GHOSTBUSTERS Pre-Release - film discussion only, no social commentary please!

[Snikt]

I mean, really, to me, it doesn't matter who it is. The minutiae of the film doesn't really matter a ton to me. Oh, the Ecto-1 is a hearse instead of an ambulance? I don't care that much. The suits have a bright line across the chest instead of being just brown? Yeah, don't really care. The proton-pistol lick? Meh, don't really care.

What I care about, what bugs me the most, is that (1) they wanted to make this its own thing, so they severed it from the continuity of the original film.....buuuuuuuuut (2) they wanted to "be so, so respectful" to the first film, and to do that, they basically lifted a LOT of references.

Man, if you're gonna sever the film from the continuity, have the ****ing stones to let the film stand on its own. You went "it's a reboot" for a ******* reason. Make your choice, and own it. Don't try to have it both ways.

Ultimately, that's the biggest problem I see with this: it's trying to have it both ways. It's not as bad as having, say, a shot-for-shot remake like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, but still, the thing I keep coming back to is:

Why. Did. You. Bother?


Why bother disconnecting this film from the originals, if you were just going to ape it left and right? The trailer just makes the film look like a pointless remake with a gender swap. And sure, on its face, it's...you know, fine. Probably decently funny like most of the modern comedies you see nowadays. But really, why did this movie need to be made at all?

There doesn't seem to be nearly as much new stuff, or at least what's new seems totally overshadowed by the old stuff. I guess the thing that just really sticks in my craw is that they seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. There was just no need to eliminate the continuity of the old films. This could ALWAYS have been a true sequel, instead of a remake.

Thats my problem that I dont seem to have an answer for. With most 80's/early 90's remakes (Total Recall, Robocop, nameless others), why? Those movies stand on their own and are great movies, so far, I havent seen a remake of a popular movie where I was like "oh man, they had a better vision than the original crew and it actually turned out better". This doesnt look like it could improve on the original AT ALL. And why does the studio think we need a movie with a ton of references to the other movie, or that its almost a shot for shot remake and use marketing like its a sequel when it has nothing to do with the originals? Dan, Bill, and Sigourney all have cameos, but they have nothing to do with the characters from the original. It baffles me. :facepalm Who is this movie for?

 

[KrangPrime]

Out of curiosity, how so? I didn't watch the whole thing, just Feig's brief comments about how the film "references" the old ones, but does so "out of respect" instead of, you know, out of a sense of creative bankruptcy.

Reitman is the best actor in that video pretending he doesn't want to punch feig in the face. notice dan aykroyd is mysteriously absent?


'we didn't write these characters with anybody in mind...' bull crap. how many movies has mcarthy done for you? you wrote spy for her as I recall. Also IIRC, isn't this ghostbusters script just some left over female super hero script? Feig is so full of some kind of animal....i'm not really sure what.


'he's been thinking about the fans first and formost...' 'this is such a good idea'....ugh... I want to reach through and strangle the falseness coming from these people like they really give a crap.

 

[jettajeffro]

Great video of the trailer event Wednesday:

 

[Solo4114]

Wow... Some fan did a re-edit and made this look a lot better than the one Sony put out. Less is more......

/www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0

So, here's the thing about that one. Yeah, it's definitely better.

But it's better because it basically captures the "vibe" of the original purely through the use of Ray Parker, Jr.'s song, and by NOT showing all the sort of groan-inducing moments highlighted in the trailer.

In other words, it's a hell of a lot better as a purely manipulative marketing tool that the official trailer because (A) it doesn't reveal the film's flaws as readily, and (B) it hijacks your brain into making the positive association carried with the song on to the film itself. In that respect, it's flippin' brilliant as a trailer.


This has been an interesting and odd year in terms of trailers. It's really amazing to me just how a really well-made trailer can completely alter one's attitude about a film, especially through just the use of music. The Suicide Squad trailers are good examples of this. The first one with the emo "I Started A Joke" looked all grimdark and dour. The second one with "Bohemian Rhapsody" looked upbeat and fun. Yet the footage is nearly identical between the two trailers, except for a few scenes here and there. It's nuts.

This one splices in Ray Parker, Jr.'s theme, the Ecto-1 siren, focuses purely on very brief glimpses of the kinds of things existing fans already love, and shows only a snippet of the kind of stuff that's new to the film. For people wanting to "recapture" the feel of the original, the second trailer is way, way better. For people wanting something entirely new, the first one is....eh....so-so, but shows more "new" than the second one.

Anyway, interesting stuff.


I still think the film is going to be just another mediocre comedy with a Ghostbusters wrapper that too-often rests on its predecessor's laurels.

 

[Solo4114]

Thats my problem that I dont seem to have an answer for. With most 80's/early 90's remakes (Total Recall, Robocop, nameless others), why? Those movies stand on their own and are great movies, so far, I havent seen a remake of a popular movie where I was like "oh man, they had a better vision than the original crew and it actually turned out better". This doesnt look like it could improve on the original AT ALL. And why does the studio think we need a movie with a ton of references to the other movie, or that its almost a shot for shot remake and use marketing like its a sequel when it has nothing to do with the originals? Dan, Bill, and Sigourney all have cameos, but they have nothing to do with the characters from the original. It baffles me. :facepalm Who is this movie for?

Yeah, I can see sort of an argument for updating something like, say, Robocop or Total Recall, in that we now have better f/x technology, and can do some pretty wild stuff that we couldn't back then.

But even so, to me, that's not enough -- in and of itself -- to justify a remake. You've got to bring something more to the party. I give Total Recall credit for at least trying to come up with a genuinely different story with only passing similarities to the previous one, but it still just speaks to the creative bankruptcy in Hollywood. Robocop, on the other hand, was robocrap. The new aspects to the film didn't really add anything better to it, and the rest of it just felt bland and generic.

As to who this movie is for, that's easy. Idiot children who think anything that's 5+ years old is ancient (because that's 1/3 of their lifespan), people who love Paul Feig and the Paul Feig Players films, and people who are easily lured by brand names without regard to the substance of what the brand is attached to.

In other words, the average American movie audience.

 

[niennumb1]

So, here's the thing about that one. Yeah, it's definitely better.

But it's better because it basically captures the "vibe" of the original purely through the use of Ray Parker, Jr.'s song, and by NOT showing all the sort of groan-inducing moments highlighted in the trailer.

In other words, it's a hell of a lot better as a purely manipulative marketing tool that the official trailer because (A) it doesn't reveal the film's flaws as readily, and (B) it hijacks your brain into making the positive association carried with the song on to the film itself. In that respect, it's flippin' brilliant as a trailer.

That's exactly why I thought it was better for those objective reasons in terms of Marketing strategy and would have (initially) sold A LOT more people on the surface over it than what we did see, which was a bit too much of the opposite vibe revealed.

 

[teragon]

Not sure if trolling or serious. If serious, I will never read a post from you seriously again. :lol

GB1 is brilliantly written and absolutely stands up today.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

The comedy is timeless, I don't dispute that, and it's well written, it's just that reading through all of this thread before I watched the original, I didn't see where all of this high praise was coming from. I'd watch it again gladly if it was on TV but I don't think I'll actively seek it again to watch it a second time. What didn't age well for me were the SFX, some where a bit shady in my book. It's still miles ahead most of the stuff produced here, which are mostly family dramas that seem to act as therapy for the director. My biggest frustration as a production assistant, getting funds for a movie like GB would be near impossible.

 

[falconNL]

Thats my problem that I dont seem to have an answer for. With most 80's/early 90's remakes (Total Recall, Robocop, nameless others), why? Those movies stand on their own and are great movies. :facepalm Who is this movie for?

Have you seen Dredd 3D? Its a masterpiece.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Have you seen Dredd 3D? Its a masterpiece.

Well in that case, the original film was awful.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

 

[batguy]

hats my problem that I dont seem to have an answer for. With most 80's/early 90's remakes (Total Recall, Robocop, nameless others), why? Those movies stand on their own and are great movies. :facepalm Who is this movie for?

Even a mediocre remake brings in a couple hundred million dollars worldwide.

Putting the original 30yo versions back in theaters will earn a tiny fraction of that.

Any questions?

 

[The Mad Professor]

I've heard that's from the end credits dance number, not the villain.

That's somehow worse...

 

[AJTaliesen]

Thats my problem that I dont seem to have an answer for. With most 80's/early 90's remakes (Total Recall, Robocop, nameless others), why? Those movies stand on their own and are great movies, so far, I havent seen a remake of a popular movie where I was like "oh man, they had a better vision than the original crew and it actually turned out better". This doesnt look like it could improve on the original AT ALL. And why does the studio think we need a movie with a ton of references to the other movie, or that its almost a shot for shot remake and use marketing like its a sequel when it has nothing to do with the originals? Dan, Bill, and Sigourney all have cameos, but they have nothing to do with the characters from the original. It baffles me. :facepalm Who is this movie for?

just my opinion, (though theres quite a bit of actual evidence to support this opinion), but remakes work when:

1) The original flopped but you think you now have the missing ingredient.
2) the original was a cult classic made for the price of a pair of shoes that finally deserves it's day in the sun with a budget.
3) The original was a hit, but it's been forgotten by modern audiences.
4) Modern technology allows you to do things that the original was hurt by.


partial 5...maybe just 4.5) franchises where the story has a life independently of the films, like batman or Spiderman. Or stories that live in the theater like musicals or Shakespeare...you can have another go at those with different casts, although as with Superhero films, you need either a decade grace period, or you need the most recent one to have sucked to justify the new.

 

[KrangPrime]

That's somehow worse...

that's because now there is apparently a thriller dance number (they stole from the exorcist...no reason to think they can't use the thriller song) in the movie AND a dance number in the end credits.

So, when is feig going to take it to broadway next?

I actually got warn out yesterday trying to follow all this crap. Oh well, at least I feel a bit vindicated now with even people who supported it before, starting to change their minds online.

 

[Rylo]

Mediocre is such a relative term, it hardly supports your math...

I could rattle off a half dozen films that struggled to crack 80 million that I would call mediocre.

-Rylo

Even a mediocre remake brings in a couple hundred million dollars worldwide.

Putting the original 30yo versions back in theaters will earn a tiny fraction of that.

Any questions?

 

[KrangPrime]

I just saw on FB sony is planning a 21 jump street, Men in Black crossover. All I could think of was...why?

21 isn't nearly as popular as men in black. what could one hope to benefit the other with?

unless they are already trying to plan for something big to recover from Ghostbsuters.

 

[Space Jockey]

Watched the trailer last night.

Not impressed.

 

[The Terminator]

This looks like a film I wanna watch

Yes ET, that's what reboots do. I think that is actually the point.

*Compares the 60's Batman tv show to Batman Begins*

What??? :wacko :lol

 

[karmajay]

Oh geeze now the site banner is stuck on Ghostbusters hehe

 

[batguy]

Mediocre is such a relative term, it hardly supports your math...

I could rattle off a half dozen films that struggled to crack 80 million that I would call mediocre.

-Rylo

True. Not all remakes even make the $100m mark.

But my point still stands. A hypothetical re-release of Point Break, Ghostbusters, and Total Recall won't add up to anything close to their profits from all 3 remakes.

And if even one of those remakes hits well enough for a sequel they are doing better still. They've gotten the risk of doing a new version out of the way already so the sequel is guaranteed money. Whereas, if they re-released one of the old movies, got a success, and decided to sequel it 30 years late, the sequel would be a financial gamble.

 

[Bigdaddy]

WOW! After reading a few pages leading up to the trailer I was surprised it didn't look as bad as I thought it would. It still looks bad and I won't bother with it, but I didn't think it was "prequel" bad.