Ghostbusters (2016)

[Zuleikha]

I can't speak for everyone, but I do know that the trailer disappointed me.

I've liked every fan edit of the trailer I've seen better than the original, too. But it's not like people were excited about the movie until the official trailer came out and then the negativity started. People have been complaining ever since an all-female cast was announced, and they've been complaining specifically ABOUT the all-female cast. 

[revbfc]

I've liked every fan edit of the trailer I've seen better than the original, too. But it's not like people were excited about the movie until the official trailer came out and then the negativity started. People have been complaining ever since an all-female cast was announced, and they've been complaining specifically ABOUT the all-female cast.

I was. McCarthy, McKinnon and Jones were all I needed to get excited about this. I love their work, and I'm rooting for this to work. The trailer dampened my enthusiasm.

[AstaCharles]

But what are you disappointed about?

I'm disappointed because I think most reboots or remakes are not very good: Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Psycho, The Omen, The Pink Panther, some Kate Hudson romantic comedy that I recognized as a Debbie Reynolds movie...

And as I mentioned in an earlier post, the ghosts look awful.

When the media announced that it was a reboot, I wrote in another thread that I didn't want that,I want to see a sequel. I want to see female Ghostbusters , I think the actresses are fine. But I rather see Kate McKinnon as new character introduced to the Ghostbusters world. I don't think it's very hard to set up new characters and new locations.

[nobodyyoucare]

There are several very valid reasons people are dissing this reboot.

 

1. Reboots in general are terrible because the movie often being rebooted or remade or what ever you call it was often pretty good or great. So when some tries to remake it they often produce a turd. Now the only time a remake should be done is if the original movie was mediocre, bad or just didn't live up to it's potential. Dredd is way better then Judge Dredd for example of how to do a remake right.

 

2. People who somehow think this is Ghostbusters 3 and wondering where the hell Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd who now sells Vodka in Crystal Skulls, and Ernie Hudson are. 

 

3, People enraged that Ghostbusters 3 will never come out due to this movie since what little revealed seemed awesome. Sure one of them is dead but they could tweak the story and introduce a new team. Introducing a new team was done in the comics, cartoon series, video games.

 

4; People enraged that this movie seems to be pandering to get a female audience to come to the movie. Pandering in general is bad but making it seem like your movie is only done to get one gender to come because otherwise that gender wouldn't go is infuriating to a lot of people. 

[Serena]

Yet people don't act half as infuriated when movies add unnecessary shots of actresses in their underwear to "pander" to male viewers. And when 99% of the movies Hollywood produces are all-male casts with token sexy chick, that's never pandering to men, it's just the way things are.

Doing movies where women can see themselves in the heroes is the only form of "pandering" that elicits outrage.

And "otherwise women wouldn't go" (yes they would, women always go see male-centric blockbuster, aka all blockbusters) is a reason NOT to make a movie? Even if it were true, "Hey, women like seeing women in films, and they're half the world population. Think there's a possibility making a movie they would like could be a good idea?!" Is really a cause for outrage? Like, that tells me so many things.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Serena

[nobodyyoucare]

Yes it is pandering to a female audience. This podcast from two comedians explains how women comics are viewed namely that the unfunny ones have to be in all female avenue to get a female audience. Also that a woman in any comic talent show has to be promoted to the finale not on merits but on the fact that she is female and not having a feamle in the finale would be sexist. So often if very few women comedians come often the only one that gets noticed at the end is the terrible ones.

[Serena]

You keep talking about "pandering to a female audience" like it's a bad thing. Women should be pandered to. Men are, all the time. 

 

I'm sure all the men who get to the finals on talent shows are there purely on merit. It's only the women who get so many more opportunities than men!

[Bruinsfan]

But don't you see, Zuleikha, they're only successful because they've been given passes for being women, since female comedians by definition can't be funny. As we all know, American society is biased in favor of women and poor, oppressed white men can never catch a break—they're overlooked and excluded from positions of prominence and influence based solely on their gender just like they have been since the nation was founded. For examples you need look no further than how legendary comedians like Desi Arnaz and Lyle Waggoner were held back by their unfunny albatross co-stars Lucille Ball and Carol Burnett.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Bruinsfan

[Athena]

Please watch your tone with other posters and keep it civil. Thank you.

[emma675]

 

This New Yorker article on Leslie Jones reveals the "I don't know if this is a race thing" line after being dropped while crowd sufring was ad libbed by her. The original line was "I can't believe you let me fall."

I'll admit to cracking up over that line in the international trailer. I'm still going to see this, but I'll admit my enthusiasm has waned a bit once I saw the first trailer. The CGI looks weird, the ghosts look bad (the ones in the original look better than what I've seen), and I'm not sure about the possession bit. However, I thought the trailers for Spy looked like crap, too, and that movie was fantastic. Maybe Feig is just bad at cutting trailers?

[revbfc]

I'll admit to cracking up over that line in the international trailer. I'm still going to see this, but I'll admit my enthusiasm has waned a bit once I saw the first trailer. The CGI looks weird, the ghosts look bad (the ones in the original look better than what I've seen), and I'm not sure about the possession bit. However, I thought the trailers for Spy looked like crap, too, and that movie was fantastic. Maybe Feig is just bad at cutting trailers?

Maybe just this one. The trailers for the Heat and Spy were pretty funny.

[Ubiquitous]

So, is this going to be Ghostbusters 3 or a remake of the original?

 

Either way, I have no intention of seeing it b/c I hated Ghostbusters 2 (actually, that's when I vowed to never see a sequel again) and if the latter, it will never be as good as the original. It doesn't help that I think Melissa McCarthy is a female Chris Farley, who was a third-rate John Belushi.

 

ETA:

Edited for clarity.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Ubiquitous

[revbfc]

So, is this going to be Ghostbusters 3 or a remake of the original?

Either way, I have no intention of seeing it b/c I hated Ghostbusters 2 (actually, that's when I vowed to never see a sequel again) and if the latter, it will never be as good as the original. It doesn't help that I don't think Melissa McCarthy is a female Chris Farley, who was a third-rate John Belushi.

Despite what the trailer might lead one to believe, it is a full reboot (or that's what all the press I've read says). I don't get why a reboot is needed, when the laziest of effective writing could explain the new crew.

[Margherita Erdman]

According to the individual character posters (complete with mini-bios), Leslie Jones is playing a "municipal historian," which would have her the city expert on buildings, etc., so I'm cool with her not being a scientist if she's an expert in other, just as necessary, things!

I'm just worried that "municipal historian" is what passes for a clever euphemism for street smarts. Although it would be great if she's the one who knows the history and mythology and occult significance of the city architecture.

I think this is a difference in aim as much as anything. They are going for over-the-top here, and the originals were looking to make things that felt as real as they could manage. I personally liked the practical parts of the original effects. Not all of them hold up, but they look better than you'd expect.

If you've got some time to spare the first one is worth seeing. It is very much of the 80s. There are places where the behavior is dated, especially from a particular character toward women. Since he's deliberately written as a borderline creeper, a lot of this comes across as the character as much as the era. There is also a remarkable amount of smoking. However, there is some still-excellent comedy ranging from highbrow to gutter, and moments of real suspense. There are some great one-liners. The final act is absurd and iconic. And if you have an interest in practical and optical effects, the movie is a good touchstone. By the sequel, digital effects were in use (at least that's what I recall from the commentary track).

I grew up with the movie (and cartoon series), and I think a lot of the people complaining did too. Egon is still a nerd icon for me. After the divisiveness of the Star Wars prequels I think people are very prepared to freak out at the possibility of childhood icons being mishandled. I like the idea of an all female main cast, but if the writing is bad there will be a limit to what Melissa McCarthy et al. can do. All I can say at the moment is that the tone looks much more openly campy based on this trailer than the original, where the situation was nuts but the people and the gadgets were grounded. I'll keep an open mind, but I hope that the trailer overemphasizes the amount of slapstick in the final movie. I don't want the characters to behave like fools, and I want the film to be clever as well as funny.

I agree with most of what you're saying here, although I still think an inordinate, appalling amount of the knee-jerk negative reaction was sexism pure & simple, no nuance.

The Ghostbusters movies are a cherished bit of the 80s for me too, a decade which covers tween-teen-college, so, pretty much the nostalgia years. I saw the "original" Star Wars movies when they first arrived in theaters and hate the Star Wars prequels so much I've only seen them on DVD and only to humor my own child. I get it. But I've enjoyed other remakes and reboots without experiencing them as violations of cherished memories.

A really good point you make that's implicit in your post, though — and that I think explains why I was so deflated when I saw the trailer for this movie — is that the heart of Ghostbusters was its earnestness, the dead seriousness with which Harold Ramis spouted his pseudoscientific findings and the team went out to save their city from destruction. It wasn't just one sight gag after another, which is how the trailer reads (funny wigs! And! a visual bukkake joke? really? that right there should keep all of us women away in droves).

On another subject I haven't seen raised — I just wonder how the dramatic climax of the movie works in a post-9/11 world. Seeing Manhattan crushed into dust and skyscrapers fall still doesn't seem like good comedy material.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Margherita Erdman

[Bruinsfan]

And! a visual bukkake joke? really? that right there should keep all of us women away in droves

Er, I took that as another Exorcist send-up, what with the prominent pea soup vomiting from that movie and the figure that did it to Wiig's character being apparently female.

[NumberCruncher]

A really good point you make that's implicit in your post, though — and that I think explains why I was so deflated when I saw the trailer for this movie — is that the heart of Ghostbusters was its earnestness, the dead seriousness with which Harold Ramis spouted his pseudoscientific findings and the team went out to save their city from destruction. It wasn't just one sight gag after another, which is how the trailer reads (funny wigs! And! a visual bukkake joke? really? that right there should keep all of us women away in droves).

Yep. This really is the root of the problem for me. By all means, have a female Ghostbusters team! But don't make it a spoof that comes off as mocking nostalgic characters. What made the original Ghostbusters movie work was that the characters weren't meant to be seen as funny--what made them funny were their reactions to the work they were doing as scientists. The focus on sight gags and forced comedy of this trailer is the big turnoff, IMO.

[Margherita Erdman]

Er, I took that as another Exorcist send-up, what with the prominent pea soup vomiting from that movie and the figure that did it to Wiig's character being apparently female.

I agree that it's not explicit (but it *is*, inarguably, in your face! — sorry, I know that is terrible) (also, now that I had to add the word to my dictionary, so the post wouldn't keep showing up with "box cake" or "pickaxe" instead,I fully expect to have a major autocorrect fail involving "bukkake" in the near future). I'd guess and hope that kids will probably associate that scene more with Nickelodeon's sliming of celebrities even more than with demonic pea soup.

But I rewatched the trailer to figure out exactly why my reaction was what it was, and here's what I saw: the peculiar, particular — viscosity, volume, and velocity of the slime — combined with the angle of the shot, the concentration of the goo on the face, and the gender of that face — followed right away in the trailer at least by Kristin Wiig's comments of unmistakably sexual discomfort — well, that's how it added up to me. YMMV.

And thank you, NumberCruncher, for saying what I was trying to say about overall tone and characterization so much better than I said it.

Another thing I noticed on rewatch of the trailer is that Leslie Jones appears to be a NYC transit worker. So, no secret scientist or other academic there.

[Kromm]

A really good point you make that's implicit in your post, though — and that I think explains why I was so deflated when I saw the trailer for this movie — is that the heart of Ghostbusters was its earnestness, the dead seriousness with which Harold Ramis spouted his pseudoscientific findings and the team went out to save their city from destruction. It wasn't just one sight gag after another, which is how the trailer reads (funny wigs! 

This highlight a "modern" (read: last 15 years or so) trend that's increasingly pissing me off. Leonard Maltin too, if you listen to his podcast. The inability of modern comedy films to hold back the "winks" at the audience. What was originally groundbreaking when we saw rare use of it in films 20-25 years ago started to become a cliche around the turn of the century and has now become near eponymous. I fear this film is going to fall right into that trap. Oh, not with anything as overt as someone turning to and actually physically winking AT the camera, that's not how it's come to be abused usually, but with all kinds of referential references back to the original movie, or random shit in pop culture, or whatever else takes the fancy of the screenwriter, the director, or whichever actor is on screen improvising something. They won't just play the movie as straight (as a straight comedy I mean) but rather as a tribute/homage to the original, and frankly while you need to respect the original, playing too directly into that is probably just going to fuck this up.

[NumberCruncher]

I don't even mind the inclusion of callbacks or pop culture references. Heaven knows that comic book movies are chock full of easter eggs specifically placed there for nostalgia and/or recognition purposes and I love them. The problem is that modern comedies are too in your face in attempts to be funny. Somewhere along the way kitsch and OTT outrageousness became the new funny...and most of it just isn't. That's where I fear this new Ghostbusters is headed based upon what you see in the trailers. Do we really need a Ghostbusters version of every Judd Apatow/Paul Feig gross-out, slapstick comedy ever made?

[nobodyyoucare]

The thing is references are not jokes. Easter eggs are just fan service that is blink and you miss it however the movie etc could do without it but having it in makes fans interested in looking for it while a non fan wouldn't know what they were seeing.

[Ms Blue Jay]

4; People enraged that this movie seems to be pandering to get a female audience to come to the movie. Pandering in general is bad but making it seem like your movie is only done to get one gender to come because otherwise that gender wouldn't go is infuriating to a lot of people. 

 

Most movie trailers I see "make it seem like" they only want guys, actually only a certain type of guy, to want to see their movie.  

 

Any time I hear this type of argument against this Ghostbusters remake, all I can hear is "This movie wasn't made for me, and I'm upset."  I heard it about the Sex and the City movies.  I heard it about the Twilight movies.  I hear it about the 50 Shades of Grey movies.  

 

If movies marketed to women/ about women/ starring women only made 5% of the total American films released in a year, there would still be complaining that it's pandering or way too much.  IMO

 

I love a lot of movies personally, and if 20 years from now, they are remade, I will still be able to watch my favourite movies and no one will ever able to take them from me.  That's why I don't get the anger about the remake.  I'm still able to love the John Travolta/Olivia Newton John Grease movie even though it was remade as a live television show with a bunch of High School Musical kids.  

Edited April 13, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[reggiejax]

I tell you this much, if I never see Kate McKinnon lick the barrel of her proton shooter (or whatever the hell you call it) again, it will be too damn soon. First, that is gross as hell, and considering what shoots out of it, incredibly dangerous to her health. But seriously, why does she do that? There is certainly no practical purpose to it. Does she think it looks cool? I cannot be the only one who finds that offputting.

[Bruinsfan]

If the technology is anything like what was used in the first movie, I'd be with the people quietly edging away from the activated proton pack so as to be as far from the radiation source as possible.

[Ubiquitous]

This highlight a "modern" (read: last 15 years or so) trend that's increasingly pissing me off. Leonard Maltin too, if you listen to his podcast. The inability of modern comedy films to hold back the "winks" at the audience. What was originally groundbreaking when we saw rare use of it in films 20-25 years ago started to become a cliche around the turn of the century and has now become near eponymous.

Did you mean "ubiquitous"? Eponymous doesn't make sense.

[JessePinkman]

I was so hoping you'd created that username just for that reply.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Paul Feig sent out a statement about a New York Daily News article he was recently featured in:

A writer-comedian named Melinda Taub wrote this for Funny or Die

[Margherita Erdman]

11 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Paul Feig sent out a statement about a New York Daily News article he was recently featured in:

A writer-comedian named Melinda Taub wrote this for Funny or Die

Paul Feig seems thoughtful and well-intentioned, as well as appropriately tuned-in to the straight-up sexism of the hate directed at the casting alone, before anything else was known about the movie's plot or tone or faithfulness to the original in any other way. But he still seems clueless about any other reasons that Ghostbusters fans (of all genders, ages,ideologies) might find the trailers or buzz out of sync with the spirit (pun unintended but hey, it works) of the franchise.

As for Melinda Taub's script that you posted from Funny or Die (did it get produced as an actual skit)? I vote "Die."  Proof that humorless sexist nastiness is not solely the domain of men. Sometimes so women can gain entrance to the boys' club of traditional comedy, sometimes, well, who knows.

My son and his friends love the original Ghostbusters (first saw it when he was around 9-10), and despite the skeevy chauvinism of the Bill Murray character and the marginalized role of the incomparable Ernie Hudson, it really holds up. I also think that the classy, badass performance of Sigourney Weaver is stronger than the caricature embodied by Bill Murray — her acid contempt for his bad behavior is clear, and it is not a "bro" type movie as the other Ghostbusters all are focused exclusively on the task at hand. There's just so much that works about that movie, that I think we may have to view this remake as a different animal entirely — almost like an extended SNL parody skit.

[nobodyyoucare]

Quote

other reasons that Ghostbusters fans (of all genders, ages,ideologies) might find the trailers or buzz out of sync with the spirit (pun unintended but hey, it works) of the franchise

Much like the  Fantastic Four reboot the changing of the character was a huge red flag that the movie will suck. Namely because a gender or race change from the established property is a huge sign the director, producer, writer, studio is doing something majorly wrong. This tends to be borne out through the awful remakes Hollywood and other outlets have done through the years. The only time such changes work is if they are done as parody but a good or great parody and it is known from the start it is parody, a what if or alternate take and it is explained as such but it has to be good or great.

I think this all female ghostbusters is going to suck and not in the way that is enjoyable.

[Margherita Erdman]

1 hour ago, nobodyyoucare said:

Namely because a gender or race change from the established property is a huge sign the director, producer, writer, studio is doing something majorly wrong...I think this all female ghostbusters is going to suck and not in the way that is enjoyable.

I see it very differently actually. It reminds me of the debate that raged for months and pages upon pages at TWoP of often unpleasant and disrespectful posts when Lucy Liu was cast as Watson in Elementary, long before an episode ever aired. Her gender and ethnicity alone were the triggers for most of the outrage, claims of betrayal of Doyle canon, blah blah. And now it's considered a pretty tame Sherlock adaptation, maybe a bit smarter than the usual CBS procedural... Arthur Conan Doyle never did rise from his grave in protest.

Unorthodox or unexpected casting isn't the issue, in my view — in fact it can be vital to modernizing something that's gone horribly out of touch with modern cultural realities — but in the end, it's got to be about good storytelling, talented actors, and remaining true to the essence of the original story, myth, tradition, or franchise. And while we are speculating here that the new Ghostbusters looks pretty bad, I refuse to dismiss it on the basis of an all-female team.

Some of the best Shakespeare productions I've seen have been those with non-traditional or downright surprising casting and set design. Hard for anything like it to be shocking now, but I remember a Midsummer Night's Dream in the 1980's in which all the men's parts were played by women and vice versa. Not a few audience members were scandalized, despite the fact that in Shakespeare's time all parts, including the Queen of the Fairies, would have been played by men anyway.

[STOPSHOUTING]

We saw the trailer before Captain America: Civil War and as someone with a great fondness for the original, and a lot of respect for the cast here, I was seriously disappointed. My first thought was, 'Wow, that looks terrible,' while feeling sad about that, because I really wanted it to work. 

The fan cut trailer was WAAAAY better but, and it's a big but, only because they cut almost everything out, which, while working well to help an audience be more excited about seeing it, does nothing for actually, you know, making the movie itself any good.

The international trailer linked here wasn't really any better -- the jokes shared still fell just as flat as Leslie Jones crowdsurfing attempt -- but I was intrigued by the fact that they left Hemsworth speak in his actual accent. Is that a movie first for him?

Of course, the fact I was fixated on Thor's voice probably doesn't bode any better for the actual movie, which I really, really wanted to be good but really looks like a major stinker. Is that Hemsworth's non-Avengers fate? To be cast either in underperforming Howard films, or have glorified cameos where he's the best thing in bad comedy remakes (Vacation, etc.)?

[Kromm]

I think we're in for a super-big shitstorm when this comes out. The fact that there were some knee-jerk (and yes, misogynistic) reactions when it was announced is sitting in the belly of a lot of people, and I think it's going to rebound hard in the other direction, where people may want to criticize it and are gun shy (or are slammed and screamed at as also being misogynists if they do). There are strong rumors floating around from people who have seen scripts, at the very least, that it doesn't seem very good from that perspective either, and I've read/heard at least two accounts of people who claim to know Sony insiders who aren't very enthusiastic about it. 

And all of the misogyny charges (again, many real) avoid the very real issue that we're probably hitting Remake/Reboot exhaustion. I think there's a kickback going on somewhat against remakes (especially pointless ones where the original had nothing wrong with it). 

The "good news" for the movie, although perhaps not for us, is that this doesn't really seem to be a strong summer competitionwise. The bad news is that one of the few heavyweight competitors, Star Trek Beyond, opens the week after Ghostbusters (although that's another case where there's a lot of dread--the trailers looked nightmarishly bad). 

[STOPSHOUTING]

11 minutes ago, Kromm said:

The bad news is that one of the few heavyweight competitors, Star Trek Beyond, opens the week after Ghostbusters (although that's another case where there's a lot of dread--the trailers looked nightmarishly bad). 

I haven't seen the new Star Trek trailer but, if accurate, what a bummer! The initial Star Trek reboot, not reMAKE, was amazing and, hey, something else Hemsworth, albeit appearing only briefly, was good in besides Thor. 

Maybe the rule shouldn't be no reboots/remakes unless helmed by J.J. Abrams. :)

To take it back on topic, I am sort of wishing they'd done a reboot, a la Force Awakens or the '09 Star Trek, than just remaking the original with women. I mean, I'm not upset about the recasting the male roles with female part, and actually think it could be a good twist, but I'd rather they ALSO reexamine and twist the world more than they appear to be doing. I don't need a new marshmallow man, or woman -- "this time with s'mores!" -- I'd prefer a whole new take on the silly Ghostbusters universe that references and honors the original, without aping it.

Edited May 12, 2016 by STOPSHOUTING

[Kromm]

35 minutes ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

I haven't seen the new Star Trek trailer but, if accurate, what a bummer! The initial Star Trek reboot, not reMAKE, was amazing and, hey, something else Hemsworth, albeit appearing only briefly, was good in besides Thor. 

Maybe the rule shouldn't be no reboots/remakes unless helmed by J.J. Abrams. :)

To take it back on topic, I am sort of wishing they'd done a reboot, a la Force Awakens or the '09 Star Trek, than just remaking the original with women. I mean, I'm not upset about the recasting the male roles with female part, and actually think it could be a good twist, but I'd rather they ALSO reexamine and twist the world more than they appear to be doing. I don't need a new marshmallow man, or woman -- "this time with s'mores!" -- I'd prefer a whole new take on the silly Ghostbusters universe that references and honors the original, without aping it.

You may not take my word for it if I reveal that I thought the Star Trek reboot was pretty bad. I will never, ever get over the stupid unnecessary conceit of Kirk jumping from a Cadet to a Captain, thought the take on Spock and Uhura was just silly (because of what a total personality reboot it required for Spock), and thought it all way too frenetic.  The one thing I loved was the design (best bridge design ever), and I will say that I actually legitimately like the second reboot movie, because while it still had flaws, I think it at least didn't repeat a lot of the mistakes from the first one.

The new Trek was directed by a guy who did a bunch of the Fast & Furious movies, and again I have to reveal a prejudice in saying I tend to hate those--or at the very least feel they are the antithesis of what Star Trek should be (intellectual, with action only there to back up ideas). Go to the Star Trek Beyond thread here and the trailer is posted there.

Getting back to Ghostbusters, I just don't see how this is going to go down well, unless somehow magically ALL of the pre-release buzz is straight misogyny (unlikely), and I think the very debate over who's being misogynistic and when are going to really fuck with the chances of future female led franchises. Why? Because avoidance is the default mode of dealing with conflict for the studios. If there's a no win debate over female led films, they'll just start quietly not accepting them to avoid getting into messes where if they fail it sets off a publicity bomb. 

[NumberCruncher]

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

Getting back to Ghostbusters, I just don't see how this is going to go down well, unless somehow magically ALL of the pre-release buzz is straight misogyny (unlikely), and I think the very debate over who's being misogynistic and when are going to really fuck with the chances of future female led franchises. Why? Because avoidance is the default mode of dealing with conflict for the studios. If there's a no win debate over female led films, they'll just start quietly not accepting them to avoid getting into messes where if they fail it sets off a publicity bomb. 

I think you are right re: how this may impact how studios feel about female-led franchises.  Oh how I really wish they would have picked another vehicle to showcase a female-led team than Ghostbusters.  I feel like forcing a reboot is where they got them in trouble.  Most people I know were upset that they were rebooting a franchise that just didn't need it, not the fact that they were replacing a male cast with a female one.  Unfortunately those voices got drown out in a chorus of misogyny and that has diverted the conversation from what I consider to be the real issue--Hollywood's utter lack of originality.

[Kromm]

31 minutes ago, NumberCruncher said:

I think you are right re: how this may impact how studios feel about female-led franchises.  Oh how I really wish they would have picked another vehicle to showcase a female-led team than Ghostbusters.  I feel like forcing a reboot is where they got them in trouble.  Most people I know were upset that they were rebooting a franchise that just didn't need it, not the fact that they were replacing a male cast with a female one.  Unfortunately those voices got drown out in a chorus of misogyny and that has diverted the conversation from what I consider to be the real issue--Hollywood's utter lack of originality.

Even a half measure might have been okay...making it a genuine continuation vs. a reboot. That's still sucking at the teat of nostalgia, and still likely to engender some feeling of remake fatigue/kickback, but there would have been less clear fury aimed at how pointless it seems to tell the same story over again, but with all kind of crass modern touches. 

Honestly, they've fucked this up bigtime. It's going to be impossible to separate out the rampant misogyny from the genuine loathing for a retread--especially if it's forced and inferior--and yes, it's going to burn female led franchise films bigtime (vs. female led sex comedies, which seem to resonate on a different level). 

The big thing to cross fingers for is Wonder Woman. If it does well, some of that female-led problem may be demolished. Almost miraculously, out of the ashes of a Batman v. Superman film that's widely hated with a passion, the ONE piece people are enthusiastic about was Wonder Woman.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Kromm

[Zuleikha]

I agree it was a mistake to make this a reboot instead of a continuation. Maybe after the movie comes out, we'll understand that choice but for now, it seems poor.

I don't know if this will burn female-led franchise films, but it shouldn't. If it does, it will be because of studio closed mindedness more than any legitimate reason. The Hunger Games, Underworld, and Resident Evil are all proof that female-led franchises can make money (and the latter two are mediocre). Bridesmaids and Pitch Perfect show that female-led comedies do fine. We are past the point where studios should be looking at a single movie as an indicator of the possibilities for female-led movies. Many male-led movies flop.

[bmoore4026]

God, some people are reacting to the new trailer like Bill Cosby and Gary Glitter teamed up to make a movie about their controversies and paint themselves as the victims and all the ladies and little kids as eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil villains.

The original is still going to considered a classic and a gut feeling tells me that this movie is going to be the big bomb of 2016.  Just a hunch.

[JTMacc99]

On 3/26/2016 at 6:46 AM, nobodyyoucare said:

3, People enraged that Ghostbusters 3 will never come out due to this movie since what little revealed seemed awesome. Sure one of them is dead but they could tweak the story and introduce a new team. Introducing a new team was done in the comics, cartoon series, video games.

 

The unfortunate fault in that logic is that Harold Ramis wasn't a character. Harold Ramis was the main source of the sense of humor in the script. You can remove the character, but you can't remove the main guy who made it awesome and expect the next one to still be awesome.

Edited May 18, 2016 by JTMacc99

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, bmoore4026 said:

God, some people are reacting to the new trailer like Bill Cosby and Gary Glitter teamed up to make a movie about their controversies and paint themselves as the victims and all the ladies and little kids as eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil villains.

The original is still going to considered a classic and a gut feeling tells me that this movie is going to be the big bomb of 2016.  Just a hunch.

I still say we should wait and save judgement for the actual film to come out.

And why do I get the feeling that nobody would be this butt-sore about the movie if the all-female cast were younger "hotter" actresses?

Honestly, after all this crap, I think I'm going as a Ghostbuster for this Halloween just to spite the sexist fanboys.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Spartan Girl

[Kromm]

55 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

I still say we should wait and save judgement for the actual film to come out.

And why do I get the feeling that nobody would be this butt-sore about the movie if the all-female cast were younger "hotter" actresses?

Honestly, after all this crap, I think I'm going as a Ghostbuster for this Halloween just to spite the sexist fanboys.

Okay, it also sounds like just because some clear sexism/misogyny was involved in the initial overreactions to the female cast, that you're now in a headspace where you've hardened your own position to assume that's the only reason for any criticism. Are the reactions likely even worse for those reasons? Yes. But I believe there are people out there who saw the script who claim it was truly godawful, and frankly that trailer wasn't great either. Could the script rumors be untrue and the trailer misleading?  Sure. But I don't think "hotter" actresses would have saved this if it really is a turkey. At best what would have happened is a lot of objectification of them, with some "at least there's eye candy" approach to dismissing the film.

The film could surprise us all, that's true. We shall see. I don't think the critics will fall prey to dismissing it though simply because it's female led. That would be the opening day geeks not showing up, if that happens.

It doesn't help that it's only got a week on it's own until Star Trek Beyond comes out.  It's likely to lose it's #1 spot no matter what.

[Kromm]

I DO think the newer trailer is better than the first one, by the way.

 

Of course one fear is that we could have just seen every good effect and funny line in the movie. Also, I'm really iffy on them using the Ray Parker Jr. music. I wish they'd gotten a new song.

Then again we have Slimer and Marshmallow Man pretty much intact, so why am I surprised the music is unchanged?

 

Oh, and you can really see that they decided to give away ENTIRELY too much in that trailer. I mean you can basically puzzle out the entire movie front to back from that. Hollywood does that anyway, but I think they felt even more pressure here to battle the bad reactions to the first trailer. 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Kromm

[VCRTracking]

I thought the second trailer was better too.

The reactions to it on YouTube though have been over the top negative that I can't help but think sexism I was not a big reason for that much hate. It's like turning over a rock and seeing maggots. I was not aware this level of misogny existed in Ghostbusters fandom at least.

[JTMacc99]

At least Kate McKinnon said something in the second one.

[Spartan Girl]

4 hours ago, Kromm said:

Okay, it also sounds like just because some clear sexism/misogyny was involved in the initial overreactions to the female cast, that you're now in a headspace where you've hardened your own position to assume that's the only reason for any criticism. Are the reactions likely even worse for those reasons? Yes. But I believe there are people out there who saw the script who claim it was truly godawful, and frankly that trailer wasn't great either. Could the script rumors be untrue and the trailer misleading?  Sure. But I don't think "hotter" actresses would have saved this if it really is a turkey. At best what would have happened is a lot of objectification of them, with some "at least there's eye candy" approach to dismissing the film.

The film could surprise us all, that's true. We shall see. I don't think the critics will fall prey to dismissing it though simply because it's female led. That would be the opening day geeks not showing up, if that happens.

It doesn't help that it's only got a week on it's own until Star Trek Beyond comes out.  It's likely to lose it's #1 spot no matter what.

I can see your point. It's just hard not to be bitter and angry because some of those sexist trolls have been vile. And I'm afraid that *if* the movie does turn out badly, those jerks are going to use it to justify their stance that "women ruin everything". 

But like you said, we shall see. And I like the new trailer too.

[Kromm]

4 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I thought the second trailer was better too.

The reactions to it on YouTube though have been over the top negative that I can't help but think sexism I was not a big reason for that much hate. It's like turning over a rock and seeing maggots. I was not aware this level of misogny existed in Ghostbusters fandom at least.

Well my take is indeed "better", but "better" isn't saying it's super-great either. It's okay. If, as I said, we just heard all of the good jokes, and saw all of the good effects, and if I'm being honest, just found out pretty much every wrinkle of the plot (so there's no surprise left--I mean did they HAVE to show us what happens with the male assistant? No, they did NOT), well... that means we might be getting a 2 hour movie where a  two minute trailer almost accomplished the same thing. Hmm. What didn't we see? The cameos I guess. I mean we know Ackroyd, Murray, Weaver, Hudson and Potts are all in this. If that's what they're counting on being left for the audience? Well I guess that might be enough for some people. 

Leslie Jones is clearly the MVP of what we have seen. I'm not surprised.

[JessePinkman]

The CGI vomit in that trailer reminds me of The Haunted Mansion movie with Eddie Murphy. Or Casper. Or that Michael J. Fox ghost movie. Except a shit ton more neon. Gross.

[VCRTracking]

Speaking of gross:

Patton Oswalt’s Defense Of The New ‘Ghostbusters’ Movie Turns Ugly When Twitter Trolls Take Aim At His Deceased Wife

[Spartan Girl]

7 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Speaking of gross:

Patton Oswalt’s Defense Of The New ‘Ghostbusters’ Movie Turns Ugly When Twitter Trolls Take Aim At His Deceased Wife

Fuck the trolls.  Seriously.  

[Princess Sparkle]

Ms. Blue Jay posted this Atlantic article in the gender thread, but it deserves a repost in here as well: The Sexist Outcry Against the Ghostbusters Remake Gets Louder

[ihavenoidea]

I agree with everyone this doesn't look that good, it's probably telling that the one who makes me laugh the most is the one who doesn't say anything, but her expressions amuse me.

That being said I can't be the only one who finds the original movies mediocre either am I?