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

I never considered Winston a "street wise black guy". He was an unemployed Blue collared guy looking for work. "If there's a steady paycheck involved I'll believe anything you say." - who doesn't that line resonate with? He was the audiences POV.

This new character is a Stereotype , I'm surprised they didn't throw in a "nah he din'it"

Very true, a poor choice of words on my part, Winston was just a guy looking for a job who got a little more than he bargained for.
 
Actually, Winston was earning his PHD. In the video game (which is cannon) he mentions it... just a bit of trivia.

As for the new GB trailer; it looks God awful. Crappy CGI, hate the cast and not one chuckle.

Sent from my SD4930UR using Tapatalk
 
I've had to wait all day to post in here. i see allot of hate for the movie and its understandable. will i go see it, yes. will i see it opening night, NO. probably 5 dollar tuesday couple weeks later. and the only reason i want to go see it is because of the fire house(s) thats what surprised me the most, i didnt know they filmed inside the old station! i haven't really paid much attention in this thread because I wasn't a fan of the reboot from the beginning. but seeing they brought the station back i wonder if there will be any easter eggs with original proton pack parts or stuff hidden...

after seeing the trailer theres so many cool things, that isn't even really part of the movie plot... like the spray painted no ghost in the subway, thats freak'n awesome! I'm not a fan of the packs, though i LOVED hearing the original "heat'm up" sound. the little proton hand guns... what the hell... the bear trap ghost trap... yuck.. and i can't believe i saw a proton powered nintendo power glove punching a ghost in the face.....to be honest and i know I'm gonna get flammed but the ecto1 isn't that bad to me anymore... wish it wasn't so red... i thought the music was pretty good. hearing it at the beginning of the trailer got me all psyched up!!

whats up with the ghosts? I'm hoping they all look like crap because they rushed to put out the trailer.. otherwise what the heck? seeing slimer was cool... i talked to my sister on the phone tonight, she's couple years younger then me and grew up with the ghostbusters franchise in my house.. she was never really a big fan of the movies, but always watched them with me. i talked to her and she loved it! and i think this was feigs goal, to touch on the girl base.

i hope to god the beginning is just for the trailer and it doesn't link the original crew to this movie... otherwise I'm going to be picketing outside the theaters right because my boy Neilt
 
I'm a fan of Wiig and harboured a mild interest in how this thing would turn out.
Just feels so benign...
The overly saturated neon ghosts are jarring along with the lack of sparkle, depth and subtlety of humour present in the original.
If the trailer is showing the supposed comedic high points of the film then I think it is in trouble.
 
i hope to god the beginning is just for the trailer and it doesn't link the original crew to this movie... otherwise I'm going to be picketing outside the theaters right because my boy Neilt

Nobody really seems to know, Are they referencing 30 years in our time,30 years in the movies universe timeline.. they've said it's a sequel, but then it's not a sequel it's a reboot, then they release this trailer making it seem like it's linked. Murray is credits in the IMDB for the movie, though nobody knows to what extent though. It's confusing.
 
That looked horrible, and seems to confirm all the stuff we heard coming off the set about how much of a train-wreck it is. The idea seemed good when I first heard about it, but this... this isn't what we wanted.
 
Nobody really seems to know, Are they referencing 30 years in our time,30 years in the movies universe timeline.. they've said it's a sequel, but then it's not a sequel it's a reboot, then they release this trailer making it seem like it's linked. Murray is credits in the IMDB for the movie, though nobody knows to what extent though. It's confusing.

From what Feig said in this article the 30 years thing was all sony marketing.

They also go over a few of the trailer shots here also.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/3/11...view-paul-feig-katie-dippold-trailer-analysis
 
I thought this movie was going to be bad, mostly because it was a reboot and not a spin-off, and because it's a Paul Feig movie. But this trailer shattered my expectations. This looks FAAAAAAAR worse than I had dared imagine. The ghosts look like the ******* offspring of an ecstasy rave and Disneyland's Haunted Mansion ride. Oh, and I also "loved" how the trailer gave us individual character bios using actual dialogue from the movie. Good lord, why don't they just throw in an "as you already know" while they were at it? Oh, well. While this is in the theaters, I'm going to stay home and re-watch episodes of Legend of Korra.
film discussion only, no social commentary please!
Is that even possible at this point?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hah, who else noticed the Twinkie in the trailer ? :D

I am kind of warming up to the movie, because, I really, really, really liked to see the

HAH, GOTCHA!!! No, still think it´s a turd :p

I am really curious to see how our community is going to treat cosplayers, costume makers and prop builders when they start posting about their replicas from that movie.
 
why does it look so clean and artificial?? it must the digital cameras they use these days.
The CGI ghosts look way to sharp and clean.

Compared with the 1984 and 1989 originals, those originals actually look much better despite them using inferior technology.
 
Just from an observational perspective it will be very interesting to see how this performs at the box office There is ALOT of competition this year and whilst "Bridesmaids" was an unexpected hit I think this " Bridesmaids 2" crossover is probably going to get a lot of flack, sadly because it looks tragically unfunny rather than anything else. It totally failed to get a smile out of me, whilst I simply could not wait for the next part of the "Deadpool" campaign for the all the laughs that provided. The gross out humour does seemed rather juvenile and unsophisticated ,as did nearly all of the lines, but the effects seemed an OK upgrade, if rather gaudy. I'm rather fond of Kirsten as an actress and I did enjoy "Bridesmaids" on TV, but was surprised at just how crude it got at times but as an "experiment" in just how wrong a studio could get in this internet age of ignoring a films fan base ,this could be the ultimate smackdown.
 
From what Feig said in this article the 30 years thing was all sony marketing.

They also go over a few of the trailer shots here also.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/3/11...view-paul-feig-katie-dippold-trailer-analysis

AND he CONFIRMS AGAIN that its a complete reboot. This makes me really angry. Especially the part about how and what and how much of the old gags they want to bring back? The comparison between the library and that new set with the ghost lady, it makes the movie not only look like it started out as a reboot but as if they tried to do a "simple" remake! Damn, I am SO angry right now ...
 
Not so much as a courtesy flush with that turd of a trailer...how rude.

WTF with the gun lick?! Really??? I can just hear Feig, "Let's give em' a nerd gasm...go ahead, lick 'em!!" :facepalm

-Rylo

it's also become a meme. for some reason some people find it...sexy?....like mily cirus ?

ugh.. It's like feig left in an outake and said 'that's good, lets go with it!'


>>>"Ghosts are the spirits of dead people. Technically, if they exist.">>>
Brilliant Paul Fig NEwton. short, but pointless.
 
It seems like some of us hate it because we want to hate it.

That said... For those that thought TFA was a rehash of the original? Yeah, check this one out!

I think I'll probably see it anyway, but a matinee or discount showing. Maybe it's best to go in with low expectations.
 
My wife saw the trailer and thought it looked fun. Then I explained to her that it was a reboot/remake. She said "No it isn't. There's the thing at the beginning..." until I explained that that was just marketing, and it's absolutely a remake. She still wants to see it, but she definitely was bummed by the fact that it has nothing to do with the originals.

I told her I'd watch it on Netflix with her, but I'm not paying to sit in a theater for it.
 
Even the name is disrespectful. "GHOSTBUSTERS" is the name of the 1984 film!

"I mean they're just pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain."

why does it look so clean and artificial?? it must the digital cameras they use these days.
The CGI ghosts look way to sharp and clean.

Compared with the 1984 and 1989 originals, those originals actually look much better despite them using inferior technology.

In case you weren't aware of it. CGI is just like the tools they used to make the originals: tools! You still need to know how and when to use it. Like a piece of rock and a hammer, if the guy who's holding the hammer knows how to use it, you can get something like Michelangelo's David. Or if the person has no idea, you just get a bunch of cracks and smaller rocks, a general mess of things. :p

The originals were made by talented folks :D
 
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top