Egon Spengler
Master Member
LOL What's funny is someone actually thought that would be and is funny. Ugh.
GHOSTBUSTERS Pre-Release - film discussion only, no social commentary please!
- Thread starter Westies14
- Start date
KrangPrime
Master Member
I guess the joke is supposed once mcarthy says she doesn't like cats, he says he mis spoke because his dog is named 'hat'? trying to save himself from an embarrassing moment?
but, he's not that smart, so he wouldn't even think to do that, so the joke doesn't work with the character and..
ugh...if you have to think about it for 5 minutes, it's prrrooobably not a good joke!
I kind of hope you're wrong about that. I don't hate the joke, but that delivery is so bad it's stinking up all the other jokes nearby.
It's like naming a raven Quoth. It can be funny if you don't say anything, jut let people find out on their own that he's Quoth, the raven. But if you actually introduce him that way, then you should be made to go and think about what you did.
You could name a dog Michael Hat and let the audience find the joke on their own. But to actually have the bit where someone gets fooled by it hasn't been funny since the 50's, and even then the funny part still would've been the other characters groaning over the terrible pun and hitting him with something humorous.
It's like naming a raven Quoth. It can be funny if you don't say anything, jut let people find out on their own that he's Quoth, the raven. But if you actually introduce him that way, then you should be made to go and think about what you did.
You could name a dog Michael Hat and let the audience find the joke on their own. But to actually have the bit where someone gets fooled by it hasn't been funny since the 50's, and even then the funny part still would've been the other characters groaning over the terrible pun and hitting him with something humorous.
Snikt
Sr Member
WHAT THE HELL?!?!!? :eek
This is the crux of it, for me. I find Wiig a little amusing, but more endearing (watch the trailer for "Welcome to Me" and I think you'll see what I mean), but, in general, I do not consider them to be "four funny women". Monica Piper is funny. Brett Butler is funny. Carol Kane is funny. Tina Fey is funny. Elayne Boosler is funny. Carol Burnett is still funny. Even with this writing, I would trust them to turn in a more authentic and less forced performance -- but I'd also see them taking their own comedic instincts and making the dialogue better and playing off each other and ad-libbing (and possibly driving the director nuts until he gave in and just went with it). Good talent can save a weak script. A good script can sometimes force weak talent to rise above itself. But when so-so talent is combined with a weak script...?
--Jonah
KrangPrime
Master Member
found this on imdb. apparently they are marketing this movie in womens rest rooms now.
but with the OLD images......desperate much?
this has to be the most oddest, confusing movie creation in history at this point.
but with the OLD images......desperate much?
this has to be the most oddest, confusing movie creation in history at this point.
Oh boy this "reaching" has gone to the most epic of levels. The things you find "crazy" or "desperate" is just mind boggling. Maybe just do a bit of research for the bs you post in here mate.
Here you go - these are sold by QMX, a well regarded geeky entertainment company. Maybe you'd like to purchase some since they have nothing to do with the new movie. Thanks!
http://qmxonline.com/products/ghostbusters-tech-poster-set
Here you go - these are sold by QMX, a well regarded geeky entertainment company. Maybe you'd like to purchase some since they have nothing to do with the new movie. Thanks!
http://qmxonline.com/products/ghostbusters-tech-poster-set
karmajay, it makes no sense, as they are using imagery from the 1984 movie, rather than the 2016 movie. If it were a sequel, the nostalgia thing would make more sense -- right along with the rerelease of the original film right before the new one.
That said, I want those posters.
--Jonah
That said, I want those posters.
--Jonah
Last edited by a moderator:
Egon Spengler
Master Member
The future.
- - - Updated - - -
The future.
- - - Updated - - -
The future.
d_osborn
Sr Member
Those posters have been around for a while. Way before the GB16 marketing kicked off. I considered getting a few for my office when they first hit. Some random chain restaurant that plasters pop culture ephemera on the walls slapped them up in a female restroom.
...and I completely agree on the "hater reaching" getting a bit absurd. I have a feeling the meltdown hasn't even begun. :lol
On a more positive note, someone that has confirmed to have seen the finished film kinda/sorta broke embargo and spilled the beans. According to this person, it's a VERY fun movie. Broader humor, but same spirit as the original, lots of charm, lots of great moments, didn't like the one or two fart jokes, more family friendly than they had expected.
It honestly sounds like a completely tonal, modern adaptation of RGB. ...and that, I'm totally cool with.
Last edited:
KrangPrime
Master Member
and even if it was just someone who put up fan posters in a bathroom for some odd reason, most people would think 'it's advertising for the new movie and they are trying to trick people into what it is'.
that would be my first thought too...
d_osborn
Sr Member
A similar local chain restaurant hung up a cool Darth Vader poster a few months before TFA opened. I was never once confused thinking it was marketing the new movie.
It's a bit of an odd thing to complain about.
Solo4114
Master Member
There's a difference between actually complaining about it, and observing that it's a weird move if it's intended as a marketing effort.
As for the Darth Vader poster, that's completely different. Star Wars has been a far more omnipresent brand in popular culture, and at least since the mid 90s or so, Darth Vader has been possibly THE most prominent face of it.
I can see cashing in on the current raised awareness of the franchise as a goal. I can also see the potential for confusion at seeing a lot of "old school" Ghostbusters stuff pop up, and an assumption that it's some attempt to transfer the popularity of the brand from the old edition to the new one. Is it necessarily something I'd think right off the bat? No, not necessarily. But when, as part of the marketing effort, they're re-releasing Hi-C Ecto Cooler, I think it's at least plausible that the marketing team would have also released all manner of random "old school" stuff to promote the new film.
In a way, it makes sense. As I said, you raise awareness of the brand itself, but you do so with the positive associations that people already have with the original material. That way, when they see ANYTHING they might be positively inclined towards, they transfer their enjoyment of the original material onto the new stuff and assume the new stuff will let them feel the same way.
Is that something worth complaining about? In my opinion, yes, but not necessarily in any sense that's specific to Ghostbusters itself. Rather, I would voice my general complaint at the entire reboot/remake culture which seems to be mostly about capitalizing on people's familiarity with and goodwill towards established brands, while providing only the thinnest veneer of content as far as what made those older brands popular.
It's selling New Coke in Coke Classic cans.
d_osborn
Sr Member
...and with that, you've probably put more thought into it than the low-level Red Robin employee that I'm guessing hung the posters on a slow evening without a second thought.
Like I said earlier, these posters were out long before the reboot was a thing. Throwback posters in general aren't new. I don't see how throwback posters are desperate or worth complaining about at all. There's a market for them. When there's not a market for them, then companies won't license and produce them.
Aside from being licensed by Sony and featuring the logo, the reboot has absolutely nothing to do with these posters. Sony didn't hang them in the restroom hallway of a Red Robin. Paul Feig didn't hang them there. Had Sony paid to have the posters hung in Red Robin, it more than likely would have been marketing collateral from the reboot-- not a fun throwback poster.
Maybe I'm just not seeing it.
Solo4114
Master Member
No, I think you're missing my point. (Well, points, plural.)
These specific posters aren't my issue. You say they predate the greenlight for this film, and I take you at your word. Some random employee probably hung them for no particular reason.
My points are:
1. It's reasonable -- if you didn't know the posters predate this film's release/pre-release hype -- to think that their sudden appearance is somehow tied to a marketing effort. That's because the marketing team has already attempted to do just this by hearkening back (repeatedly) to the original film in a variety of ways, so as to generate goodwill for the new film which has nothing to do with the old one aside from the brand, some design schemes, and lifting of similar material from the old film for use in the new one. You'd still be factually wrong, but it's understandable why someone might make the mistake in the first place.
2. It's generally crappy that studios keep relying on branding/marketing to push otherwise lackluster films. Strip the GB brand out of this film, and I'll bet you people wouldn't give it a moment's thought. Same story for the bulk of the reboots/branded properties out there (e.g. GI Joe/Transformers/Ninja Turtles/etc.). I'm tired of reboots in general, and especially reboots that are primarily just marketing campaigns wrapped around a lackluster film.
Similar threads
