Ghostbusters Trailer


Movies

1 to 50 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

GHOSTBUSTERS - Official Trailer (HD)

I'm... cautiously optimistic.


I think this movie is going to suck balls... Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong, but I really doubt it.


i might give this a shot


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've read a lot of not-kind things regarding this trailer today.

Sovereign Court

I'm......completely underwhelmed. I'll wait for bluray.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't judge solely off a trailer. There looks like there will be some nice enough visuals, which I can appreciate. But aside from that... Eh. I'll wait and see. Probably will see it in theaters.

Also, why on earth am I seeing so much absolute hatred for having a all-female cast for the team?

Sovereign Court

Because people are sexist?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mourge40k wrote:

I can't judge solely off a trailer. There looks like there will be some nice enough visuals, which I can appreciate. But aside from that... Eh. I'll wait and see. Probably will see it in theaters.

Also, why on earth am I seeing so much absolute hatred for having a all-female cast for the team?

Hama wrote:
Because people are sexist?

That's likely part of the reason... But it's also because it's a gimmick. They hired an all-female cast not because this group of actresses/comedians is particularly funny or have particularly good chemistry (they aren't, and they don't), but because they wanted an all-female cast.

It's like having a Charlie's Angels movies with an all-male cast... It's not necessarily a bad idea, but if it's done only as gimmick, just to have an all-male cast for the sake of having an all-male cast with no concern for whether or not the actors can actually pull it off, it'll likely be a pretty bad movie with a pointless gimmick.

The original Ghostbusters was amazing because it took 3 great comedians at their apex and put them together. It didn't matter if they were men, women or genderless blobs. They were amazing together! At that point in time, that is... Ghostbusters 2 wasn't nearly as good. And I doubt this one will be any better.

I don't care what gender the characters are... I just don't think any of these actresses are particularly funny or in-synch with each other... I think this movie will suck because its cast is not very funny and its writers have no idea of what made the original Ghostbusters great. The producers just took a famous franchise, hired a mediocre cast, added a pointless gimmick and decided that was good enough.

Personally, I'll wait 'til it's out on blu-ray to watch it (if that). I don't think this movie is worth the price of a movie theater ticket.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you think these 4 comedians in the new film are any less talented than the original cast then you're just wrong.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
If you think these 4 comedians in the new film are any less talented than the original cast then you're just wrong.

Since this is a subjective matter, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Those four ladies are among the least funny comedians and worst actors I have ever seen.

Also the CGI looks horrible, the ghosts are way over saturated and the design justy screams lazy and ignorant.

Ecto-1 was an ambulance, not a hearse for instance.


I think McCarthy is great, and the movie looks entertaining. My beef with it is twofold.

First, they should have one or two of the original actors in it to pass the torch.

Second, and it kind of goes with the first, without that, the trailer makes this movie seem like a total rehash of the first...but with woman instead.

I don't have anything with it being woman...but the rehash...you need SOMETHING NEW AND BETTER than simply saying...same movie as the first but with woman.

It's like Force Awakens...it was basically a New Hope...but with a woman hero instead of Luke.

Of course...people seem to love the rehash...so maybe that's the thing these days.

Just make the new Star Wars film about growing up on a desert planet and then getting secret items via a droid, getting off planet via the millennium falcon and then with Han Solo watching over you, to go blow up the Death Star III.

But the Jedi apprentice is a girl instead of the boy Luke this time. Just like Luke she's still good at being a pilot though.

I guess it worked for Star Wars...and I do think I'll probably end up seeing this new Ghostbusters...so I suppose it might work with it too...doing the same exact story with that ONE gimmick.

But I think it would be a LOT better if they had an original plot with the originals somehow involved with passing the torch.

That rehash seemed to work wonders

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's funny how split the criticism is. There are complaints that it is too similar to the original, while others are complaining it's not similar enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
First, they should have one or two of the original actors in it to pass the torch.

There will be. Ackroyd, Hudson, and Murray are going to be in it, and so will Sigorney Weaver.

Liberty's Edge

Hmm ... I actually don't have a problem with a female cast, as long as the movie is good.
After watching that trailor, my expectations dropped considerably ...

Scarab Sages

Lemmy wrote:

... But it's also because it's a gimmick. They hired an all-female cast not because this group of actresses/comedians is particularly funny or have particularly good chemistry (they aren't, and they don't), but because they wanted an all-female cast.

It's like having a Charlie's Angels movies with an all-male cast... It's not necessarily a bad idea, but if it's done only as gimmick, just to have an all-male cast for the sake of having an all-male cast with no concern for whether or not the actors can actually pull it off, it'll likely be a pretty bad movie with a pointless gimmick.

The original Ghostbusters was amazing because it took 3 great comedians at their apex and put them together. It didn't matter if they were men, women or genderless blobs. They were amazing together! At that point in time, that is... Ghostbusters 2 wasn't nearly as good. And I doubt this one will be any better.

I don't care what gender the characters are... I just don't think any of these actresses are particularly funny or in-synch with each other... I think this movie will suck because its cast is not very funny and its writers have no idea of what made the original Ghostbusters great. The producers just took a famous franchise, hired a mediocre cast, added a pointless gimmick and decided that was good enough.

Personally, I'll wait 'til it's out on blu-ray to watch it (if that). I don't think this movie is worth the price of a movie theater ticket.

This is pretty much me, especially wrt the gimmick part. Therefore, I won't spend the cash or waste what little theater time is available to me to see this on the big screen. I'll wait for it to come out on TV or one of the movie channels.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
It's funny how split the criticism is. There are complaints that it is too similar to the original, while others are complaining it's not similar enough.

It's worth noting that this is not at all contradictory; it's entirely possible to mimic something's weaknesses while copying none of its strengths.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

as always...whether I see it or not depends on the reviews it gets. So far I don't see anything off putting though...It's not giving me any bad feeling vibes the way B vs S: Dawn of Sadness does for instance.

I just hope that we get some...weirder ghosts. That was one of the cooler and more unique aspects of the first movie. The director has implied that is going to happen, but they are saving it for a later trailer/the actual movie

Also the cast seems perfectly fine to me. Given the current of comedic actors we could have gotten way way way worse (see: Pixels)

Sovereign Court

Pixels was kinda fun, to be honest.


Evan Tarlton wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
First, they should have one or two of the original actors in it to pass the torch.
There will be. Ackroyd, Hudson, and Murray are going to be in it, and so will Sigorney Weaver.

Ah, my remarks were based off what I saw in the trailer. If they include the original actors to pass the torch, that should make it somewhat fun.


yeah this is just the first trailer, and I imagine cameos from former cast is something they would save for the movie anyway


To me it says something that I didn't laugh even once during the trailer, Ghostbusters is one of my favorite films and I still laugh at some of the jokes. This one, wasn't funny...not a good sign.


Lemmy wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
If you think these 4 comedians in the new film are any less talented than the original cast then you're just wrong.
Since this is a subjective matter, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Kristen Wig and Melissa McCarthy are objectively funny. They've both anchored successful comedies.

Liberty's Edge

No, they're not. They are so unfunny it is statistically improbable. Dumb luck should allow them to be funnier than they are, but they still manage to be devoid of humor or comedy.

It's impressive, really. I am forced to conclude they are intentionally unfunny as some sort of performance art piece.


McCarthy is hit or miss for me. I love her understated stuff in Mike and Molly for example, but I hated her in The Heat and found her unfunny in Bridesmaids, but I was told that was because of my damned y chromosome obstructing the jokes. I think for me, that she is one of those comedians that needs someone to bounce off of- she's just not that funny by herself.


Oh, just because they are funny doesn't not mean EVERYONE will find them funny, but any objective measure you use, they will fall into the funny category. For example, they keep getting paid to do comedy movies, paid to do stand up, etc.

You're allowed to not like someone, but that doesn't mean they aren't good at their job.

I'm also over people being mad about remakes. That ship sailed a good 20-30 years ago, there have always been remakes, there will always be remakes. Get over it.

Scarab Sages

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Note how they do go so out of their way with the faux-progressive gimmick, yet the black woman is still "the black woman" in all the most cliché obnoxious ways. I can see Uhura facepalming from here.

It's a shame: It's going to be legitimately attacked because it's a hack-job (if not the stars, then the producers/writers/directors), but those attacks will immediately be attributed to sexism by people whose obsession with fighting bigotry has turned them into bigots (or at least paranoid zealots with a categorically illiberal "guilty until proven innocent" mindset - tragically, I know such people are real because I studied under one), and inevitably the real bigots of all varieties will show up (not to worry, Arabs, transsexuals, and next month's Exciting Mystery Guest Scapegoat will all get roped in SOMEHOW), and it's all going to become a proverbial pig-wrestling match.


Watched the trailer and was rather disappointed with it. I wasn't sure if this was simply a redo of the original (which I enjoyed, as well as GB2), or if they were going to acknowledge the original and continue on their own story-line.

Dan Aykroyd is one of the writers on it, so I'm surprised.

It will be interesting to see if those who never saw the original enjoy this. Because for me, based on what I saw, I'll take a pass and wait until it comes onto Netflix.


it's a reboot, although the trailer certainly tries to make it seem like a sequel

But um for the people who hate the cast...what recognizable comedians would you actually cast in a Ghostbuster's reboot? Honestly most of the successful comedy actors in Hollywood I can think don't really lend themselves to projects that don't end up being simply about them. Will Ferrell in Ghostbusters wouldn't be a reboot of the project, it would be a Will Ferrell movie with Ghostbuster nostalgia. Same with Kevin Hart, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogan, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The humor shown in the trailer is definitely a different style than the original Ghostbusters...

"He slimed me."
"Great! Actual physical contact!"

"That stuff got everywhere. Every crack."

***

"I don't think so, Vins."

"THE POWER OF PAIN COMPELLS YOU!"

***

Add to that the Winston's understated, "yeah, whatever, let's do this" has been traded in for a far broader and more superficially stereotypical portrayal, and I'm... nervous.

Insane gearhead pistolera has some amusement value, though- because it's taking the old "Egon-as-mad-scientist" role and cranking it up to 11 in a way the others don't really seem to have done.

It's definitely more cartoonish, and I think aimed at a younger audience than the original Ghostbusters (as distinct from Ghostbusters II, let me hasten to add), and I think that's at the root of some of these things that so disquiet us- Ghostbusters was funny, and it got turned into a children's cartoon, but the first movie in particular really isn't aimed at "the young people." The uniforms were drab, Venkman was a walking pile of sleaze (Bless Bill Murray!), some downright Lovecraftian stuff underpinned the main plot...

This one seems to be "bad guys built a machine, look at our zany and colorful personal gear, and by all means bring your kids."

Shocker of shockers, it's a different movie.
It remains to be seen if it's a movie I'll enjoy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
it's a reboot, although the trailer certainly tries to make it seem like a sequel

This.

I don't like the ambiguity. I want them to straight-up let us know if this is supposed to be a reboot or a sequel.
IN the trailer.
Personally, I want a sequel, but I wouldn't be upset if it isn't. But not being open about that, while outside sources say it's a reboot but also say we may see original actors? No.

Also, what I'm Hiding In Your Closet said. If you want to make it because you love the source material or want to pay homage to it, I'm 100% down for that. If you're just wanting to do a paper-thin token-progressive or PC remake of something while using all the tired old clichés and dead-horse tropes "because it's there"--or, say, because you want to rake in heaps of money from a terrible product (Turtles, I'm looking at you)--then you need to get off my lawn, you kids.

Having said all that, there's been a few movies I expected to be junk, and was happy to be proven wrong. I hope this is one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Note how they do go so out of their way with the faux-progressive gimmick, yet the black woman is still "the black woman" in all the most cliché obnoxious ways. I can see Uhura facepalming from here.

It's a shame: It's going to be legitimately attacked because it's a hack-job (if not the stars, then the producers/writers/directors), but those attacks will immediately be attributed to sexism by people whose obsession with fighting bigotry has turned them into bigots (or at least paranoid zealots with a categorically illiberal "guilty until proven innocent" mindset - tragically, I know such people are real because I studied under one), and inevitably the real bigots of all varieties will show up (not to worry, Arabs, transsexuals, and next month's Exciting Mystery Guest Scapegoat will all get roped in SOMEHOW), and it's all going to become a proverbial pig-wrestling match.

a welcome change to "let's not give him any lines" zeddmore in the original. For some at least. I'll withhold judgement for now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:

...

Dan Aykroyd is one of the writers on it, so I'm surprised.

...

Dan Aykroyd is the Ghostbuster's IP holder, So NO ONE can make a Ghostbusters movie, unless he OKs it.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gods know I thought Star Wars Episode VII was fine - I actually didn't see the "it's Episode IV with a girl for Luke" thing other people have complained about.

The fact that Stormtroopers somehow became people other than clones of Jango Fett confuses me - and I found Finn's giant jaw rather off-putting (a little bit too military-looking, maybe), but looking at other pictures of the actor now, maybe it was just some camera angles (and the Stormtrooper suit pressing on his skeleton, even?).

What I'm sort of surprised by, given what I've come to expect, is the comparative lack of complaints about BB-8. That droid is "Apple product" cute, I must say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If ackroyds writing, it should be damn good.

Scarab Sages

One would certainly hope. That would indicate it's his to pull out of the fire like a phoenix - or hang around his neck like an albatross.

Then again, show business isn't always that simple. I don't know how much creative control that actually guarantees him, and there's a lot of other people involved who could potentially screw it up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like I said in a comment on that page, it looks like they are trying too hard to be funny. They are trying to do the "Look, best in their field!" thing in the trailer, have a sassy stereotype character, try to be funny rather than let it flow naturally so there appears to be no "straight man" character, and the ghosts look like they are out of that old casper movie. Also, good job showing us the big scenes right away instead of be surprised in the film.

The script Ackroyd and Ramis wrote together got thrown out when Ramis died, they lost the director they wanted, and this is a total reboot so the originals never happened. It's like that damn Robocop reboot again. They dumped the returning actors they were gonna get for Ghostbusters 3, like Weaver and Moranis to make another Bridesmaids movie. If I wanted to see another bridesmaids movie (It is the same cast and director) I would watch bridesmaids. I wanted Ghostbusters. When this comes out, I will be watching Ghostbusters 1 and 2 and the animated TV series rather than this load of bunk.

It is clearly a "Shut off your brain and laugh at the absurdity" movie, which I can't stand anymore. it is just the modern comedy format where it is designed for you to laugh at antics and shovel popcorn in your face rather than pay attention to a well built storyline.

Edit: From what I remember reading a while back after Ramis' death, Akroyd okayed it because it was this or nothing. After Ramis died, they took it as a go ahead to make a whole different movie and if Dan said no, it just would not happen. He caved in, plus this was the only way to get Bill Murray to approve of the movie since he refused every other script for the sole reason that nobody wants to see a bunch of old men run around in jump suits.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

For my part, I thought the trailer was a little too "exposition-y."

I would've rather had them take a page out of JJ Abrams' book and go with a more vague trailer.

I may see it, depending on what else is going on at the time. I'll at least hit it up when it gets to Netflix.


Evan Tarlton wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
First, they should have one or two of the original actors in it to pass the torch.
There will be. Ackroyd, Hudson, and Murray are going to be in it, and so will Sigorney Weaver.

They dumped the passing the torch thing when Ramis died. Hudson also bashed the movie about how dumb and bad an idea it is to reboot instead of sequal. I doubt he is in it.

Edit: Just read an interview. Hudson changed his mind on it. I am sad now. The trailer just makes the movie look so bad.


Arturius Fischer wrote:


Also, what I'm Hiding In Your Closet said. If you want to make it because you love the source material or want to pay homage to it, I'm 100% down for that. If you're just wanting to do a paper-thin token-progressive or PC remake of something while using all the tired old clichés and dead-horse tropes "because it's there"--or, say, because you want to rake in heaps of money from a terrible product (Turtles, I'm looking at you)--then you need to get off my lawn, you kids.

The studio (and no movie studio really) invests in a movie out any love of source material, and especially doesn't invest in a movie for any sort of nostalgic value. They invest in a movie for the hope of making bundles of money, and respect towards the source material only really comes through if the director does or if you get a few bright execs who suddenly release that keeping true to the material makes more money.

My hunch is that we are getting an all female cast is due to mostly of the leads having worked with the director in the past. He obviously is comfortable working with them and knows there capability. It's not like the characters in and of themselves have any aspects of their personalities or background that would drastically change if sexes were reversed.


Yup. And they almost always go for the lowest common denominator when it comes to getting an audience. You don't go for people that care about the story and other writing, you go for the people that want to laugh and shove popcorn in their face without thinking. It's just like Michael Bay with his movies being about special effects displays, not story. he even said he makes spectacles, not movies. A cohesive story is not their objective at all.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, how else are hacks going to compete with real artists?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It could just be a poorly done trailer. God knows that happens.

With nothing else to go by for now, I'd pass. Down the road, who knows?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless the acting and dialogue are totally frickin' different in every other scene of the movie, I fear that trailer has showed me enough.

Some of those ghosts were cool, though. Let's just make a movie about them running amok in New York for 2.5 hours. I'd watch that.

Nothing's really wrong with "spectacle, not movie" - provided the spectacle's worth seeing.


A trailer's job is to show what the movie is about and to get people interested in the quality of it. This trailer has failed on that.


Jaçinto wrote:
A trailer's job is to show what the movie is about and to get people interested in the quality of it. This trailer has failed on that.

I'm curious: Are you someone who's seen the original(s), and have some basis of comparison? Or are you simply going off of THIS trailer, with no other knowledge of what Ghostbusters could be?

Like I said, I'd be interested in seeing how people who never saw the first ones feel about it.


Irontruth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
If you think these 4 comedians in the new film are any less talented than the original cast then you're just wrong.
Since this is a subjective matter, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Kristen Wig and Melissa McCarthy are objectively funny. They've both anchored successful comedies.

Successful =/= Funny. Carrot Top is successful. "Grown Ups" was a successful movie... Are you saying they're objectively funny too? And notice that you didn't just say they are funny... You said they're just as funny as the original cast, which is a much bigger statement.

And there is no such such as "objectively funny" since humor is a matter of taste. It's funny for some people... And not funny at all for others... Because it's a subjective matter.

You can go for "they are funny to someone, so they are objectively funny" angle, but at that point, you're just discussing semantics.

Seriously, why can't we just agree to disagree? You go ahead thinking these gals are just as funny as the original cast, and I go ahead thinking they don't come even close. Everyone is happy.


RHMG Animator wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

...

Dan Aykroyd is one of the writers on it, so I'm surprised.

...

Dan Aykroyd is the Ghostbuster's IP holder, So NO ONE can make a Ghostbusters movie, unless he OKs it.

I was surprised that the trailer didn't seem funnier given that Dan Aykroyd - who co-wrote the first one - also wrote this. I think he's brilliant! Which is why I suspect the fault is with the people who edited the trailer rather than the movie itself, but until more is released, there's no way to know.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally think it looks funny, though I do think they could have done a better job with letting us know if it's these four women are like "hey let's be Ghostbusters!" all on their own, or how the torch is passed. Like for example, since Harold Ramis passed away, might we assume that Egon passed away, and so now Peter, Ray, and Zedd have decided to retire?

Also, Zedd wasn't always meant to be the 'token black guy' that they remember is part of the team once in awhile. Rumor is he was written with Eddie Murphy in mind, but when he wasn't interested they opened casting for others. Ernie Hudson was VERY interested in the part and then when he actually showed up, he saw the new script... He was no longer an Ex-Marine introduced on page 2, he was now a guy who just needs a job on page 68.

He still loves his time with the series, but... wonders what would have been if they hadn't severely rewritten his character to be occasionally remembered, "Oh yeah and then there's the black guy, Zeddmore."

Full story here: The painful what-if that haunts 'Ghostbuster' Ernie Hudson written by Hudson himself.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:

I personally think it looks funny, though I do think they could have done a better job with letting us know if it's these four women are like "hey let's be Ghostbusters!" all on their own, or how the torch is passed. Like for example, since Harold Ramis passed away, might we assume that Egon passed away, and so now Peter, Ray, and Zedd have decided to retire?

Also, Zedd wasn't always meant to be the 'token black guy' that they remember is part of the team once in awhile. Rumor is he was written with Eddie Murphy in mind, but when he wasn't interested they opened casting for others. Ernie Hudson was VERY interested in the part and then when he actually showed up, he saw the new script... He was no longer an Ex-Marine introduced on page 2, he was now a guy who just needs a job on page 68.

He still loves his time with the series, but... wonders what would have been if they hadn't severely rewritten his character to be occasionally remembered, "Oh yeah and then there's the black guy, Zeddmore."

Full story here: The painful what-if that haunts 'Ghostbuster' Ernie Hudson written by Hudson himself.

You know, funny thing, Zeddmore was my favorite character. He was so damned pragmatic/stoic about the whole thing. He was a rock against the zany sea. He wasn't a soldier or a scientist, he was just someone looking for a paycheck who stepped up when the time came for stepping up.

1 to 50 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Ghostbusters Trailer All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.