with this and it's nice to see him in a much different role.
 
Also Hemsworth is just killing me. He's having a shitload of fun with this and it's nice to see him in a much different role.

I always put him as someone who would have pretty good comedic timing. Some of my favorite parts of Thor 1 were when he would just eat shit seconds after being all haughty about everything

Wouldn't surprise me if it's a Statham in Spy deal
 

GavinUK86

Member
I don't know about everyone else but I've lost count of how many times I've walked into a door and pushed the wrong way and laughed at myself so Wiig's joke there worked for me too. I definitely think it looks fun, a bit too nostalgic for my tastes, but I'm excited to see it. Paul Feig wrote Spy and I loved that film, and so did most, so I have faith he can do this right, as long as the "why are women ruining my childhood" people get out of the way.
 

OmegaFax

Member
Thought the literally second of Hemsworth we got in the original trailer was the best part about it. Sony's marketing really needed to take advantage of him. Glad they did. If he's really the male equivalent to Janine, best casting decision.
 
Thought the literally second of Hemsworth we got in the original trailer was the best part about it. Sony's marketing really needed to take advantage of him. Glad they did. If he's really the male equivalent to Janine, best casting decision.

I think the US trailer hid him because he's likely extremely plot relevant, but yeah, he's a pretty big ace in the hole for the movie's marketing.

I think he'll be like Janine, except be quite possibly the dumbest person to ever wear an oversized green sports coat
 

Busty

Banned
I am in a state of zen relaxation about this film because I don't have some weird zealous fixation with the original film. I'll probably go and see this for Wiig and McCarthy alone so all these apparent changes and early buzz doesn't affect me at all.

It's actually very refreshing to feel this way about an upcoming summer film. I don't have any feelings, positive or negative, about this project so it really makes no odds to me how it turns out.

I wonder if this is how people who aren't interested in superhero and sci-fi films feel when they see people on the internet freak out about the likes of BvS and Civil War etc?
 
Oh, and anyone saying the movie looks 'cheap' or 'direct to DVD' is probably high on dust/sipping from that hyperbole kool-aid

Yeah, it certainly doesn't. I've never had a problem with the look of it, in fact I think it pops quite a bit. People always complain about CGI though, even when it's good, and it's a comedy with ghosts. It's not going to look realistic so they went with fantastical, which is a good thing. Now, I will say that I still find the spewing ghost to be pretty bad because they put it into a situation where the execution-- the framing of it, the timing in the trailer to be too "Scary Movie" to me, but it's the only instance so far in which I don't care for how it looks.

It's just too "gag" ish for my tastes, people argue that the original had stuff like that but it really didn't, nothing was ever really treated like a gag. You didn't have Slimer actually visibly spewing slime on Peter, it cut away and Ray found him dowsed in the hall. To me that's the difference in execution. Still, not trying to compare movies as this is obviously a different thing, I'm just saying that's why people are okay with that and not so much okay with this.
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
Why would you do something what could cause you to crash down on your back while you have an unlicensed nuclear accelerator strapped to it?
 
So why is having stuff that we have (reddit, YouTube, selfie sticks etc) in the modern day bad in a movie set in the modern day? Like, this type of complaint happens all the time and I don't get it

It's unrealistic to put stress on pointing out various brands and product placement, as opposed to letting such brands/products seamlessly blending into the world.

It would be like, using a fake example, if there was some scene where someone drinks Sunny D. The overly obvious product placement would go like this:

MAIN: Want something to drink?

FRIEND: If ya got Sunny D, hell yeah!

*Main character pours Sunny D into a glass and hands it to Friend*

FRIEND: Nothing beats Sunny D...
*takes a long swig into the camera*
FRIEND: ... it's better than regular orange juice!

Letting it seamlessly blend in would be to have the main character just serve the friend Sunny D without addressing what it was, nor the friend not making a big deal about drinking it.

Think about real life, do you make a big deal about everything you eat, drink or use WHEN you eat, drink or use it? That one scene in Wayne's World that pokes fun at product placement, while not subtle, was pretty spot on how shameless it can get. Look at a lot of the Michael Bay Transformers movies for other, "in your face" product placement examples. One, if it looks like a commercial within a movie, it's bad. Two, if they toss out product names for the sake of informing the audience about said brands, it's bad.

Somewhat related, a part of me miss the times when laws were a bit lax and there wasn't as big of a stick shoved up the asses of product rights holders. Back in the 80s, you had a lot of smaller movies that took advantage of this and the result were realistic settings as you can get. An example would be how you can get a child's room that had Star Wars bed sheets, ET plushies, Legos, He-Man figures and Spider-Man and Batman comics. And they weren't product placement more than objects placed in the room to make it look more believable as the room of a child "back then"(which, as kids, a lot of us back then had all that type of stuff, so it kinda was). In the kitchen, you'd have people drinking cans of both Coke and Pepsi(again, it wasn't a brand thing, considering how big these two have competed against each other). And all the while, people aren't focusing on what they are drinking, or what is in the kid's room. It all seamlessly blends into the world. No where does someone say, "I'll take a Coke!", or the kid say, "Sometimes I let my Luke Skywalker join He-Man on adventures!". They are just THERE, to make the world more believable, and that's it(they don't beat you over the head with it). And you know what... it works! You can't get away with that shit anymore, though(not making brand use believable, but using so many different brand names in one movie without paying out the ass to gain the rights to use said names).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom