Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
LastLast
  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Skizzit View Post
    Or hey, maybe I just made a simple mistake and when I searched online I ran into a number of articles that also said it was Murray's voice at the end so I didn't bother to rewatch the trailer. Not to mention that just today action figures for the movie were previewed with one being a grey haired Murray in a ghostbusters uniform.

    Nah. I must be a dumb, confused troll.
    OK, apologies.

    I saw the neon sign saying "Occult Books" (as in Ray's Occult Books) on the window and knew it was Aykroyd before he even spoke, but even then recognized the voice.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    To me, Kate McKinnon was the only one that came close to fitting in with the old crew.
    I thought McKinnon was the most un-funny of the whole thing. Just contrived all the way through the whole thing, tried too hard.

    ======

    Ultimately... you know the 2016 movie sucked when the absolute BEST parts of it were the ones that featured the original Ghostbusters.

    Also - anyone notice that this trailer is almost beat-for-beat a copy of the Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer? The similarities are eerie.
    Last edited by Leadsop; 2021-07-28 at 06:10 PM.
    Leadsop - Beast Mastery Hunter
    <The Godz of War> Sargeras - US

    Leadsoprano - Gunnery Trooper
    Leadmello - Kinetic Combat Jedi Shadow
    <Severity Gaming> Prophecy of the Five - US

  2. #222
    I don't really care about drawing comparisons to the 2016 one.

    This looks proper good and like an actual Ghostbusters film.

  3. #223
    I'm just happy the damn ghosts aren't fucking neon lights.
    Last edited by Ausr; 2021-07-29 at 09:45 PM.
    Just don't reply to me. Please. If you can help it.

  4. #224
    I like Ghostbusters. I like Paul Rudd. I like Finn. I just don’t think I’m going to like this. The tone just seems off. Ghostbusters is light hearted and fun throughout, where the original trailer for this new movie seems to have the seriousness of a try-hard teen movie with a very small few attempts at light hearted comedy.
    The jokes fall flat (“maybe it’s the apocalypse”) while the Stay Puft scene looks like it’s trying too hard to be funny. The problem is that without context it’s just a feeling of “okay, banking on nostalgia. Where’s the comedy?”
    Just as an example for comparisons on tone:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6hDkhw5Wkas

    That all said, I really do like the franchise, as well as the cast members I know (looking up the cast members it looks like most of the original cast will have a scene), and hope this does well; but, the trailer doesn’t make me hopeful. Maybe I’m being too hard on it due to my love of the original 2 movies, but won’t know until I actually get to see this new one when released.

  5. #225
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Essex, England
    Posts
    11,177
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    I like Ghostbusters. I like Paul Rudd. I like Finn. I just don’t think I’m going to like this. The tone just seems off. Ghostbusters is light hearted and fun throughout, where the original trailer for this new movie seems to have the seriousness of a try-hard teen movie with a very small few attempts at light hearted comedy.
    The jokes fall flat (“maybe it’s the apocalypse”) while the Stay Puft scene looks like it’s trying too hard to be funny. The problem is that without context it’s just a feeling of “okay, banking on nostalgia. Where’s the comedy?”
    Just as an example for comparisons on tone:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6hDkhw5Wkas

    That all said, I really do like the franchise, as well as the cast members I know (looking up the cast members it looks like most of the original cast will have a scene), and hope this does well; but, the trailer doesn’t make me hopeful. Maybe I’m being too hard on it due to my love of the original 2 movies, but won’t know until I actually get to see this new one when released.
    The first ghostbusters was a stroke of lightening in a bottle, the second movie was a dumbed down kid friendly version that tried to retread the first one and the 2016 movie went with the second movie's more goofy tone and dialed it up to 11 on the goofy side... Outside of the cartoon shows the movies havent been as great.

    This movie looks pretty good, but seems to be played more straight and I hope thats just the trailer. Paul Rudd I am hoping will provide that comedy levee thats missing, but the movie lends itself to a more Goonies vibe more than anything.

    And if the movie wanted to go in a different direction that's fine. I mean they retried that with a reboot but the reboot was over capturing on the comedy. The problem with both the second and the reboot ghostbusters movies was they tried to recapturethe magic of ghostbusters or what they thought it was, maybe its best to try and separate itself from the original go balls out in a different direction. But yes I do agree there maybe needs to be a more light-hearted take, maybe that's just the trailer. Who knows..

    Come to think of it I would love to see a ghostbusters live action TV show based on the recent IDW comics... where Ghostbusters is this international thing :P
    Last edited by Orby; 2021-07-29 at 03:38 PM.
    Proof is boring. Proof is tiresome. Proof is irrelevance. People would rather be handed an easy lie than search for a difficult truth, especially when it suits their own purpose.
    - Glokta
    The Last Argument of Kings, The First Law Trilogy.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    You realize there is ample opportunity in a film to have "scenes of pointless improv" without ever seeing a hint of it in the trailer, right?
    At least you can't tell by the trailer that the movie will be shit this time.

  7. #227
    Elemental Lord Kithelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere where canon still exists
    Posts
    8,737
    Looks like it could be interesting
    #WithoutRespectWeReject

  8. #228
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post


    After seeing this, I am pretty interested. The ghosts in this look pretty spooky and we have some returns of some familiar monsters... And its good to see one that doesn't have neon splooge over it like Ghostbusters (2016) had. :P

    also looking back at my old title when this movie was subbed to be released in 2020... man what a long two years since the teaser its been lol
    Sounds a lot better then the ladies flop, that i didn't even bottered watching.

    So sad the guy that portraited Egon passed away, they could have done a real sequel.


  9. #229
    Oh yeah my bad. I forgot we're all supposed to hate that all-female trash movie and applaud the move to completely ignore its existence.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    Sounds a lot better then the ladies flop, that i didn't even bottered watching.

    So sad the guy that portraited Egon passed away, they could have done a real sequel.
    Technically, the video game is the third sequel.
    Just don't reply to me. Please. If you can help it.

  11. #231

  12. #232
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    13,476
    I'm actually looking forward to Afterlife. 2016 was poor because it attempted to recreate a kind of magic that is very difficult to replicate. This actually is more representative of what I'd like to see in reboots of films. It's a drama rather than a comedy and pays respects to the original films by even referencing characters.

  13. #233
    Kids using the Ghostbusters gear.... please Hollywood, stop ruining classic movies.

  14. #234
    Banned Ihavewaffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The spice must flow!
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Tietoso View Post
    Kids using the Ghostbusters gear.... please Hollywood, stop ruining classic movies.
    If it was up to me, i'd get dave chappelle, bill burr, ricky gervais, tim dillon, tina fey n amy phoeler

    This franchise needs funny people, i don't dislike ant man but the funniest guy there was michael pena...

    But maybe this kids stuff would work..not what i'd choose..

    Looks like movie got pushed back a week..

  15. #235
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    40,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Tietoso View Post
    Kids using the Ghostbusters gear.... please Hollywood, stop ruining classic movies.
    How does this film in any way take away from the original? It isn't as if the original isn't going to exist anymore.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    I'm actually looking forward to Afterlife. 2016 was poor because it attempted to recreate a kind of magic that is very difficult to replicate. This actually is more representative of what I'd like to see in reboots of films. It's a drama rather than a comedy and pays respects to the original films by even referencing characters.
    I thought Ghostbuster 2016 was damn good, I think it has problems that stemmed from the fact people waited sooooo long for another ghostbusters and were disappointed with the realities to the fact it was never going to be the original cast anyways for a variety of reasons.

    My problem with it is that the 2016 kind of strayed away from formula of the first 2, which was a comedy but a little more drama.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    If it was up to me, i'd get dave chappelle, bill burr, ricky gervais, tim dillon, tina fey n amy phoeler

    This franchise needs funny people, i don't dislike ant man but the funniest guy there was michael pena...

    But maybe this kids stuff would work..not what i'd choose..

    Looks like movie got pushed back a week..
    They went with kids for the same reason they went with all females last time. "Marketing" they have to rely on banking younger audiences that might be their later on. People old enough to have seen the Original in theaters not so much.

    Star Trek, Star Wars etc it's not going to be for audience that has already seen it as much as it will be for those they can get back later.
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  16. #236
    Sound sick, but i think they will spoil everyting with casting

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I thought Ghostbuster 2016 was damn good, I think it has problems that stemmed from the fact people waited sooooo long for another ghostbusters and were disappointed with the realities to the fact it was never going to be the original cast anyways for a variety of reasons.

    My problem with it is that the 2016 kind of strayed away from formula of the first 2, which was a comedy but a little more drama.
    My problem with GB 2016 was that instead of going for a light horror movie with some dry with humour, they went with full on slapstick comedy, with about 75% of the humour (and plot progression) being "someone says/does something dumb" and the rest being people falling over, being slimed or awkwardly dragging out something.

    It could easily have been a straight to DVD Scooby doo movie. Having the cast be female had nothing to do with the terrible writing or tone.

  18. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mic_128 View Post
    My problem with GB 2016 was that instead of going for a light horror movie with some dry with humour, they went with full on slapstick comedy, with about 75% of the humour (and plot progression) being "someone says/does something dumb" and the rest being people falling over, being slimed or awkwardly dragging out something.

    It could easily have been a straight to DVD Scooby doo movie. Having the cast be female had nothing to do with the terrible writing or tone.
    It was a 100% studio driven movie with no soul or artistic intent behind it. The all female cast was purely done to appeal to certain demographics and hopefully sell more tickets, which is honestly kind of an insult to the actresses to begin with. So while the writing wasn't bad because of the cast, both the writing and the cast were made with the same mindset.

    I think it's important that people voice their dislike for these sort of stunts, so that the old farts who think they're outsmarting the audience may someday at least think twice about it. But it's also very important to specify what is wrong with the movie, and not fall into "there are women, so it's a bad movie" arguments.

  19. #239
    I am Murloc!
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Soulwind View Post
    It was a 100% studio driven movie with no soul or artistic intent behind it. The all female cast was purely done to appeal to certain demographics and hopefully sell more tickets, which is honestly kind of an insult to the actresses to begin with. So while the writing wasn't bad because of the cast, both the writing and the cast were made with the same mindset.

    I think it's important that people voice their dislike for these sort of stunts, so that the old farts who think they're outsmarting the audience may someday at least think twice about it. But it's also very important to specify what is wrong with the movie, and not fall into "there are women, so it's a bad movie" arguments.
    I mean if you look at the cast of the 2016 movie they are all really talented and funny... but yeah for whatever reason it just didn't work in that setting. even the best actors/actresses can't make gold out of a turd

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by Soulwind View Post
    I think it's important that people voice their dislike for these sort of stunts, so that the old farts who think they're outsmarting the audience may someday at least think twice about it. But it's also very important to specify what is wrong with the movie, and not fall into "there are women, so it's a bad movie" arguments.
    That's honestly the thing I hate most about it. The actors did their best with the garbage they were given. The only character who actually seemed well written was Kate McKinnon's character. the rest were just lazy tropes. "Sassy black woman" "Neurotic university teacher" "Dumb handsome blonde"

    But "It was bad because women" is what gets thrown around :/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •