Morning, Here's The First Trailer For The New Ghostbusters Movie

I was always gonna watch this.

I'm still going to watch this.

But it's a tough thing to say, cause I don't want to play into the hands of idiots who can't handle women being Ghostbusters, but I'm not 100% sold on it. I love the idea of female Ghostbusters, and I think it's been perfectly cast. It just all seemed a little bland and by the numbers outside of that?

It did have its moments though. I'm holding out hope because Bridesmaids, in my opinion, was one of the best mainstream comedies of the last five or so years.

I AM STILL GONNA WATCH THIS.


Comments

    Wow...looked decentish, not great but chuckle worthy.
    Only problem is they gave away what will be the only twist in the entire movie.

    Yeah, I'll watch it. No reservations. Kate McKinnon is my spirit animal.

    I enjoyed this!

    Now that I've expressed my opinion in a public forum, I'll return to my fall-out shelter for the remainder of the day.

    Looks way better than everyone is saying atm. Have a look at the youtube likes to dislikes. Its off the charts. Lol

      Yeah that's butthhurt YouTube idiots for you.

        Or you know they could just have opinion opposing yours. Just maybe...

          No this is the internet. Anyone with differing opions to me are butthurt idiots

        You said yourself that the movie looks to be a little bland and by the numbers and then argue that the negative fan reaction is just, 'butthurt YouTube idiots for you' ?

        Are you sure, Mark?

        You think that a movie that is classed as one of, if not the, greatest sci-fi comedies of all time, doesn't deserve something better than a by-the-numbers, bland sequel that, so far, fails to retain the spirit of the original?

        Last edited 06/03/16 12:47 pm

          Pretty much this. A movie so highly regarded, and to most an integral part of their formative years, being completely replaced is perhaps the reason for being 'butthurt'.

        The Main villain is ghost logo your staring at the main villian through the whole movie

      I disliked watching the trailer but I have a feeling a lot of those dislikes are more about the internet hate patrol at work, especially this being a female-centric remake of a popular film. ots more about trolling than fact

        Yeah me too. The film looks oaky from the trailer, it could be a lot better than the trailer or worse.
        I like the cast, so I'll go see it. Just going to avoid any more trailers so the best bits aren't ruined.

        I'd be suss about any Ghostbusters sequel, even GBII was awful, but I'd probably be more trepadacious if it was a male cast again to be honest, at least some of it should be different in this redo.

    This looks terrible.

    I think they did this to satisfy a narrative that would have been better served by an original idea.

    I have way too many great childhood memories of the original, so I just can't compare this to the original, but on it's own, it does look like it could be an entertaining movie.

    Can't understand why they couldn't have made them the daughters of the originals and continued the story.

      Probably because the 'kids of the original team' trope didn't appeal to the writers.

      I'm not sure why not though. As far as I know, it's not a particularly common one to see.

      Although I guess they'd also then run into the issue of what the bigger bad is going to be this time. I would have no problem with reusing the villain and picking a new pop culture icon for the appearance, but I'm not a Hollywood producer.

    Why is it that all the white chicks are scientists or inventors and the black chick is the street smart working class type? Reinforcing stereotypes much?

      To be honest, I think it meshes better with Leslie Jones general personality. She's pretty rough on SNL, lol

      It's the same as the original. Winston was a regular Joe.

        But Winston was also a serious character. I would go out on a limb and say that he was the most serious character of the bunch. He was not playing to any real stereotype in the movie and had some great, seriously scary things happen to him.

      But then she wouldn't be able to scream "Don't go in the house!" at her own movie - Hollywood can only fake being progressive so much at a time.

    Nope from me.

    Pro: CGI looks nice
    Con: so many clichés and tropes in just the trailer.
    Angry, black woman who doesn't know science but is street smart. Wow, that's original.
    More slime to the face than a bukake film.

    I've never cared it was an all female cast. That's never worried me.

    I think it was pointless remaking it, they really should've made it a sequel instead of a remake. There's really no reason these scientists couldn't have taken over from the original crew. Especially with the "30 years ago" misleading tagline at the beginning.

    I'm no Melissa McCarthy fan, but she doesn't look too bad here I'll give her that. But something about it seems off. It's striking me as a mediocre film with a major budget. I could be wrong, but it's not hitting me as something I need to rush out and see. Oh well. I'll still eventually catch it, there's a cinema near here that's cheaper than old Blockbuster prices, 6 bucks a ticket, can't go wrong there.

      This doesn't seem like a remake to me. More like a sequel. At the very least it seems to be set in the same universe and everyone is aware of the events that transpired in the original films.

        Feig went on record as saying it's a full reboot. It'll be interesting if they do it as a sequel but to this point they've been very clear saying it's a full reboot, that Akroyds playing a cab driver and Murrays playing someone else etc. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

        Here ya go:

        http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Ghostbusters-Went-With-Reboot-Over-Sequel-116027.html

        I can't help but feel he missed a massive opportunity NOT going with a sequel...

        Last edited 04/03/16 9:37 am

          Well what I find interesting though is that he specifically said he didn't like the "passing of the torch" idea and wanted the characters to create the Ghostbusters themselves. The movie can still be a "sequel" of sorts without having the original team pass the torch to a new generation however. As I mentioned, at the very least people in this new movie seem to be aware of the events that transpired in the original movies 30 years ago. The new female characters can still form the new Ghostbusters without the original team needing to take them under the wings and training them. The old cast members having new jobs in the movie could just emphasise that, like they've moved on with their lives and don't want to interfere with the whatever is going on now.

          It's thought provoking at least.

            I understand what you're saying and it'd be nice if they went that way, it's unfortunate they didn't do it that way though.

            Yeah, I agree. The new crew could have reverse-engineered the tech, there could have been interesting tension with the old crew, there's a lot they could have done with the story. They didn't need to reboot everything just so that these characters could have an origin.

            Everyone has an origin, we don't re-boot the world whenever a baby is born.

              Agreed. That's how they did the "Extreme Ghostbusters" plotline in the 90s. New Group takes the old tech and makes it better, clashes with the olds, but earns their respect etc etc.

                Extreme Ghostbusters? How delightfully 90s.

                  lol tell me about it, seems that's 'the' word to describe more or less anything from the 90's.

          Huh. That's just confusing. From the way the trailer opened with "30 years ago Four scientists saved New York" I just assumed it was the same universe and these were new Ghostbusters in it.

          They also really should have either gone with numbers or words, not mixed "30 years", "Four Scientists".

            Yeah... it's actually quite underhanded. They put that in there fully well knowing it makes it look like its a sequel. Such a turn off of the movie.

            I thought it screamed how little faith the studio has in it at this stage. Trying to invoke a feeling of nostalgia with the tag lines, familiar music, remade images from the original, etc.

      I actually thought the trailer was promising, but I had an issue with it not seeming to follow on from the fact ghosts should sort of be a known phenomena as should the ghostbusters.

      Finding out its a full reboot makes me feel a bit eh, I think I'd like it to just be a sequel too.

      Will still check it out though.

    Wait, so is it a sequel to the original series? (It mentions stuff from 30 years ago) Or a reboot?

    It's okay to be uncertain about the movie without it being because the cast is female, Mark. As I mentioned recently in another article, any actor (of any skin colour, gender, or otherwise) should be able to play any character, as long as they do it convincingly.

    But a crappy derivative movie is still a crappy derivative movie regardless of its cast, and that's what my concern for this film is.

    That said, I can understand some fans' discontent with the gender change. The franchise has been around for ages across every media type imaginable. People get accustomed to characters being a particular way and if the gender changes (whether it's male>female or female>male) with no apparent reason, some people find that disconcerting. I don't feel that way about Ghostbusters, but I'm not sure how I'd feel if they rebooted Star Trek TNG with a female Picard. I like Patrick Stewart too much for that!

      People are going to shit when they realise they took the only black character a token collector on the subway...

      That's right.... they took the only black actor in the group and made her a literal token character...

      Isn't that the point Mark is trying to make? It's okay to say something non-positive about the movie yet it's tough to bring yourself too actually say it because feels like you're somehow validating the opinions of such an awful group. This movie is probably going to suck but it's really hard to admit that when you know someone is going to hold that up as proof that their stupid opinion was correct.
      It's not that it's wrong to be uncertain about the movie it's that it's uncomfortable to be uncertain about the movie.

        But now it feels like it's a case of "you must be sexist and 'butthurt' if you don't like this film."

          This is definitely the case. I don't like the look of the movie or the fact it's a needless reboot. I think it should've been a sequel. They can have a full female squad for all I care, just have it done more intelligently and with a better setup. More movies are coming out such as Fury Road, Jurassic World and dare I say it, ID4-2 which are showing it's ok to attach yourself to a movie made 20 - 30 years back. This should've followed that road.

        I don't think it matters as much as Mark feels it does. In no way should the movie get a free pass simply because there are people out there who insist that if you don't like the movie it's because you're sexist. If journalists are afraid to express their opinion because it might "play into the hands of" one side of arseholes, that silence will inevitably play into the hands of some other side of arseholes. It's better to just speak your mind and not worry about what other people are going to use your stance for, because they're going to do it whether you say anything or not.

        Whether I agree or disagree with Mark's position on any given topic, it's a disservice to all of us if he were to not speak his mind honestly when given the opportunity to do so.

    Female cast or not, no Bill Murray = no Ghostbusters.

      Murrays in it, just not as his Venkman character apparently, he's cameoing as someone else.

        Which is a huge waste and a massive missed opportunity to connect this new film to the previous two rather than dismissing them.

          That's how I feel. Even though part 2 stunk, it still had some decent ideas and some connective tissue to use. Part 1 is a classic as we know.

          There was a rumour years back that Seth Rogen, James Franco and Emma Stone were being looked at for a Ghostbusters sequel, with a fourth yet to be named (rumoured to be female as well). This just makes me wish that had of happened instead.

          This was then followed up by rumours of Rogen, Jack Black and Rainn Wilson, which I also woulda loved to see... but oh well. :(

          Last edited 04/03/16 9:43 am

            This sounds like a much better deal to me. I was open to an all-girl Ghostbusters but after seeing that trailer, I wouldn't even go if they handed me free tickets. Would have much preferred a new cast, hell have Murray as a mentor-like figure (oh Bosley) from the original team, but this is just ruining my memories of the original.

    Got to admit looks ok, but wont be making any effort to see it unless get free tickets or something.

    You know.... Terry Crews would make a great Ghostbuster...

      I think he would. Him in the classic overall with a modified proton pack that doesn't capture ghosts but just makes them explode into extra chunks

      Sure, but the phrase "You know... Terry Crews would make a great" can basically have any ending and it would be both true and awesome.

        We'll just see about that! "Terry Crews would make a great... Atticus Finch."

        ... Actually, yeah; I'd watch the hell out of that.

          How about that 'Terry Crews would..' phrase is in the actual movie but Terry Crews doesn't make an appearance. Would still be true and awesome.

            Terry Crews is... Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film.

          Terry Crews would make a great Grand Dragon for the KKK...

          Actually he would and we know it... they'd be a kinder, gentler more accepting KKK in no time OR HE'D KILL THEM ALL. BECAUSE BAD TERRY WANTS TO GO TO FARMERS MARKET!!!!

    Who ya gonna call?

    Not this lot.

    I'll stick with the original. Not even going to bother with this.

    They had a chance when they announced the surviving originals would be in it as cameos, and there was hope this would be a passing the torch type of sequel, but no, they're not playing their original characters. Massive missed opportunity there.

    Last edited 04/03/16 9:44 am

      Wait, the "surviving" originals?

      ... holy crap.... I didn't know Ramis had passed away....

      This is a sad day.

    Dub-step and way too much CGI... this is exactly why I didn't want a reboot/whatever.

    Well done, Feig, you got me.

    So does Huey Lewis get a cut of the soundtrack monies this time around?

    This movie for me is a bit like The Neverending Story, I didn't really want them to remake it, and didn't see a need for them to remake it.

    Buuuuuuut... I like the actors in it so probably will see it, but wish they came up with something new instead.

    Looks absolutely perfect. Completely hyped.

      I think you missed the memo. Get angry!

        I DO NOT FEEL ANY STRONG EMOTIONS TOWARDS THIS MOVIE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!

    Well, it's got slimer and it looks like a ghostbusters movie. Good enough for me

      Part of my Issue is it looks like a very similar Movie to the first Ghostbuster Movie.

    I wish I could get interested in this. I feel that all Hollywood does these days is rehash and recycle instead of create something new.
    It looks a bit ho-hum not bad but not something I'd rush out to the cinema to see.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now