Ghostbusters trailer *Brand New* (2016)

[Silver Nemesis]

You know, I checked out X-Men: Apocalypse this past Friday night, and during the trailers, this new Ghostbusters was previewed. The guy sitting directly in front of me, following the end of the Ghostbusters trailer, leaned up and said to his buddy sitting 2 seats away from him that he was on his own if he wanted to see that! Adding, "Sorry, that looks like garbage."

I then couldn't help but to tell a friend I was watching X-Men with by adding, "You know ... he's right."

This movie's production budget is around $150 million. Sony will probably squander a further $100 million on p & a costs. Which means it'll need to gross around $400-500 million worldwide just to break even. I'm sorry (no I'm not), but there's no way in hell that's going to happen.

I really wish it was opening opposite Suicide Squad. I'd love to see SS bury it at the box office. Payback for McCarthy's last film dethroning BvS. And although SS is an ensemble film, it's clearly spearheaded by Robbie's Harley Quinn. If audiences flock to see her instead of McCarthy & co, it would be a beautiful rebuttal to the 'misogyny' card Feig and Pascal will inevitably deploy as excuse for their film's failure.

[The Laughing Fish]

You know, I checked out X-Men: Apocalypse this past Friday night, and during the trailers, this new Ghostbusters was previewed. The guy sitting directly in front of me, following the end of the Ghostbusters trailer, leaned up and said to his buddy sitting 2 seats away from him that he was on his own if he wanted to see that! Adding, "Sorry, that looks like garbage."
I then couldn't help but to tell a friend I was watching X-Men with by adding, "You know ... he's right."

I'm indifferent to the new Ghostbusters. I enjoyed the original and the sequel as much as everyone else, though I wouldn't call myself a dedicated fan, and I simply have no interest nor antipathy for this new one. That being said, I find the Angry Video Game Nerd's foul-mouthed reviews of licensed Ghostbusters games a lot more entertaining than the latest trailer. 

I saw notorious online film critic Devin Faraci accusing James Rolfe of "unintentionally" having a sexist reaction against the new film. I say notorious, because Faraci has gone on record of making offensive remarks in the past:

"I don't think "Angry Video Game Nerd" knows that he's having a sexist reaction to Ghostbusters. I think a lot of guys online DO know that (or that they don't believe sexism exists, which is even worse), but I don't think "Angry Video Game Nerd" is sitting around stewing over women in Ghostbusters.

And that's why his attitude is maybe the most dangerous. It speaks to the way sexism (and racism and plenty of other isms) kind of lives quietly inside of us, and the way it can impact our beliefs and actions without us even once considering it. But it is truly the only answer for why the Ghostbusters reboot is THIS infuriating to this many men. They may not be consciously aware of it, but their innate sexism is giving a boost to their already-existing dislike of reboots and their disinterest in this new movie."

"Disliking the new Ghostbusters doesn't make you sexist.  But if you're raging about it – if you're angry enough to call a boycott, to make a video drawing a line in the sand – maybe you should consider where all of this anger is coming from."

Source: https://houseofgeekery.com/2016/05/21/the-angry-video-game-nerd-the-new-ghostbusters-and-why-ive-lost-all-respect-for-devin-faraci/

Faraci might've had a point if Rolfe played his Nerd persona in the video, but given he's misinformed...

[Catwoman]

How the hell do these people get famous? Just by making videos of themselves talking about stuff? Hell I can do that. Squeeze my boobs together and bat my eyelashes and everything else. Fame here I come.

Back on topic sort of, has anyone found the new Ecto Cooler yet and if so how is it? I probably had a decent blood content of Ecto Cooler as a child but I know nothing's as good when you're older as it was as a kid so I'm afraid they f***ed it up same as they f***ed up by doing this movie.

[johnnygobbs]

'Unintentional sexism' sounded to me like one of those trendy PC-buzzwords like 'safe spaces' and 'micro aggressions', but reading Faraci's quote in full, I do think he has a point (although I'm not saying that point necessarily applies to Rolfe/'The Video Game Nerd').

Objectively speaking, the new Ghostbusters film looks bad for all sorts of reasons, none of which has anything to do with the genders of the main cast-members, but I also agree with Faraci that some of the OTT hate directed towards the new film very likely displays an underlying sexism which amounts to 'how dare they make a Ghostbusters film with girls!'

There are plenty of lame films to object to, like say the next Transformers sequel or Adam Sandler movie, so I do question where all the particular hate towards the Ghostbusters reboot is coming from.

It may, likely, be a very bad film, but the truth is, this hate was already revved up to eleven way before the first (admittedly woeful) trailer hit the screens.  I'm not saying anyone needs to love the upcoming movie or should feel compelled to see it (I certainly won't unless word-of-mouth somehow convinces me that we've all been wrong), but I'm still not sure whether this film merits quite the level of hate it has been generating.

Let's all be clear here: this film is not 'raping' anyone's childhood (a disgusting term in anycase).  We'll still always have the original 1984 and '89 movies, and no one can take that away from us.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

I'm actually supporting the film and will be going to see it. And it took me a VERY loooooong time to accept it for what it is and what it's trying to do. Maybe seeing and loving Disney's The Jungle Book recently blinded my senses? lol Having a lot of great Bill Murray stuff in that rubbed off on me and gave me the enthusiasm to see what they have done. I think the people who hate the project are severely underestimating the film's release. This shall not be a flop.

We've seen so many superhero pictures nothing's really unique or surprising anymore. But it's been 27 years since the visuals of proton packs, ghost traps and that theme song have been seen or heard on the big screen and all this, for better or for worse, will I think push the film through and make it appealing for an audience. Not to mention the franchise's own "history" and it's lighthearted tone. I think audiences are feeling "dead" with the constant deep, dark atmosphere's of every single fantasy picture. Another reason why I think Jungle Book blew audiences away (and why I think the darker Andy Serkis' version hasn't a chance in hell regardless of it's technical achievements).

Then there are the cameos. At the end of the day this is the best we'll now probably get. I don't think you'll ever see Bill Murray or even Annie Potts in any sort of Ghostbusters movie ever again after this (reboot, sequel or not). So I'd much rather go and see that than miss out on the experience. If the film is a success and does end up getting sequels things will get far more displeasing much further down the line with an entirely new, unrelated cast. I keep recalling Tom Baker's cameo in the Dr Who 50th Anniversary special (which frankly was the greatest thing in that action packed roller-coaster ride). If done right the Ghostbusters cameos can be as good as that was. Don't tell me nobody could resist asking Murray to throw in a "touch" of Peter Venkman on his day on set...

[riddler]

I'm actually supporting the film and will be going to see it. And it took me a VERY loooooong time to accept it for what it is and what it's trying to do. Maybe seeing and loving Disney's The Jungle Book recently blinded my senses? lol Having a lot of great Bill Murray stuff in that rubbed off on me and gave me the enthusiasm to see what they have done. I think the people who hate the project are severely underestimating the film's release. This shall not be a flop.

We've seen so many superhero pictures nothing's really unique or surprising anymore. But it's been 27 years since the visuals of proton packs, ghost traps and that theme song have been seen or heard on the big screen and all this, for better or for worse, will I think push the film through and make it appealing for an audience. Not to mention the franchise's own "history" and it's lighthearted tone. I think audiences are feeling "dead" with the constant deep, dark atmosphere's of every single fantasy picture. Another reason why I think Jungle Book blew audiences away (and why I think the darker Andy Serkis' version hasn't a chance in hell regardless of it's technical achievements).

Then there are the cameos. At the end of the day this is the best we'll now probably get. I don't think you'll ever see Bill Murray or even Annie Potts in any sort of Ghostbusters movie ever again after this (reboot, sequel or not). So I'd much rather go and see that than miss out on the experience. If the film is a success and does end up getting sequels things will get far more displeasing much further down the line with an entirely new, unrelated cast. I keep recalling Tom Baker's cameo in the Dr Who 50th Anniversary special (which frankly was the greatest thing in that action packed roller-coaster ride). If done right the Ghostbusters cameos can be as good as that was. Don't tell me nobody could resist asking Murray to throw in a "touch" of Peter Venkman on his day on set...

The 2009 video game might be the a more nostalgic representation since they were able to turn back the clocks and make the characters look like they did in the 90's and got all the voices including harold Ramis. Even if they agreed to do it, would anyone want to see Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd hunting ghosts for more than a cameo at their current ages?

Besides seeing the cameos, the other part I'm intrigued about is to see how the effects look. One thing which hampered the 80's film was the film technology at the time. They had a tough act representing the paranormal without looking cheesy and that's why there wasn't much ghosts and ghostbusting;

-a ghastly scene early in the film (library/baby carriage possessed)
-the ghostbusters saving from a ghost attack (slimer in the hotel/courtroom scolari brothers)
-a montage with the theme music playing
-the end battle


Now we have CGI. We'll never know what Ivan Reitman would have done with todays technology but there's a lot more things which can be done today that couldn't have been done in those days. And in the trailer while the characters are up for debate, the visuals do look impressive. I kind of feel like if this film is terrible it wont sully the originals. Enough has changed that if it's awful, fans can ignore it as an entry in the series much like Grease 2, son of the mask, caddyshack 2, neverending story III etc. Who knows, maybe if it takes off we could see different variations. The initial idea for the first film and one which was implemented in the 09 video game was having ghostbuster stations around the country similar to fire departments and police stations, maybe if this film surprises the next film can focus on a different type of team.

[Silver Nemesis]

This shall not be a flop.

It will flop.

Sorry – I'm glad some of you are looking forward to it and I hope it meets your expectations – but in order for this film to break even, it has to make a minimum of around $500 million worldwide. Anything less than that and it's a flop.

The reality is it'll be lucky to make $300 million WW. Sony will lose money on this film. I guarantee it. If they don't, I'll eat my hat. I predicted Alice Through the Looking Glass would underperform, and it's presently flopping right on schedule. I'm also predicting Independence Day: Resurgence will underperform. But Ghostbusters will be the biggest and most embarrassing flop of the year. Count on it.

With regards to seeing the old crew back on the big screen, this movie has killed any chance of them reprising their classic roles. There won't be a sequel. And Dan Aykroyd is kidding himself if he thinks Pascal will suddenly revive his concept for Ghostbusters 3. They could have brought back the old gang and given us a real Ghostbusters sequel. Instead they decided to ditch the classic characters and mythology, pull the plug on the movie Reitman, Ramis and Aykroyd had been developing for over 20 years, and give us this drivel instead. There probably will be another Ghostbusters reboot one day, but it's unlikely to occur within the lifetime of the original cast. Not after this film buries the franchise so deep in development hell it'll be sharing a room with Bill & Ted 3.

This was their last shot at a proper follow up to the first two Ghostbusters films. But thanks to Pascal and Feig, we'll never get that now. Call it fate, call it luck, call it karma – this movie is D.O.A.

[johnnygobbs]

I know BvS wasn't a flop, but it was predicted to be a $billion-grossing movie.  It wasn't.  Wouldn't you say that whatever happens with the Ghostbusters reboot, BvS will end the year as the biggest 'failure'/underperformer?  After all, did anyone really expect the Ghostbusters reboot to do well in the first place (Cobblepot4Mayor and a few others excepted...no offence Cobblepot)?

Also, I wonder how much of the Alice Through the Looking Glass's poor box-office performance is attributable to the controversy surrounding Depp's private life.

I just hope that none of this tarnishes Tim Burton's career.  The 2010 Alice in Wonderland film wasn't my favourite Burton film by a long way (it's arguably his worst, give or take 2001's Planet of the Apes), but I'm a die-hard Burton fanboy.  I make no apologies about that.

[Catwoman]

This shall not be a flop.

It will flop.

Sorry – I'm glad some of you are looking forward to it and I hope it meets your expectations – but in order for this film to break even, it has to make a minimum of around $500 million worldwide. Anything less than that and it's a flop.

The reality is it'll be lucky to make $300 million WW. Sony will lose money on this film. I guarantee it. If they don't, I'll eat my hat. I predicted Alice Through the Looking Glass would underperform, and it's presently flopping right on schedule. I'm also predicting Independence Day: Resurgence will underperform. But Ghostbusters will be the biggest and most embarrassing flop of the year. Count on it.

With regards to seeing the old crew back on the big screen, this movie has killed any chance of them reprising their classic roles. There won't be a sequel. And Dan Aykroyd is kidding himself if he thinks Pascal will suddenly revive his concept for Ghostbusters 3. They could have brought back the old gang and given us a real Ghostbusters sequel. Instead they decided to ditch the classic characters and mythology, pull the plug on the movie Reitman, Ramis and Aykroyd had been developing for over 20 years, and give us this drivel instead. There probably will be another Ghostbusters reboot one day, but it's unlikely to occur within the lifetime of the original cast. Not after this film buries the franchise so deep in development hell it'll be sharing a room with Bill & Ted 3.

This was their last shot at a proper follow up to the first two Ghostbusters films. But thanks to Pascal and Feig, we'll never get that now. Call it fate, call it luck, call it karma – this movie is D.O.A.

I don't doubt for a second that it flops but if hell freezes over and it makes $500,000,001 can we decide the hat you eat?

[Silver Nemesis]

I know BvS wasn't a flop, but it was predicted to be a $billion-grossing movie.  It wasn't.  Wouldn't you say that whatever happens with the Ghostbusters reboot, BvS will end the year as the biggest 'failure'/underperformer?  After all, did anyone really expect the Ghostbusters reboot to do well in the first place (Cobblepot4Mayor and a few others excepted...no offence Cobblepot)?

BvS definitely performed below what Warner Bros was hoping. But it got close enough to breaking even at the box office that merchandise, promotional tie-ins and DVD/Blu-ray sales should push it into profitable territory. Certainly not as profitable as WB would have liked, but they should take home a few hundred million at least. We won't know the full extent of the economic fallout until we see how it affects the performances of Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and Justice League. If they underperform too, then a lot of the blame will probably trace back to franchise disillusionment over BvS. In terms of cost-to-profit ratio, it probably will go down as one of the biggest disappointments of the year. But that's because it was so absurdly overbudgeted to begin with ($250 million production cost + $165 million promotional budget = way too much money to be spending on the sequel to a film that grossed $668 million).

Ghostbusters, on the other hand, is unlikely to turn a profit in any area. It's not just the box office revenue Sony should be worried about. What girl's going to want a Melissa McCarthy action figure when they can get a toy Harley Quinn or Katana from Suicide Squad? And while product placement has always been a big factor in Sony's films (see the recent James Bond movies for examples), I expect the toxic pre-release WOM may deter companies from investing in promotional deals. That said, it looks like at least one company has already backed the wrong horse.

Who knows, perhaps if 2016 sees a record surge in pressure washer sales Sony may yet turn a profit. Probably not, though.

I just hope that none of this tarnishes Tim Burton's career.  The 2010 Alice in Wonderland film wasn't my favourite Burton film by a long way (it's arguably his worst, give or take 2001's Planet of the Apes), but I'm a die-hard Burton fanboy.  I make no apologies about that.

You'll hear no arguments from me on that score. I saw Alice in Wonderland on the cinema and it was the first Burton film I've ever felt tempted to walk out of. He really phoned it in with that one.

I don't doubt for a second that it flops but if hell freezes over and it makes $500,000,001 can we decide the hat you eat?

I'm afraid I subsist entirely on a diet of derbies and panamas. But you can choose the sauce.