Ghostbusters trailer *Brand New* (2016)

[Grissom]

What do you guys think?

[johnnygobbs]

The opening with the 'ghost in the library' recall gave me a slight jump, as the original did, but sadly it was all downhill from there.

I'm not one of those Neanderthals who have a problem with an all-female Ghostbusters reboot; I just wish that this new film had a shred of originality/novelty besides the gender-change.  Why regurgitate everything from the symbol to the firehouse and hearse/Ecto-1 to Slimer and making the token black character the streetwise non-scientist?  It just seems almost akin to 'Psycho '98', a beat-for-beat remake with a few small changes, and thus I don't see the point, other than to bury the original movies.

[Grissom]

Sometimes with sequels or reboots, there is a fear among the filmmakers in terms of deviating too much from the original film. I appreciate filmmakers who do something different with a sequel or reboot, whilst retaining the same "spirit" if you will, of the original.

[Silver Nemesis]

I know schadenfreude is an ugly thing, but I sincerely hope this film crashes and burns on an epic scale. No, I'm not keeping an open mind about it. And no, I'm not giving it a fair chance. It doesn't deserve one. It's a cheap ploy on Sony's part to cash in on fan nostalgia for one of the most beloved films of all time, but without understanding what made the original so great to begin with. Sony's been desperate for a 'shared universe' ever since The Avengers (2012) was released. They tried and failed to launch one with The Amazing Spider-Man, and now they'll try and fail yet again with Ghostbusters.

I've been a diehard Ghostbusters fan for literally as long as I can remember. I've got pictures of my 3rd birthday party where I'm reading a Ghostbusters comic book, and I couldn't even read back then! I loved the cartoon show, the movies, the toys, the books, the videogames, all of it. I even visited the real Ghostbusters fire station in New York. Ray, Peter, Egon and Winston are the Ghostbusters. The franchise was never simply about the premise of fighting ghosts - it was about these four characters and the camaraderie they shared throughout their adventures; adventures which spanned over thirty years of films, TV episodes, games and comic books. In the new movie they've ditched the original line-up completely, instead using the premise as a vehicle for some flavour-of-the-month comediennes. That's like making an A-Team film without Hannibal, Face, B.A. and Murdock, or a Ninja Turtles film without Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Mikey. The fact Sony and Paul Feig don't understand this particular criticism is sufficient evidence they don't get what made the Ghostbusters franchise so appealing to begin with. If there was ever a film that didn't need to be remade, this was it.

Inevitably they'll fall back on the tired ad hominem defence mechanism of crying "sexism" and "misogyny" to deflect the tidal wave of criticism that's heading their way. But if they were truly interested in gender equality, why not give a group of comediennes the opportunity to create, write and star in a film based on their own original concept? Aykroyd and Ramis wrote the original Ghostbusters, and Murray improvised most of his own dialogue. The male cast came up with the premise, they wrote the script, they got the film made. How is it equality to take something men accomplished and hand it to a group of women who've done nothing to earn it? Wouldn't it be better to give those women the same creative freedom and financial resources the men had, to build something for themselves from the ground up, to create their own accomplishment?

And why does the sexism angle only work one way? What about lead actress Leslie Jones' response to diehard Ghostbusters fans on Twitter?

Seriously I'm so done men are the worst I swear I'm f***ing done!!

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/699743317123162112

I DONT GIVE TWO sh*tS WHAT A MUTHAf***A THINK IM A GHOSTBUSTER BITCH!!

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/677578072896503808?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Surely Tom Rothman, the head of Sony Pictures, has a classier response to the diehard Ghostbusters fans. Right?

Sony Pictures Head On Ghostbusters Fans – 'f*** Them'

http://www.manlymovie.net/2015/11/sony-on-ghostbusters-fans-f***-them.html

Nice, Tom. That tells you all you need to know about Sony's attitude to the fans.

Sony's damage control on this project has also been telling, not to mention hilarious. First they scrambled at the last minute to get the original cast members to make cameos, despite earlier saying they wouldn't. Then they arranged that PR stunt where the new cast showed up at a children's hospital. How disappointed would you be if you were a sick kid in hospital and someone told you the Ghostbusters were coming to see you, only for Melissa McCarthy to walk through the door?

Of course fanboys aren't always right. I'm sure we all remember times when fans have made the wrong call, only to be proven wrong at a later date. But fans aren't always wrong either. And when the core premise behind a film is so deeply and obviously flawed that 99% of the fan base are opposed to it, it's usually a good idea to listen to their grievances and try to take them on board. Simply saying, "The audience will like what we tell them to like" doesn't work. Fox learned this lesson the hard way with Fantastic Four (2015). And now Sony's going to learn it with their counterfeit Ghostbusters knockoff.

And it's going to be glorious watching it fail. Imagine the storm that'll erupt at Sony headquarters. Sequels being cancelled! Blame being allocated! Unsold merchandise! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes! Volcanoes! Human sacrifice! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!

Like I say, schadenfreude is an ugly thing. But I can't wait.

[johnnygobbs]

I was willing to give 'Ghostbusters with women' a chance because that premise alone is not necessarily a bad one fated for catastrophe.  There's a great deal a filmmaker can do with the whole 'busting ghosts' concept, so why not give a bunch of ladies a chance to lead?

However, everything I've seen since the initial cast announcement, from the insignia to the poster and costumes to the new trailer, indicates that Paul Feig and Sony have no interest in doing anything fresh or original with the concept.  They're simply piggybacking off the original films, almost beat-for-beat, except with a new cast filling in for Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson, begging the question: what is the point?

The unfortunate thing is, if (or perhaps I should say, when) this film does fail people will chalk it up to 'people don't want to see women leading movies' which is absolutely the wrong analysis.  People, well at least me, want to see more female-led blockbusters (last year's Mad Max demonstrated that it was possible to take an old franchise/concept, put female characters front and centre, and still make it seem incredibly fresh and thrilling, and many of us have high expectations for the forthcoming Wonder Woman movie), but they also demand and deserve at least a modicum of originality and surprise.

[riddler]

people complaining about the complainers are making invalid comparisons. Some roles are gender defined and it isn't sexist to say so. A sex in the city or Charlie's angels film with male leads wouldn't work either.

Also the flavor of the week point is valid; had the 4 leads been say Rachel McAdams, Anna Kendrick, Karen Gilliam, and Tina Fey. It would have been more tolerable; not that it would be anywhere close to the original but at least they'd be injecting it with some actual talent.
Simply put this is a very special franchise to many adults when they were growing up and I can't imagine many fans wanted this.

[Azrael]

The whole thing is unethical. If it breaks even it will be the biggest (negative) surprise of the year.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

The comedy is much too broad. FAR too broad in fact. That "Exorcist" slapping joke? Ouch. Ouch, ouch, ouch!! Any Ghostbusters fan can see the comedy tone doesn't match the "believability" that Reitman and co went for in style for the films they made. On a simplistic analysis well, it just ain't really funny either. Having said that Feig has done a fine job on an effects level. Cool ghosts, the proton packs don't look as bad as I felt and Slimer.....IS FANTASTIC LOOKING! (A wonderful, modernized, bright green globule of optimism and hope....surrounded otherwise in a sea of brown sh*t....). So I don't loathe it entirely. I'd say the ghosts and effects are reason enough to take a chance and see it. The new Ghostbusters and their "gags" however are definitely terrible and isn't it the characters who should really matter?

I had a feeling the tone would be very different right from the start. If they really wanted this controversial film to be accepted making something that was actually consistent with the other two tonally, sequel, remake or not, would have been a smart start. We certainly haven't got that. It just won't sit nicely with the previous movies. Any episode of The Real Ghostbusters does a much more terrific job of that despite it's cartoon style. Some of the humor I actually think is horrifically dated. I mean I think The Exorcist is a cool film but is today's generation actually aware of what they are mocking here? Most people over the age of 19 don't bother watching films anymore that are even 10 years old (which is lazy and sad). So, The Exorcist from '72/73??? It's ironic in the sense some cruel people felt Ghostbusters is so dated now it needed a reboot to be appealing again at all. And suddenly this film has the honor of spewing an out of place joke that felt more appropriate to have in the disco age lol

I just don't believe for one second that unfunny kook Holzman, whatever her name is, is capable of building the proton packs (that part with the wig gag is genuinely the most embarrassing "comedy moment" in the 30 years of the franchise....until I got to the shocking "THE POWER OF PAIN!!" bellow, *shudder*). Harold Ramis was so convincing as a scientist I just have more belief in him being capable of doing so. Having a new film in which Egon has been cast down, forgotten and re-wrote out of the franchise history as their inventor is possibly the greatest crime (of many yet to come) this new crew could have done for the entire legacy. You can so tell this hasn't been written by Ackroyd and Ramis. That's why the comedy stinks. Why anybody had faith in this Katie Dippold script is beyond me. What did you expect? Of course it feels completely off. The master's have sadly left us. One died, the other was refused anywhere near the script that was shot. The very men who made Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters. It hadn't a chance.

Ah well, at least Peter Venkman gets to sing The Bare Necessities....oh wait, wrong film! That's a much better and funnier one on the way to spend cash on!....

[johnnygobbs]

Great arguments Cobblepot4Mayor.

Like I said before, I do think a female version could have, in theory, worked, but like you state, the comedy here appears to be way too broad.  One of the reasons the 1984 films worked so well as a genuinely funny comedy with a fair number of genuine horrific scares (the library ghost and the part where the dog rips out of Dana Barrett's couch, which could be a scene from a Nightmare on Elm Street style horror, still give me the chills) is that the film was played in fairly straight terms; thus audiences were able to suspend their disbelief.  This new film, unfortunately, looks too typical of modern comedies which discard credible, relatable humour for broad, easy laughs.

[The Dark Knight]

Looks rubbish.