2000 AD Online Forum

 Villian Revealed through Toy Merchandising (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Ghostbusters-Image-Gives-Us-First-Look-Chris-Hemsworth-109927.html)

Seems OK to me. Mind you, I don't get all of the bile being flung at this film. Lots of idiot fanboys threatened by women. Probably the same people who threw their toys out of their pram when they discovered the two Star Wars leads were going to be—SHOCK!—a black guy and a woman. (Personally, when I heard John Bodega had got the part, I was thrilled. He was excellent in Attack the Block.)

Well Ghost Busters is probably one of my favourite movies from my youth (along with Gremlins of course) and I'm actually pretty hyped for this, don't care that they're a bunch a whimin as long as it's got the humour of the first movie I'll enjoy it.  As for the villain they've chosen, interesting choice [spoiler]the Ghostbuster logo coming to life? maybe when some pencil dick comes in and shuts down the containment field this is what pops up[/spoiler].
It could be awful of course, but I've got hope.

CU Radbacker

I have no problem with the cast being women. I just wish they were actually funny women.

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 19 February, 2016, 10:43:02 AM
Seems OK to me. Mind you, I don't get all of the bile being flung at this film. Lots of idiot fanboys threatened by women.

Yeah, this is insane.  Someone should tell them women are allowed to have jobs now. And if that job is bustin' ghosts, that's fine and dandy with me!

Quote from: von Boom on 19 February, 2016, 12:35:41 PMI have no problem with the cast being women. I just wish they were actually funny women.

I'm not familiar with their stand-up, but McCarthy and Wiig have been perfectly decent in the films I've seen them in. I don't think the performances will be much of an issue; the writing's an unknown to me, since I've not seen anything Katie Dippold has penned.

Well, I call women for different reasons and still think the original team own it.

Even if  Dan Akroyd (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ghostbusters+three%3b+dan+aykroyd&qpvt=ghostbusters+three%3b+dan+aykroyd&view=detail&mid=3F650BD8B6068CA974743F650BD8B6068CA97474&FORM=VRDGAR) seems totally on board with this.

Didn't write a rough draft for film about them being a squad of Space-Rangers who protected humanity from aliens and this became Ghostbusters????? I know I read this somewhere!

If Slimer was based on the late John Belushi, shouldn't do the same for Harold Ramis without making it official. I understand this could be seen as in bad taste, but that's what the ugly little spud was based on.

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 19 February, 2016, 01:08:58 PM

Quote from: von Boom on 19 February, 2016, 12:35:41 PMI have no problem with the cast being women. I just wish they were actually funny women.

I'm not familiar with their stand-up, but McCarthy and Wiig have been perfectly decent in the films I've seen them in. I don't think the performances will be much of an issue; the writing's an unknown to me, since I've not seen anything Katie Dippold has penned.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find both Wiig and McCarthy very unfunny. I have no idea who the other two are. I didn't even consider the writing.

 I find it hard to assess how funny a film will be in the absence of a single clip.  Ghostbusters is a very hard act to follow, as GB2 proves, so I don't have particularly high hopes and doubt whether a reboot was ever a remotely good idea*  - but I'll at least wait until we hear a single line of  dialogue before condemning it!



*Note that I said almost exactly the same thing about Force Awakens.

Quote from: Tordelback on 19 February, 2016, 02:17:57 PM
I find it hard to assess how funny a film will be in the absence of a single clip.  Ghostbusters is a very hard act to follow, as GB2 proves, so I don't have particularly high hopes and doubt whether a reboot was ever a remotely good idea*  - but I'll at least wait until we hear a single line of  dialogue before condemning it!

*Note that I said almost exactly the same thing about Force Awakens.

This nails my main issue with the reboot. It's nothing to do with the gender of the cast, it's just such a tough act to follow. If it's crap I'll just ignore it, it wont alter Ghostbusters in any way.

Right. The original is still there. Are reboots necessary? Sure. But I'll bet people were also saying the same thing about films where the reboot turned out to work every well, either as an improvement on the original, or as a different film that nonetheless is a kind of kindred spirit to the first.

I really like Ghostbusters. It's a great film. It's also over 30 years old. Why not let another bunch of people have a crack at the same concept?

Personally, I consider Point Break to be a far, far better film than Ghostbusters.

I have managed to contain my old man's irritation at the needless remake by not reading about it or watching it.

Dredd was better reboot cos Judge Dredd was shit!

And Ghostbusters was classic, why the point on reboot it? and those are not funny people. just shout and doing having shit or drunk in Bridesmaids. So what news to new Ghostbusters?

I still can't find any rumour of what Dan Akroyd's original concept for scifi-spoof that sounded like he wanted to pay homage to the 1950's sci-fi serials. Sounded a lot like what that X-Com game was base on to me. Then were altered to become Ghostbusters

Could you imagine how that may have panned out if they stuck with that concept. Unfortunitely, it 's looks like I'm wrong when finding  this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_%28franchise%29) while trying to sift through other related pages of Ghostbusters related internet.  It does sound a bit more X-Com with a paranormal theme.

They might have done that and with the ladies, but maybe not those ladies and go for a more serious less comedic approach. I don't think the success of the original film is being wasted on this experimentation with their style of comedy passed on to those who might not do so well with it.

No, I don't think lightening will strike twice here.

Quote from: von Boom on 19 February, 2016, 01:53:42 PM

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 19 February, 2016, 01:08:58 PM

Quote from: von Boom on 19 February, 2016, 12:35:41 PMI have no problem with the cast being women. I just wish they were actually funny women.

I'm not familiar with their stand-up, but McCarthy and Wiig have been perfectly decent in the films I've seen them in. I don't think the performances will be much of an issue; the writing's an unknown to me, since I've not seen anything Katie Dippold has penned.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find both Wiig and McCarthy very unfunny. I have no idea who the other two are. I didn't even consider the writing.

Given the cast there probably won't be very much in the way of writing. I find Wiig very funny (although I don't think Bridesmaids is the masterpiece a lot of people seem to) but anything her or McCarthy are in always seems to be from the 'just put them in a situation and point the camera at them, the improv will do the rest!' school of modern comedy which sometimes works great and sometimes not so great.

I don't particularly have a problem with the casting, and to be honest I'd somehow managed to avoid the fact that Wiig is in it and that's given me a bit of hope I might get a chuckle or two out of it. McCarthy I find much more hit and miss, and not familiar with the others.

I'm not sure why people seem to be assuming that the movie won't be funny because of the people in it.

I'm no expert on film making but I would imagine that there is some kind of a script. And written into this script will be jokes. Jokes written by someone who has an intended target audience who the jokes will be aimed at. And call me crazy but I think that these jokes will be aimed a completely different crowd to those who Bridesmaids were written for.

Just because someone makes a few films that you dislike does not make them a bad actor/actress. After titanic came out no one would have guessed that Leonardo Di Caprio was a good actor, and yet all these years later here we are.

All I'm saying is that it's just a film. It's made to entertain you. And for all you know it could be funny. Who knows, maybe it will be aimed at the Bridesmaids crowd. Wouldn't that be funny :D "Oh no, someone took my favorite childhood movie and changed it completely so that it's written for the female demographic!"

I don't have an structured argument here. It's just a long winded way of me saying chill the f*** out. If it sucks, the first 2 films will still be just as good as they always were. Nothing can change that. So just re-watch them and be happy.

You mean the first film will still be good. Ghostbusters 2 is cack!

Quote from: JamesC on 20 February, 2016, 08:00:56 AM
Ghostbusters 2 is cack!

Utter cack indeed. Which is interesting in the context of the present discussion, since it featured the exact same funny and notably male cast as the sainted original.

He didn't say they'd both still be objectively good, but "just as good."

Bit surprised at the Ghostbusters 2 hate. It's maybe not as good as the first but it's hardly a Starship Troopers 2 and Vigo's a much better villain than Zool or whatever.

I'm rather intrigued by this. It's good idea that they've got ordinary looking women, not supermodels as the main characters so it will be the story and the interaction between the leads that we concentrate on. You can't help feeling that Hollywood adds the glammed up female sidekick/Assassin/whatever dressed in cod feminists disguise since she 'kicks ass' just like the men in tight bum hugging trousers or less.

Transformers leered lecherously at Megan Fox and Rosie Huntingdon Whiteley so perhaps this female Ghostbuster is an attempt to redress the balance a bit. After all feminism was supposed to vanquish sexism making it- aha, a ghost but clearly they underestimated the biology that shaped men's views or worse since they believed in equality denied it. Biology, cruel as it is is never fair or equitable and men's minds do appear to be wired differently from the female being more aggressive and analytical. Men still dominate societies institutions despite decades worth of legislation to make the job place 'fair' so you can understand why women would feel a little unhappy about what they believe to be institutional sexism, which the argue is still holding women back in a male dominated  system. 

Perhaps Ghostbuster might be a wry comment how far have women got in society. A 'where have we got to' check and also how far do we have to go to get true equality something cynics about human nature like me believe to be impossible. Women have become  Politicians, Business leaders and leading actors in Movies like GhostBusters but still despite all this a female leader tends to receive more media attention about what they wear rather than their policies. The supposedly contained ghost of sexism and the male dominated society with it's inevitable prejudices are still around seemingly impervious to change or progress. So who you gonna call? Insert quote here.

It's not biology but ingrained patterns of learned (both consciously and unconsciously) behaviour which should, can and does change.

I don't think anyone is saying that people are the same, rather that they should be treated the same and afforded the same opportunities. Legislation forces change to be observed, but only living with the effects of that change shifts attitudes along generational lines.

Basically, just because things are difficult and take time doesn't mean we should continue to endorse social structures and ideas which serve to enslave half the people we profess to love. Apologies to the married boarders!

Your words are optimistic Cosh but I fear there is something rotten in human nature that will undermine all attempts at progress. You assume that everyone finds your inclusiveness right or desirable and surely the reaction to the all female cast spells the polar opposite. Men and it is mostly men appear to be resentful of this Film because it has an all female cast. Hardly an endorsement of an attempt at equality if this is the reaction.

As for generational change you could argue that attitudes have changed over the years but have they really? There may be less open racism and overt sexism than in the past but is just hidden away better? The people of this Nation aren't exactly falling over with joy to let in thousands of desperate refugees from Syria and the Internet is so awash with porn I bump into 'risque stuff' even when I'm on some comic websites. Perhaps football hooliganism is a better proof of your assumption. Hooliganism was rampant in the 1980's and early 1990's but then the Authorities got tough and started jailing hooligans plus after the Bradford stadium fire and other football related incidents clubs began to see fans as an asset [to be exploited of course] rather than as a problem.   

But I'm a cynic and I don't believe any legislation can fundamentally change the human condition. We're mostly rotten IMHO but perhaps that's just me!

Some people have a weird kind of ingrained sexism. All-women leads? WHY NO MEN? Only male leads? *silence* Token women in 'must be all things to everyone and also absurdly strong' role? YOU GOT ONE WOMAN! ANY MORE AND THEY WOULD TAKE OVER!

I'll be satisfied with a fun film about people bustin' some ghosts.

Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 20 February, 2016, 11:47:40 AM
Your words are optimistic Cosh but I fear there is something rotten in human nature that will undermine all attempts at progress.

Not even hardly. People are nasty small cowardly lazy creatures it's true, but at the same time we are cursed with a reflective consciousness and a complexity of relationships that insist that we can and will be better.  Look no further than Ireland last year, where 62% (that's 1.2 million people) voted in a direct plebiscite to write full marriage equality into our hideously backward Constitution.  It's a legislative change that grew out of a change in attitude, which in turn further reinforces and magnifies that change. That is an almost unimaginable thing to me, who grew up at a time when to be called gay was the worst insult imaginable, a time when there was no divorce, contraceptives had to be prescribed; my mother was forced to leave her job when she got married, and her subsequent job when she had me. The attitudes aren't hidden, they've become a minority. People and their laws do change, and usually for the better.

That said, the attitude to refugees, the bald xenophobia of it, and its political exploitation, terrifies me. But we'll get through that too.

Quote from: Tordelback on 20 February, 2016, 09:47:39 AM

Quote from: JamesC on 20 February, 2016, 08:00:56 AM
Ghostbusters 2 is cack!

Utter cack indeed. Which is interesting in the context of the present discussion, since it featured the exact same funny and notably male cast as the sainted original.

I've been thinking about that...without actually know why the second film bombed and have now come to the conclusion that it was mostly the same as the first, but with new villain.....Vigo...with some misguided creep in supporting role...who I remember, but he was the original Dragon-Slayer and Cookie from Ally MacBeal and apart from animated the Statue of Liberty as a even bigger patriotic gesture it was just more of the same.

I was reading in their wiki, that one of the comic adaption of this was crossed over with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle and then thought that might have worked, if they did that instead. I think both the sequel and the very first TMNT film were made close to the same time. Still I like to see this done with the assistance of todays tech.

Slimer looks really out of place by todays' standards. Given that hungry green ghosts have a place.

What's the problem? I hear it likes the girls too.

I've ben busy creating a roster of rookies and specialist soldiers based on the cast of the first Ghostbusters film on X-Com Two and who knows, I may even do one for their female replacements in my attitude that they should have upgraded their tech moved on from spooks to aliens. Replacing the Ecto-One  & their HQ with a flying fortress.

Who wants to sign up and let me add you to the roster?

With publicity like this how can they possibly fail?


(http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/6/5/5/5/l/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.16553m.png/1438574947430.jpg)

(http://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/scale_crop_768_433/2015/08/screen_shot_2015-08-01_at_6.35.20_pm.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/Vx8sFHJ.jpg)

I'll say it before Goaty does. That's more publicity than Dredd got!

Well this guys did this better, and even there wasn't no publicity or films out.

(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Tyler%20Gower%20copy.jpg)(http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201516/rs_634x813-150206121810-634.Chris-Evans-Chris-Pratt-Boston.3.ms.020615.jpg)

Good news, everyone!  Sony have found a way to stop people dissing the new Ghostbusters movie just because it has a female cast - by making the gender of its protagonists the absolute least of its problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw

Yeah, saw that this morning....

Had stayed out of the discussion as I neither wish to be in either the 'oh god they made them women' or 'why are you so concerned they are now women?' camps....but that looks pish.  Let's start with the wimmin issue.....do I care it's females?  Nah.  Do I care it's only females as a gimmick?  Yeah.  Is there any worth in making them female now?  Doubt it.  They are essetially the same characters gender flipped....and I despise gender flipping for the sake of gender flipping. 

The rest?  Well....usually when a trailer for a comedy comes out you see a couple of the 'best' jokes of the film, which usually annoys me (hence, I don't usually watch trailers) but does seem necessary in a way to let folks know what they are in for.  If there was anything funny in that trailer....I musta blinked and missed it.  For me, that means this film is in far more trouble from it's script than it's cast.

The effects looked fine....right up till we saw one of them 'interacting' with one....yeah...uninspired actor in a green room throwing punches at thin air....that always works well. ;)  So in general, I am in no way surprised that yet another 'remake with a twist' is looking like it's most likely a steaming pile of dog-doo....but I am a bit dissapointed.

What a shite trailer, and what too much green!

I dunno. I thought it looked OK, but the trailer's edit was surprisingly sluggish and lacked energy. I liked the last bit. That remix of the theme tune, though... urgh.

Quote from: Ollamh Iompróidh on 03 March, 2016, 02:20:23 PM
Good news, everyone!  Sony have found a way to stop people dissing the new Ghostbusters movie just because it has a female cast - by making the gender of its protagonists the absolute least of its problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw

I've been entirely positive about this remake, right up until I watched that there trailer.

TBH I don't care about the gender of the Ghostbusters, just as long as the white people are the nerdy academic types and the black person is "Street" then I'm happy and nature is in balance...

If I'm honest, it looks just fine.  I just wish it looked funny or interesting.

I feel the editing of that trailer is just generally bad.

I'm still watching because my internet had dropped to a sluggish pace.....

I think there are two different trailers and I saw the stupid one a little earlier.

Also I notice a little error. Winston wasn't a scientist.... Only the other 3 were.

What about her line of 'I don't know science, but I know New York'? as alluded to by Dunk! showing she's street, and dumb?

Seen the full second trailer and I think the original one I was directed to watch was some nonsense spliced together just for me. I found it from some comedy website in my e-mail.

At least they took advantage of current level of FX to improve Slimer and now I know where all the labry slime comes from.

I think young girls will love this one.

With all the silly bruharhar about the Ghostbusters being women (I mean really you get affronted by that?) I didn't realise that this was a remake/reboot. For some reason I assumed it was more of next story just with new characters and what not.

The fact that they've done that vexes me a little. I mean the idea of a bunch of people making a business out of hunting cool ghosts and they decided to do the same story instead of a gazzillion other possible stories strikes me as odd... well yes Ghostbusters 2 but that doesn't mean this one had to be rubbish.

All that said I quite liked that trailer.

This was the offending trailer I saw....

Still undecided. The humour seemed very bland, the green ecto stuff was overused making the ghosties look homogenised, but who knows? I suspect my kids will love it.

Just what I thought. Unfunny and uninteresting. I'll keep my money and maybe give it a go once it hits netflix.

Judging by the trailer, this looks like another film in the very long line of unnecessary remakes.

Saying that, the Exorcist gag made me chuckle.

It is unwise to ever judge a film by its trailer these days. It might still be alright.

At least the ghosts look very Ghostbustersish, and the ghosts were the main reason kids wanted to see the original back in 1984/85.

Quote from: M.I.K. on 03 March, 2016, 05:35:39 PM
It is unwise to ever judge a film by its trailer these days. It might still be alright.

At least the ghosts look very Ghostbustersish, and the ghosts were the main reason kids wanted to see the original back in 1984/85.

Hell!
That's why I went to see it in '84!!!!  :)

I thought it looked fun without giving too much away.

Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 03 March, 2016, 06:58:26 PM
I thought it looked fun without giving too much away.

Me too. Looking forward to it.

Looks like a shot by shot remake except with women in the main roles. Seems totally pointless.

I don't think it's gonna be literally shot for shot.....much the same as the terrible Robocop 're-boot', it's borrowing heavily from the original, but there was that line that went (paraphrasing) ''someone has made a device to amplify spiritual activity'', so I guess they have at least tried to bring something new to the script.....apart from just the gender flip.  Not that it makes it any more attractive at this point...;)

Quote from: Buttonman on 03 March, 2016, 08:55:07 PM
Looks like a shot by shot remake except with women in the main roles. Seems totally pointless.

Seriously? From the trailer alone I saw at keast three scenes not in the original. The phrase "shot-by-shot" make's my teeth stand on edge because it's used constantly incorrectly.

Sorry to upset your sensibilities Hawk and indeed your teeth.

What seems familiar? Ecto-plasm in the face, Ecto 1, Fire station building, slimer, ghosts terrifying New York, large advertising icon (Fair enough not the Stay Puft man), traps, uniforms, beam weapons, nerdy one, vulgar one, dissenting mayor/police, logo, catchphrase, theme tune (well a snippet of it anyway)...

Might be great but the trailer makes it looks like a shot for shot remake.

And there go the teeth again!

Should've gone for grimdark cos the funny ain't workin'.


Nice one Sony; give Ghostbusters 'back to Marvel'.

I can only think of one reason why Ghostbusters can only return as females & it's to prove that anybody can do what the original team did & that's why I think it's a kind of sad idea. I hope for their sake that they don't just give us something that as Hawkmonger would say is a shot by shot reproduction of everything that made the first film stand up and say....

We Came, We Saw, We Kicked.......It's Ass

This doesn't mean I don't like watching females in leading roles that have them doing it for themselves. Oh no, I just don't like seeing this done stupidly. Not that I'm sure it might be.

Who ever approached who or who ever came up with the idea of doing this gender swapped. Why didn't they dream up some other concept that involved the slapstick supernatural & beyond. 

How about female space rangers?

Just leave Ghostbusters as it was if they could make a comeback using the exact same formula. Too late for that now, let it happen.

BTW, Lesley Nielsen got away with it....but he's gone now. 

It looks like an Adam Sandler movie.

It looks okay...ish.
The biggest disappointment for me is that it's a reboot. I thought it was going to be a 'next generation' thing that followed on from the previous films. I think that would've been more interesting and probably less alienating to fans of the original film.

Quote from: JamesC on 04 March, 2016, 06:52:12 AM
It looks okay...ish.
The biggest disappointment for me is that it's a reboot. I thought it was going to be a 'next generation' thing that followed on from the previous films. I think that would've been more interesting and probably less alienating to fans of the original film.

That term....Reboot has always confused me. I figure it means that the original GBs don't exist. Is that right.

You know, I think all of them minus one are making cameo's and I'm not sure if that includes as them being who were or just other folks.

Well the trailer is a little confusing as it starts by establishing that this all happened 30 years ago in the original film. But the way the trailer continues makes it look like an updated, gender flipped retelling of the original story and that in-narrative the characters have no knowledge of the previous film's events. It's a bit odd.

I think the term re-boot refers to a studio trying to reignite a franchise generally and doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how that's done. So a remake, a belated sequel, a prequel or a re-imagining could all be considered 're-boots' if they are breathing new life into a dormant franchise.

It feels like the trailer wants to have its cake and eat it, by referencing the original film but then ignoring it in the actual film. It's an odd approach. It's not like Robocop went: "In 1987, a metal cop took on OCP in Detroit, and now, in 2014, we've decided to have another crack at the concept."

One of the interesting aspects of the original is that the paranormal activity they are dealing with is all related to an imminent cross-dimensional event - their apparent 'discovery' of ghosts that can be busted for fun and profit is just a symptom of something else, rather than the identification of a sustainable business model. Of course the literature than Ray and Egon discuss suggests that the supernatural is an ongoing thing, as does the sequel, but we don't see any evidence of that in the first film - New York becomes 'spook central' because Ivo Shandor had built a mechanism to open a gateway to the Traveler's dimension, and everything from the librarian to Ray's nocturnal blow-job are side effects.  Gozer is worshipped as a god, but it is actually an interdimensional invader - this makes the film a very self-contained story, possibly one reason its many spinoffs struggle.

The new trailer suggests an artificial boosting of paranormal activity as the main plot, not unlike the goo in the second, but will this be to a similar purpose...?

Cross-Dimensional-Event sounds like rift between two alternate Earths. Can you see where that is going....

Clearly its not a sequel of any kind as it starts by mentioning 4 scientists. Pretty sure there were only 3.

Quote from: James Stacey on 04 March, 2016, 12:00:21 PM
Clearly its not a sequel of any kind as it starts by mentioning 4 scientists. Pretty sure there were only 3.

They may be counting Winston as a Ghostbuster (and hence 'scientist', since they don't want to say the word Ghostbuster that early in the trailer.)

It's a trailer.  They're not carving great truths in eternal stone, so I don't think there's any 'clearly' about it.

I take your point but there are plenty of other words they could have used that are factually correct (within the context of the previous films)  such as 'people', it seems odd to go out of their way to say something incorrect when they are slavishly referencing the original film in so many ways. Its an odd one. Yep its just a trailer, and fingers crossed the film is great. If it isn't it won't alter how great the original was (imo). It does look painfully unfunny from whats available though.

Winston backstory.

http://www.gbfans.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18069 (http://www.gbfans.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18069)

It just didn't make it to the final film.

Zero interest in seeing this. A remake of something that was already perfect made by and starring people I've never heard of.

Winston became an honourary scientist after the situation was explained to him in terms of twinkles.

Nothing against anyone involved, I like Wiig, enjoyed McCarthy in St Vincent and I'll always have a soft spot for Feig for creating one of my most cherished TV series of all time in Freaks and Geeks....

...but this just doesn't look very good.

Here's the original Ghostbusters trailer for comparison:

http://youtu.be/teGxHLo9Qcc

Red Letter Media just posted their trailer review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6seIQ8rLp8

You should also check out Red Letter Media's... everything.

Quote from: James Dilworth on 05 March, 2016, 05:56:12 AM
Red Letter Media just posted their trailer review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6seIQ8rLp8

You should also check out Red Letter Media's... everything.

If ever their was a time to bring this gem back, it's to sum of general fan reaction to this trailer.
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/le-miiverse-resource/images/f/fe/Rich_Evans_In_Repose.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141026032911)

Bevan Bell recut the trailer. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0) Even cutting out the best bit, it's a vast improvement. Reminds me of the international/Japanese Dredd trailers in terms of shifting focus.

See, that is better. But worryingly it's mostly better because it cuts out almost all the extended humour sequences from the real trailer, and specifically anything involving Leslie Jones.

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 05 March, 2016, 10:54:58 AM
Bevan Bell recut the trailer. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0) Even cutting out the best bit, it's a vast improvement. Reminds me of the international/Japanese Dredd trailers in terms of shifting focus.

Much better trailer. The first trailer looked a bit mediocre and the SFX effects appeared pretty ropey. There was quite a lot of hostility towards this version anyway already on the Net and I'm sorry to say the first trailer certainly didn't have enough ammunition to nullify its detractors but it's just the first video promo and July is quite a long way off. Let's hope Ghostbuster doesn't end up being this Summer's 'Gods of Egypt' currently being denounced by that Film's own makers.

 New G-Gender-Swapped-B's - Trailer (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/05/18/new-ghostbusters-trailer-offers-first-glimpse-of-the-reboots-stay-puft-marshmallow-man/) featuring some the return of old American junk food icon. Another diabetic nightmare.

Recut the trailer all they like...it still looks a dog of a film.  I don't say that because of gender, or being a remake, or anything other than it looks AWFUL. I'd love to be surprised, but I expect to be proven correct unfortunately.

when I heard about his I was like no way would I pay to see it, and whilst I still have major reservations I am however rather intrigued to see what they do with it. Confession = I might actually nip in to see what it all about

I quite liked the first trailer and enjoyed that one more. Tempted by this remakes... well whatever it is.

Yeah, that was better, certainly.  The cast seemed more cohesive and funny, the ghost FX less resolutely crap. It also seemed more definite about bring a remake, rather than a quasi-sequel, which uncertainty really hacked me off in the first trailer.

Who knows, maybe..?

Hang on though....it's still the same film!  Yes, they recut the trailer....but that's just the TRAILER.  The film will not change....don't forget that.

The trailer isn't great, but it's just a trailer. I've seen arsom* trailers for shit movies and shit trailers for arsom movies. The most offputting thing is the SJW Vs. MRA: Dawn of Shitstorm coverage.

*Whatever happened to Cyberleader 2000? I hope he found love and happiness and that's why he left.

Missed the edit.

The other offputting thing is its a Paul Feig Movie featuring Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy.

I didn't enjoy Bridesmaids all that much.

It leaned too heavily on crude humour and featured a selfish, immature protagonist who negatively impacted everyone they met. A protagonist that only found love and happiness because the love interest was incredibly naive and forgiving.

It was basically a gender-swapped Adam Sandler movie.

Quote from: Ghost MacRoth on 19 May, 2016, 01:52:34 AM
Hang on though....it's still the same film!  Yes, they recut the trailer....but that's just the TRAILER.  The film will not change....don't forget that.

But I haven't seen the film. All I have to go on are the trailers. And this one looks better than its dismal predecessor.

Anyone remember the trailer for Star Trek V?  It looked AWESOME!!!  Then it turned out that all the best bits were in the trailer and the rest was utter shite.

I won't even mention the trailer for Dredd. 

The point being there's no way of knowing what the film is going to be like from a trailer.

Also, this film seems like excellent sci-fi/fantasy fare - ghosts, proton packs, techno-traps - surely we should be celebrating the fact films like this are being made?

I really don't give a shit if they're male, female, gay, straight, transvestite or transsexual.  They're busting ghosts!!!  That's what matters.

I'm going to see this film, and I'm taking my three daughters too.  All of us love the original, and we're really excited to see how it pans out.

Quote from: Ghost MacRoth on 19 May, 2016, 01:52:34 AM
Hang on though....it's still the same film!  Yes, they recut the trailer....but that's just the TRAILER.  The film will not change....don't forget that.

Yes. So the film may be good and worth a watch as it was only the trailer they fucked up first time.

Also, I thought it was pretty normal to release a trailer before all the FX, editing and post production stuff is finished so the film actually will have changed but I have no idea what I'm on about.

Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 18 May, 2016, 05:42:29 PM
New G-Gender-Swapped-B's - Trailer (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/05/18/new-ghostbusters-trailer-offers-first-glimpse-of-the-reboots-stay-puft-marshmallow-man/) featuring some the return of old American junk food icon. Another diabetic nightmare.

Genuinely don't understand why you haven't been banned from this forum. It can't just be an allowance for your country's general backwards attitude towards social change as other Australians seem able to accept this.

Perhaps it's a flaw in my character but I'm neither as intelligent, empathetic or tolerant as some other boarders. Please just fuck off and never post again until you are able to grasp the fact that women are autonomous people with their own hopes and dreams and desires which do not include you.

Quote from: The Cosh on 19 May, 2016, 08:49:14 AM
Genuinely don't understand why you haven't been banned from this forum.

This.

Jim

Ditto.

Let's not let Ghostbusters go the way of Mad Max, chaps. Mayor's backwards attitudes are his to keep and as much as I like grilling him for it it's not worth locking another thread over!

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 19 May, 2016, 09:02:42 AM

Quote from: The Cosh on 19 May, 2016, 08:49:14 AM
Genuinely don't understand why you haven't been banned from this forum.

This.

Jim

Or just pop him on your ignore list... I done it a while back and visits to the site improved tremendously.
My understanding is he's a young man with a lot of problems, some real some imagined,  sadly I don't come here to argue with people about really important stuff but for entertainment and  comics.  So Ignore button it is. If we all do the same he'll simply be shouting in the void.

[quote author=Proudhuff link=topic=43068.msg916898#msg916898 date=1463760017
My understanding is he's a young man with a lot of problems, some real some imagined,  sadly I don't come here to argue with people about really important stuff but for entertainment and  comics. 
[/quote]

And this is where my 'This' goes.

With this shaped bells on.

For FUX sake...what did I say now......was it the words GENDER-SWAPPED?

Honestly don't know what's wrong with that. I was just trying to be witty, that's all or was it the spoiler or that fact that I didn't use one properly. You know Junk Food icon, Diabetic Nightmare.

Anyway, from your attitudes that I'm being backward....well, I'd think I have a clue that it was the word Gender-swapped which describes the new Ghost-Busters film exactly without insulting anybody as far as I'm concerned. It's just slang word, or slang word combi-thing. I like using those, and it's not to put people down.

If believe that your sillier than that minority that doesn't like me using words She-Male wether or not I'm addressing them personally.

This just two people over reacting again.

Maybe Goaty was upset  that I found that one before he did.....

I assure that my so called offending commentary above had nothing to do with any or my personal problems from the past or problems I'm having now. Some real or imagined.

This is like me getting banned form sex chat room for talking about using Skype I said one word and bam, I was thrown out of this girls chat room for day and a night before being let back in and now I don't go in there anymore...anyway!

Yet, 2000AD means more to me......I have invested a lot of time and money into this comic (For want of a better word....) Rebellion!

I love it here.....but this makes me sad....

Quote from: The Cosh on 19 May, 2016, 08:49:14 AM

Perhaps it's a flaw in my character but I'm neither as intelligent, empathetic or tolerant as some other boarders. Please just fuck off and never post again until you are able to grasp the fact that women are autonomous people with their own hopes and dreams and desires which do not include you.

BTW.....

I know this a double posting for me. But, before this thread goes the way of the Mad Max and gets locked!

They wouldn't autonomous, with hopes and dreams.... as you say then might want to hope and dream on being more original. It's not autonomous to follow in the wake of the original Ghost-Busters and to do it so closely as from what I have seen in the trailer. Nearly every main character is a Gender-Swapped analog of those from the first two movies.

BTW....

As far as I'm concerned. The words Gender & Swapped together have nothing to do with their sexual denomination and of changing sex. It just simply means that the boys have now passed the torch to  the girls. It doesn't mean the characters played by Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Ernie Hudson & the late Harold Ramis and whoever was Janine Menitz have undergone a sex change or have taking to wearing the clothes of the opposite gender.

Really, I'm think you have some personal problems with me and your just pretending I said some thing really offensive to everybody here.  Looking for any reason to have me banned or just tell me to fuck off.

Maybe I said something offensive about what I thought of this trilogy final over a month ago.....but your a little too slow if you want cry foul about that now. Like, I did try to be as fair and polite as possible as I typically can when I made my point back then. Don't bitch about it now though!

I'm most certainly not sorry and won't be taking anything I said back for any-bodies sake.

I'm more baffled that anyone actually reads his pointless, poorly written ramblings.

Quote from: Mister Pops on 20 May, 2016, 09:11:01 PM
I'm more baffled that anyone actually reads his pointless, poorly written ramblings.

Now there's no need to be rude, I do my best...

Quote from: Proudhuff on 20 May, 2016, 05:00:17 PM
Or just pop him on your ignore list... I done it a while back and visits to the site improved tremendously.

And new visitors to the site? Possibly potential readers, or ones new to the prog, who are treated to TS's musings on strip clubs, prostitutes, and whether phone workers' panties are getting wet from talking to him?

I'm sorry, but this stuff just stinks up the forum.

Jim

Goodness knows I have had many issues with the sexist aspects of some of TS's posts, and serious issues with members of the it's-about-ethics-in-Ghostbusters-rebooting lobby in the wider internet, but... isn't TS basically  correct when he refers to "G-Gender-Swapped-Bs"?.  The trailer indicates that there are opposite-gender analogues for Egon, Ray and Janine at the very least, and Wiig and Jones may well map onto Peter and Winston, although that isn't really clear personalitywise. Am I being thick again?

FWIW, I watched the second international trailer with the family, and we actually all chuckled along, especially the last scene with Leslie Jones.

Also, and more generally, in the words of Vonnegut: There's only one rule that I know of, babies- goddamn it, you've got to be kind.

I think it was the 'diabetic nightmare' part that was the main issue, no?

I thought Diabetic Nightmare was a novel way to describe something from the first film. Without giving away what I talking about completely. Without spoiling it.

All that ranting I did on another tread that must have been mod-deleted was really about what seemed like online shop advertising the prog I wanted nearly a fortnight ago and having just enough money left in my bank account at the time and then numbered crunched as just enough money disappeared in order for that purchase to never happen until I asked Steam for a refund on game that unlocks next week. I can still repurchase the game next Monday. I got that money yesterday morning and now it's gone. Yet, I'm no longer so hungry.

"All that ranting" as you describe ir, was you creepily telling us about your fairly repulsive fantasies of sexually harassing the female call centre worker that called you up about your credt card.

Why diid you feel you needed to share that with us?  How did you think that would that would make you appear to the rest of us?  Why do you think your post was deleted?

Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 21 May, 2016, 04:00:28 AM
I thought Diabetic Nightmare was a novel way to describe something from the first film. Without giving away what I talking about completely. Without spoiling it.

I see; I thought you were referring to one of the main characters.  I missed the other thread in question; probably for the best.

Quote from: GordonR on 21 May, 2016, 05:35:59 AM
"All that ranting" as you describe ir, was you creepily telling us about your fairly repulsive fantasies of sexually harassing the female call centre worker that called you up about your credt card.

Why diid you feel you needed to share that with us?  How did you think that would that would make you appear to the rest of us?  Why do you think your post was deleted?

Actually, I just gave her my CC details so I could pay off some of my debt for this month & she kept chewing my ear off about the next time I would need to pay more of my debt for this fortnight coming up and just hung up.

Gee's, I was only thinking about asking if her panties are getting wet over my phone voice. She was harassing me, & I merely wanted to ask the harassment more worth while. Nobody puts up with that much abuse without good reason for it. So I hang up.

Incidently, I don't talk much at all, especially not as much as I write stuff and else. That's my outlet for venting.

Do you really need to add few layers of ominence to you anything you find in the slightest bit off colour in my commentary.

So...that new Ghostbusters trailer looks pretty rad right?!

Well I like the look of it.

Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 21 May, 2016, 06:33:10 AM
Gee's, I was only thinking about asking if her panties are getting wet over my phone voice. She was harassing me, & I merely wanted to ask the harassment more worth while.

This is why you are getting flak from people here. This is you telling us about you fantasising about sexual harassment of a person just doing their job.  Whatever goes on in your head is one thing, but it's not acceptable to be typing it into a public comics forum.

I completely understand you using this space to vent - I do it too, as do many here. But talking about other people in this way - using sexual imagery to demean them - is going too far.  It's just wrong, and it makes you seem like an unpleasant person, which I'm sure you're not. We all say and do shitty things, and we try to recognise that and do better in the future.

... and once more back to the film (or trailer). 

Okay so that is a better job to be sure.  Pacing, content, imagery.  I have to admit I'm more inclined to wait largely because the sort of humour that many of those involved in this tend towards just doesn't appeal to me. 

That said, my preference is for the original MASH and Monty Python so I guess that was pretty much inevitable.  Hey ho.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 20 May, 2016, 10:01:31 PM

Quote from: Proudhuff on 20 May, 2016, 05:00:17 PM
Or just pop him on your ignore list... I done it a while back and visits to the site improved tremendously.

And new visitors to the site? Possibly potential readers, or ones new to the prog, who are treated to TS's musings on strip clubs, prostitutes, and whether phone workers' panties are getting wet from talking to him?

I'm sorry, but this stuff just stinks up the forum.

Jim

While I'm back here, I'd like to endorse this view. The joke isn't funny any more. Either be respectful and demonstrate good values while talking mostly about comics, or find the appropriate part of the Internet to post your content.

Quote from: Trout on 21 May, 2016, 06:02:50 PM

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 20 May, 2016, 10:01:31 PM

Quote from: Proudhuff on 20 May, 2016, 05:00:17 PM
Or just pop him on your ignore list... I done it a while back and visits to the site improved tremendously.

And new visitors to the site? Possibly potential readers, or ones new to the prog, who are treated to TS's musings on strip clubs, prostitutes, and whether phone workers' panties are getting wet from talking to him?

I'm sorry, but this stuff just stinks up the forum.

Jim

While I'm back here, I'd like to endorse this view. The joke isn't funny any more. Either be respectful and demonstrate good values while talking mostly about comics, or find the appropriate part of the Internet to post your content.

Look if your addressing about what ever I said earlier, please point it out exactly. As I said before anything I did shouldn't be treated that sensitively. That's just plain silly and as it was something posted possibly sometime last week & or deleted by the mods on under a different topic.

Shouldn't we just forget that.....

Moving Right Along! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w316aA8ed8)

Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 21 May, 2016, 08:05:23 PMAs I said before anything I did shouldn't be treated that sensitively. That's just plain silly and as it was something posted possibly sometime last week & or deleted by the mods on under a different topic.

TS, I'd say your inability to take on board why you've offended a good few people here goes some way to explaining our exasperation.

It's not us being politically correct. That would be us telling you what to think without recourse to dialogue and debate. And people here do take great pains to explain why you've caused offense. To which you usually ramble on about it without showing any real understanding of what we've said or any social awareness of what you've said.

So, anyway. About this new GHOSTBUSTERS movie I won't be going to see . . .

One of these looks like it was made with charm, wit and invention.

The other one looks like a cold, hard paycheck that some people turned up for.

(http://media0.giphy.com/media/ucsTpBTQBVIxa/giphy.gif)


(https://media.giphy.com/media/RQ1SHhotTNqMM/giphy.gif)

To be honest, I can't really see a massive difference. Obviously he's CGI these days but it's not bad CGI at all.
Odd to think he wasn't called 'Slimer' till the cartoon came out. For a long time I knew him as 'the Ugly Little Spud'.

Quote from: James Dilworth on 23 May, 2016, 12:35:48 AM
One of these looks like it was made with charm, wit and invention.

The other one looks like a cold, hard paycheck that some people turned up for.

(http://media0.giphy.com/media/ucsTpBTQBVIxa/giphy.gif)


(https://media.giphy.com/media/RQ1SHhotTNqMM/giphy.gif)

What I mean by fx that isn't nessesary!

BTW....what does that remind of from Slaine?

Yeah, not going to lie I always thought the practical effects on Slimer where awful.

first one looks like movie FX the second one looks like something from The Real Ghostbusters cartoon, infact the whole movie seems to have TRG look and feel to it.
Ghostbusters is probably one of my favourite movies as a kid (along with Gremlins and I suppose Goonies too) and I'm not terribly offended by this reboot (oh wow they're whimmin!!!!), it may turn out great and really shine in its own way or just be a boring new take ala the Robocop and Total Recall remakes.  I'll read a couple of unbiased reviews before spending my $ just to make sure it's not a total turd of a movie.

CU Radbacker

Quote from: James Dilworth on 23 May, 2016, 12:35:48 AM
One of these looks like it was made with charm, wit and invention.

The other one looks like a cold, hard paycheck that some people turned up for.

(http://media0.giphy.com/media/ucsTpBTQBVIxa/giphy.gif)


(https://media.giphy.com/media/RQ1SHhotTNqMM/giphy.gif)

Not that anybody here might agree. But I still spfx these days are a bit cold. Where's the old one is made from green puppetry, but very back in those days. I thought that and devil dogs (Gargoyles...Guardians...)were cool. I don't have problem with either, but the I guess the lack of love that went with easier option computer wizardry (More and more these days) reflects on how much your not really going to care those thing now.

I don't think CGI character work is necessarily easier to do well - it's just less constrained by physical limitations, and thus perhaps requires less fiddling, invention and compromise to realise a vision. And it sometimes seems that that process of negotiating with reality is what creates character. Also, something that is physical automatically has the edge in believability because it's already real: although as Phantom Menace puppet Yoda showed, sometimes the CGI version can be better.

Quote from: Tordelback on 23 May, 2016, 12:31:06 PM
I don't think CGI character work is necessarily easier to do well - it's just less constrained by physical limitations....

Yeah, good point!

These new FX a lot like sailing a boat on rough seas without that anchor or floatation devices. (Physical limitations!)

(Just a comparison, not need to be confused by it though.)

I'd rather eat a bullet than watch another Feig/McCarthy team up (without Statham to make it sorta worthwhile) but I am intrigued to see what happens at the box office. That $154m budget is pretty hefty for a guy whose most heavily praised film couldn't quite take in $300m. On the face of it though, £300m seems like a realistic target even with all the negativity. I'm not expecting a Fantastic Four type disaster regardless of a few similarities in the whole build up to this.

Sadly i'd say internet mob mentality may well have already killed the movies potential profit marginby alienating more than a few casual viewers. Thanks, mysogyny.

Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 26 May, 2016, 12:25:22 PM
Sadly i'd say internet mob mentality may well have already killed the movies potential profit marginby alienating more than a few casual viewers. Thanks, mysogyny.

Whether the film is good or not and the axe swing of reviews will determine its success with the general audience - not a few blokes on the Internet with frustrated hard-ons and man-crushes for Bill Murray.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 26 May, 2016, 12:44:55 PM

Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 26 May, 2016, 12:25:22 PM
Sadly i'd say internet mob mentality may well have already killed the movies potential profit marginby alienating more than a few casual viewers. Thanks, mysogyny.

Whether the film is good or not and the axe swing of reviews will determine its success with the general audience - not a few blokes on the Internet with frustrated hard-ons and man-crushes for Bill Murray.

One would hope but i'm not going to get my hopes up about revenue.

Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 26 May, 2016, 01:00:10 PM
One would hope but i'm not going to get my hopes up about revenue.

If the trailers are a truthful barometer of the film I wouldn't get my hopes up either although they are aiming quite a bit younger with this iteration so the kids might save it. The primary colours make it feel like an extension of the cartoon rather than the films - right down to female Spengler's hair and glasses.

Quote from: Stan on 26 May, 2016, 12:07:08 PM
I'd rather eat a bullet than watch another Feig/McCarthy team up

My feelings exactly. I have no trouble with making changes to the film, but these two are just not funny.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 26 May, 2016, 01:03:45 PM
- right down to female Spengler's hair and glasses.

Thought that McKinnon was the Venkwoman and Wiig the Spengirl? Damn this is confusing! It's almost as if they are different films!

You're right about the look and TRGB.  Not necessarily a bad thing. .

I am slightly troubled by the unchallenged assumption that people who think this will suck do so "because women", and not "because I have seen the trailer."

Or even 'I have seen the directors previous work'. ;)

Quote from: Professor Bear on 26 May, 2016, 02:16:29 PM
I am slightly troubled by the unchallenged assumption that people who think this will suck do so "because women", and not "because I have seen the trailer."

Is it not less of an assumption and more a generalisation based on reading endless comments to the effect of the former, even before the hopeless first trailer appeared? 

Quote from: Tordelback on 26 May, 2016, 02:21:02 PM

Quote from: Professor Bear on 26 May, 2016, 02:16:29 PM
I am slightly troubled by the unchallenged assumption that people who think this will suck do so "because women", and not "because I have seen the trailer."

Is it not less of an assumption and more a generalisation based on reading endless comments to the effect of the former, even before the hopeless first trailer appeared?

This. If I thought it looked a bad movie I would say thus. I don't think it looks bad.

Quote from: Tordelback on 26 May, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
You're right about the look and TRGB.  Not necessarily a bad thing. .

I assume it's trying to appeal to the nostalgia of those who grew up on the cartoon - that ran for 5 years and got rebooted again - as well as trying to capture a new generation of kids.

Would I have liked a direct legacy sequel to the original cast version?

Sure I would - GB2 looked so unappealing I've never seen more than 3 continuous minutes of it. I'd want a proper sequel set decades later with ghosts being so numerous that they've become citizens - working crappy jobs and socially interacting with the living - with the original Ghostbusters acting as chiefs of a sanctioned, fully manned/womanned, paranormal police force.

But no one cares what I want and they shouldn't have to - I'm too old to care about.

Genuinely baffled by the repeated knocking of Ghostbusters 2 in this thread. Vigo the Carpathian is great!

Quote from: The Cosh on 26 May, 2016, 02:51:59 PM
Genuinely baffled by the repeated knocking of Ghostbusters 2 in this thread. Vigo the Carpathian is great!

Ghostbusters 2 is not a good film. This does not look like a good film. I do not think women are responsible for my failings.

Vigo and his painting are good. Everything else is dull.

I assume you meant to type:

Quote from: Tordelback on 26 May, 2016, 03:41:51 PM
Vigo and his painting and the Scoleri Brothers are good. Everything else is dull.

Quote from: Tordelback on 26 May, 2016, 02:21:02 PM

Quote from: Professor Bear on 26 May, 2016, 02:16:29 PM
I am slightly troubled by the unchallenged assumption that people who think this will suck do so "because women", and not "because I have seen the trailer."

Is it not less of an assumption and more a generalisation based on reading endless comments to the effect of the former, even before the hopeless first trailer appeared?

Would that this were the case.  Sadly, there's seemingly a loud and vocal counter-movement dedicated to the idea that all criticism of the Ghostbusters remake stem from nothing but misogyny, rather than the slightly more plausible explanation that comedy might be a subjective experience.  It's all a bit thought-police-y.

But as Tordelback say SOOOO much of that criticism started prior to a single photo let alone, trailer being seen and misogyny was the clearly stated reason for that (well okay not stated but the intent was clear - even if half of the post I read would start 'I'm not sexist but...').

Now that doesn't in anyway shape or form invalidate someone looking at the current evidence and objectively saying - that looks a bit poo - (I don't think this by the way) - however the farcical levels of misogyny that surround this film can't and shouldn't be ignored AND there needs to be a vocal movement calling it out. Its been bloody ridiculous.

Its small sacrifice to therefore include in your criticism specific reasons (as would validate the criticism anyway) or expect to get caught up in the backlash.

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 26 May, 2016, 07:56:21 PM
But as Tordelback say SOOOO much of that criticism started prior to a single photo let alone, trailer being seen and misogyny was the clearly stated reason for that

Perhaps, but there's also the fact that before a trailer or pic was released, the film was promoted on the gender flip alone, which is of course gonna lead to a general reaction of.... 'why??'.  The production company then using this as a base of promotion by highlighting all 'misogynist' comments and sidelining all others didn't help either. 

It's also a bit rich for a Hollywood studio to lecture people about the treatment of women.

Quote from: Ghost MacRoth on 26 May, 2016, 08:49:32 PMwhich is of course gonna lead to a general reaction of.... 'why??'.

Which is depressing in itself, because the response should be: why not? (I'm not levelling this at you, note, but society as a whole.) It's really depressing having a young daughter swamped with male-dominated media—even in children's books, the vast, vast majority of the characters are male. So reworking a few old films and flipping the balance? Sure. Go for it.

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 26 May, 2016, 09:07:40 PM
Which is depressing in itself, because the response should be: why not?

Perhaps you're right, but I'd say there's nothing wrong with questioning a change* when there seems no reason for it bar a marketing ploy.  :(

*Beyond questioning it just for the sake of 'wimmin, oh no's!!!!'

McRoth has a point about studio hypocrisy, but like Indigo I have a young daughter and a rebalancing of action roles seems like a good and necessary step to me.

The Star Wars flicks are a good example: we've had six films effectively headed up by two pairs of blokes with a girl in an admittedly meaty third role. Now it looks like we'll have three with both a female and male lead, and a fourth with what looks like a female lead and almost exclusively male supporting cast. Seems like a start, but only that.

Two all-male GB teams, one all-female. And?

I don't see it as a marketing ploy per se, and even if it is, I don't care. Even fucking Paw Patrol is five 'boy' dogs and one 'girl' (who wears pink, is tiny, is support, and has the shittest vehicle). Even her kiddie books are more often than not fathers/sons or male characters. I'm pretty sick of it. It needs to stop.

Quote from: Tordelback on 26 May, 2016, 09:28:24 PMThe Star Wars flicks are a good example

When Mrs G and I watched the originals a few years ago, we'd forgotten quite how Smurfette Leia was. The Force Awakens was better, but even that made loads of people lose their shit (despite the main characters being a young bloke, an old bloke, a hairy bloke, and a woman).

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 26 May, 2016, 07:56:21 PM

Its small sacrifice to therefore include in your criticism specific reasons (as would validate the criticism anyway) or expect to get caught up in the backlash.

You shouldn't have to prove you're not sexist. That's proving a negative. I think the trailer makes the movie look bad. That is not a sexist statement.

Quote from: Mister Pops on 27 May, 2016, 04:04:53 AM

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 26 May, 2016, 07:56:21 PM

Its small sacrifice to therefore include in your criticism specific reasons (as would validate the criticism anyway) or expect to get caught up in the backlash.

You shouldn't have to prove you're not sexist. That's proving a negative. I think the trailer makes the movie look bad. That is not a sexist statement.

Interesting that you say that with a quote that says nothing about proving you're not sexist, but just validating your reasons for not liking it, as you probably should in any circumstance anyway.

Pops is correct though, you shouldn't have to prove you're not a sexist, that being largely impossible. I'd be pretty sure from their online output that people like Pops, McRoth and the Bear aren't evil sexists.  However, when entering a discussion or context which already has a large cloud of sexism hovering over it, it's no harm to clearly state your position. If that means prefacing remarks with a tedious teeth-grinding "I've no problem with female Ghostbusters, but..." that's maybe a toll we have to pay on a road worth travelling.

Quote from: Tordelback on 27 May, 2016, 07:07:14 AM
...that's maybe a toll we have to pay on a road worth travelling.

<Cue rousing opening bars of the SJW Anthem "My gender 'tis of thee">

What am I like. I plead oxygen starvation from my morning run, m'lud.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people criticising the material, the trailer, or even the people involved. We all have our personal tastes. Where it all derails is the moment people freak out because there's an all-female team. That hasn't really happened here, thankfully, which again showcases this forum as often being atypical in the geek sphere. (I've elsewhere seen a lot of "but why couldn't they have gone 50/50. Surely that's 'fair'?" whining, exclusively from men, which again utterly misses the point.)

(I also don't think you need the 'I'm not sexist' qualifier. Just some kind of qualifier is good as to why you don't like something. But that's the case with all criticism. Saying "Foo is shit" isn't useful. Saying "I think Foo is shit because the story is nonsensical, and they replaced the main character from the comics with a rabbit" is better.

I'm not a sexist™, but I'd argue that Sony were hoping to get a misogynist response to aid their marketing campaign*.  The email leaks from a few years back shows exactly the kind of racist, misogynist studio they run, and the revelations about the Hillary Clinton nomination campaign paying online trolls to make Clinton look the victim of sexist abuse (and subsequent "Bernie Bros" narrative, itself a repackaging of Clinton's 2008 "Obama Boys") shows that negative marketing is already a thing.



* I am unsure if "hoping" is the correct term, as it infers there might have been a possibility the knuckle-draggers weren't going to crawl out from under their rocks for this one.

I want to know if the original 1969 Cadillac Ecto 1 was male and if the new 1984 Cadillac is female.
These things are important. 

Here we go with the "women can't drive a stick shift" bullshit.  Your misogyny appalls me.

Quote from: JamesC on 27 May, 2016, 12:19:17 PM
I want to know if the original 1969 Cadillac Ecto 1 was male and if the new 1984 Cadillac is female.
These things are important.

I'm not sexist but, but I believe both cars are male because the second isn't painted pink.

:lol:
* Ducks and rolls away from the thread *

Quote from: JamesC on 27 May, 2016, 12:19:17 PM
I want to know if the original 1969 Cadillac Ecto 1 was male and if the new 1984 Cadillac is female.

His and hearse?

Quote from: Mardroid on 27 May, 2016, 02:04:49 PMI'm not sexist but, but I believe both cars are male because the second isn't painted pink.

OT, but I wish the colour pink would just fuck off for a few years. When you've seen a little girl visibly upset because she wanted her nails done in a kind of bright cyanish blue, but suddenly realised blue is "not a girl's colour" and she "should have had pink", you know the world is really fucking with young people's heads. (This was at a friend's barbecue last year. We of course all made it very clear that her nails were AWESOME and that every colour is a girl's colour, but even so she remained very fragile about the whole thing.)

Also: "his and hearse" officially wins the thread.

Interesting backstory to the whole pink/blue thing, which is a reversal of what it was before the 1940s.

http://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys (http://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys)

As it mentions here, it benefits makers of baby products who can potentially sell a product twice to a family if they have a boy and a girl and there are arbitrary colours for each.

Yeah, the colour thing is relatively new. In fact, anyone who lived through the 1970s and 1980s may remember kids toys back them were usually the same as adult equivalents (so you'd get little toolsets in tool colours, or cookers in cooker colours) or primaries. The pink/blue shit came later, to divide the audience. But it goes much wider, spreading into adulthood, which I don't think many people clock to the same degree. Regardless, it's horribly regressive. I wanted to smack someone who insisted our girl should wear pink because that's what girls wear. (She was in a yellow outfit with flowers at the time, which is hardly super-macho.) And when we go shopping, I want to tear down the displays of the shops that present walls of blue and pink (doubly so in a toy store where you have 'girl' versions of board games, including a plastic fucking Jenga with 'gossip' suggestions on each tile, and where Monopoly has been transformed about dressing up, make-up and going to the mall. Just ARGHHH).

Sorry. OT again. But this stuff really upsets me.

When my sister had her second baby, she didn't want to know the gender*. Have you any idea how hard it is to find gender-neutral baby clothes? i.e not pink or blue? Almost impossible, that's how hard. Eventually found some cute penguin themed stuff, after looking in 3 different places. I got some funny looks walking into Mothercare by myself, but the staff were lovely.

*No small feat for someone who was a paediatrician (Now GP), had her ultrasound done with a blindfold on.

Quote from: Mister Pops on 27 May, 2016, 03:48:13 PMHave you any idea how hard it is to find gender-neutral baby clothes? i.e not pink or blue? Almost impossible, that's how hard.

Given that mini-IP is now 23 months old, I know very well how difficult it is. And isn't it absurd that it's difficult at all?

Oh no! What did I start?

I'm sure you guys know I was just being ironic, hence the second paragraph . I don't disagree with your points.

I do apologise if I offended though.

Anyway, back to the thread: I have no problems with their all being women as long as it all occurs naturally in the story. I did think a mixed team would be better... but then again the very fact that thought never occurred to me (and probably most viewers) with the first all male team up but it does with all women is a little worrying.

Main things: let it be a good story, well acted and generally entertaining.

I do really wish it was a sequel rather than a reboot though. Not in terms of a continuation of stuff from the original films necessarily (I'm happy for these ladies to take the roles) but something set in the same world decades later would have been nice. 

Quote from: Tordelback on 27 May, 2016, 02:05:26 PM

Quote from: JamesC on 27 May, 2016, 12:19:17 PM
I want to know if the original 1969 Cadillac Ecto 1 was male and if the new 1984 Cadillac is female.

His and hearse?

:hat doffing emoji:

Quote from: Mardroid on 27 May, 2016, 06:18:59 PMI do apologise if I offended though.

Don't worry—I know you posted in jest, and wasn't offended in the slightest.

QuoteAnyway, back to the thread: I have no problems with their all being women as long as it all occurs naturally in the story. I did think a mixed team would be better... but then again the very fact that thought never occurred to me (and probably most viewers) with the first all male team up but it does with all women is a little worrying.

To me, that's the issue. No-one thinks twice when there are all-male line-ups in films, or the vast majority of roles are taken by men. That's just 'normal'. And yet in the majority of society, it's anything but. In Saving Private Ryan, you wouldn't expect gender balance, but in contemporary drama and thrillers, it's still typical to have a team of men and the token woman.

QuoteMain things: let it be a good story, well acted and generally entertaining. I do really wish it was a sequel rather than a reboot though. Not in terms of a continuation of stuff from the original films necessarily (I'm happy for these ladies to take the roles) but something set in the same world decades later would have been nice.

I agree with the former. As for the latter, I largely felt the same, but imagine it'd be just another stick to beat the film with, rather than giving it a kind of clean slate. Hard to know, really. Either way, I hope it's at least quite good, but fear unless it's amazing it's going to get nailed to the wall regardless.

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 27 May, 2016, 07:55:07 PM
I hope it's at least quite good, but fear unless it's amazing it's going to get nailed to the wall regardless.

To anyone open to this reverse-polarity version of GB it's likely cleverer than we've yet to see; it won't have the tone or grainy style of the original and it'll look and sound like a Paul Feig film - which to a certain group of people of a certain vintage will always be unwelcome in their favourite franchises. These Ghostbusters may "have no dicks" but it's not the only thing that'll turn some away who just won't give it the light of day, but it's not really for them anyway.

I do wonder if the creators are not crowing over some of the crap that has been kicking around.  It has created a large amount of free publicity for a start.  Plus they have the added bonus now of expectations being incredibly low and a ready made excuse for any criticism.  Very difficult to see how they can lose now.

Quote from: Tjm86 on 03 June, 2016, 06:19:53 PM
Very difficult to see how they can lose now.

By releasing the film. ;)

....  :D

It just seems though that they now have a ready made bag of excuses.  "The nerds put everyone off, they spent so much time slagging off the film ..."

Personally I'm a little nervous because of the type of films / 'comedy' that those involved normally do.  I just don't find it funny.

Quote from: Ghost MacRoth on 03 June, 2016, 08:58:29 PM

Quote from: Tjm86 on 03 June, 2016, 06:19:53 PM
Very difficult to see how they can lose now.

By releasing the film. ;)

:lol:

I read online there were re shoots done and in a little over a month we'll know whether it made that much difference. There have been two trailers promoting the film so far and I assume a third will appear closer to the release date [ July the 4th probably]. Then Sony and everyone else will discover whether it's multi million dollar investment is Deadpool or Fantastic 4. I don't think it will be as bad as the haters predict but it's not going to be a 'must see' event either though it should appeal to the family market giving the film a boost despite the negative reaction so far.

I remember people thought Paul Verhoevens 'Showgirls' was the most awful trash ever but it became a camp classic that apparently made it's money back on video [ as digital was called then younger readers.] Maybe like Dredd this version of Ghostbusters will crumble at the Box Office but like a spirit, rise to live again on DVD and download.

Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 04 June, 2016, 01:51:06 PMMaybe like Dredd this version of Ghostbusters will crumble at the Box Office but like a spirit, rise to live again on DVD and download.

Nah.  It'll make $450 million worldwide and be forgotten about by the middle of August.

Also, Showgirls passes the Bechdel test with flying colours.

Quote from: James Dilworth on 06 June, 2016, 11:03:45 AM
Also, Showgirls passes the Bechdel test with flying colours.

So does Neighbours 2: Sorority Rising ...

:-\

It's quite an interesting keg of worms when you start delving into it though:

http://bechdeltest.com/

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 06 June, 2016, 11:48:21 AM
It's quite an interesting keg of worms when you start delving into it though:

I found a lovely film on the internet where Julie and Sarah discussed how hot their friend Inga was and one thing led to another, and... well, let's just say that I never knew feminism could be so sexy! Turns out this stuff is all over the internet. I don't what women are complaining about...

Cheers

Jim

I imagine Kung Fu Panda 3 failed due to having no humans in it  :lol:

Quote from: Satanist on 06 June, 2016, 12:29:35 PM
I imagine Kung Fu Panda 3 failed due to having no humans in it  :lol:

Wait, thats out already?! When did that happen, I loved the first two!  :o

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 06 June, 2016, 11:54:29 AM

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 06 June, 2016, 11:48:21 AM
It's quite an interesting keg of worms when you start delving into it though:

I found a lovely film on the internet where Julie and Sarah discussed how hot their friend Inga was and one thing led to another, and... well, let's just say that I never knew feminism could be so sexy! Turns out this stuff is all over the internet. I don't what women are complaining about...

Cheers

Jim

RIGHT? :lol:

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 06 June, 2016, 11:48:21 AM

Quote from: James Dilworth on 06 June, 2016, 11:03:45 AM
Also, Showgirls passes the Bechdel test with flying colours.

So does Neighbours 2: Sorority Rising ...

:-\

It's quite an interesting keg of worms when you start delving into it though:

http://bechdeltest.com/

Wow I didn't know Neighbours got a first film - did they get Kylie and Jason back for it?

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 06 June, 2016, 07:53:02 PM

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 06 June, 2016, 11:48:21 AM

Quote from: James Dilworth on 06 June, 2016, 11:03:45 AM
Also, Showgirls passes the Bechdel test with flying colours.

So does Neighbours 2: Sorority Rising ...

:-\

It's quite an interesting keg of worms when you start delving into it though:

http://bechdeltest.com/

Wow I didn't know Neighbours got a first film - did they get Kylie and Jason back for it?

I believe CFM was refering to BAD Neighbours, a pretty piss poor rom com not related to Neighbours in anyway.

Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 06 June, 2016, 09:25:49 PM

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 06 June, 2016, 07:53:02 PM

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 06 June, 2016, 11:48:21 AM

Quote from: James Dilworth on 06 June, 2016, 11:03:45 AM
Also, Showgirls passes the Bechdel test with flying colours.

So does Neighbours 2: Sorority Rising ...

:-\

It's quite an interesting keg of worms when you start delving into it though:

http://bechdeltest.com/

Wow I didn't know Neighbours got a first film - did they get Kylie and Jason back for it?

I believe CFM was refering to BAD Neighbours, a pretty piss poor rom com not related to Neighbours in anyway.

Well I know it wasn't the most artful but calling it Bad Neighbours is harsh. It was very popular back in the day and by and large they all seemed to get on.Well except Mrs Mangle... no one liked her.

Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 06 June, 2016, 09:25:49 PM

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 06 June, 2016, 07:53:02 PM

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 06 June, 2016, 11:48:21 AM

Quote from: James Dilworth on 06 June, 2016, 11:03:45 AM
Also, Showgirls passes the Bechdel test with flying colours.

So does Neighbours 2: Sorority Rising ... :-\
It's quite an interesting keg of worms when you start delving into it though: http://bechdeltest.com/

Wow I didn't know Neighbours got a first film - did they get Kylie and Jason back for it?

I believe CFM was refering to BAD Neighbours, a pretty piss poor rom com not related to Neighbours in anyway.

I thought he meant the unheralded follow up to this Aykroyd and Belushi classic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082801/?ref_=fn_al_tt_6).

Ghostbusters looks fun. The second trailer is much better.

Paul Feige hasn't let me down yet, so I'm looking forward to it

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 06 June, 2016, 11:54:29 AM

Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 06 June, 2016, 11:48:21 AM
It's quite an interesting keg of worms when you start delving into it though:

I found a lovely film on the internet where Julie and Sarah discussed how hot their friend Inga was and one thing led to another, and... well, let's just say that I never knew feminism could be so sexy! Turns out this stuff is all over the internet. I don't what women are complaining about...

Cheers

Jim

Jim! Jim Thriyllseeker has stolen your log-in and, and, and, HOLD ON! that's spelleted korrectly, I smell a rat...

Jim's got some big boots to fill if he's to taken on Mayor's roll as village cretin.

Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 09 June, 2016, 04:07:44 PM
Jim's got some big boots to fill if he's to taken on Mayor's roll as village cretin.

https://youtu.be/7GnGwlBRe7w?t=1m03s (https://youtu.be/7GnGwlBRe7w?t=1m03s)

Cheers!

Jim

QuoteAccording to British legal stature, an idiot is an individual with an IQ of less than 20, an imbecile has an IQ of between 20 and 49, and a moron an IQ between 50 and 69. Cretins are specifically persons with a deformity or mental retardation caused by a thyroid deficiency; cretinism is now more commonly called hyperthyroidism http://englishchamber.blogspot.co.uk/2005/09/idiots-morons-imbeciles-cretins.html

Hmmmm. I'm going to be a humourless sourpuss and note that TS was banned for repeatedly posting wildly inappropriate ramblings about women, and ignoring all warnings and advice on the subject. I don't think calling him names when he has no ability to respond is very fair, even in lighthearted jest (which this clearly was). [/killjoy]

^That.  And especially taking the piss when he has no possible way of defending himself (although even if he had the oppertunity, I expect he'd be unable to defend himself anyway).  He's gone now, so can we let it be?

Don't know if someone has put this up but the old Ghostbusters cast meets the newbies.

http://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-reboot-bill-murray-cast/

Yeah but it sadly to see Bill Murray forced to do it, even forced to appears as cameo on film.

Quote from: Goaty on 09 June, 2016, 09:58:04 PM
Yeah but it sadly to see Bill Murray forced to do it, even forced to appears as cameo on film.

Bill Murray held out for decades about starring in a third Ghostbusters film, turning down any number of big paydays in the process, but somehow has been forced against his will to do a cameo in this film?

If there's one thing that his career shows, it's that Bill Murray only does what Bill Murray wants to do.

Quote from: GordonR on 09 June, 2016, 10:04:59 PM
If  there's one thing that his career shows, it's that Bill Murray only does what Bill Murray wants to do.

S'right.

Well he still sorry for Garfield...

Quote from: Goaty on 09 June, 2016, 11:27:36 PM
Well he still sorry for Garfield...

I heard he only did that because the director was called Cohen and he thought it was a Cohen brothers movie.

Murray famously doesn't have an agent. What he does have is a toll-free number that you call and leave a message telling him about your film project.  If he's interested - and he wasn't, when the likes of Marvel Studios and Pixar left unanswered messages offering him roles -he'll eventually get back to you to talk further.

Bill Murray is not a guy who's helping promote the Ghostbusters reboot because someone's telling him to.

QuoteTS was banned

Is he (finally) gone, then?

Got to admit, can't deny I'd be glad to see the back of him, if only because it often felt like every other post on this forum was one of his.

Felt like every single thread, regardless of subject, would eventually get bogged down in reams of unhinged, incoherent, vaguely Slaine-related drivel.

Sorry for dragging this out further, but I am sorry to see TS banned, although I can't see what else could have been done. Despite obvious problems the guy is a genuinely obsessive fan of Slaine, and all sorts of overlapping interests like 80s games, RPGs, LotR, and it's clear the forum was a significant point of human contact for him: one of us, in other words. I liked a lot of his rambling descriptive posts. However, I'm sorrier still that he never seemed to understand why his self-reported behaviour and attitudes towards women was fundamentally wrong, and his accounts of it inappropriate for this site.

I liked TS even though some of his posts were a bit hard to swallow. He may have had backwards attitudes but I got the feeling his heart was in the right place. I've only just realised he's been banned and I think it's a shame.

Anyway, I watched Spy the other night, which stars Melissa McCarthy and it was really good fun. I think this new Ghostbusters might be alright you know.

McCarthy is definitely a skilled comic actor, even if I 've never really enjoyed the stuff she's been in.

I agree that he is essentially a likeable fellow and a genuine fan to boot, but I can't see what choice TS had left The Powers That Be. He'd been warned a dozen times, many others had tried to explain the problem to him here and in PMs for -literally- years. This wasn't like Godpleton's rather silly forum-suicide-by-goatse, it was a genuine refusal to see what was wrong with what he was saying/doing. And it really was very wrong.

I'm going to miss his crazy insights and shaggy dog stories, but my real concern is that he's now more isolated than ever, and I can't imagine that will help his problems or those of the people around him. It's not Rebellion's responsibility to host an unqualified therapy group, but I do wish we could have helped him, in the way this place has helped me.

Triumphalist crowing about the banning isn't the way to go and I'd like to think doing it - inevitable or not - was something the mods found difficult, as TS clearly spent a significant amount of time here and this was a big part of his life.

I take no pleasure in TS departure, however having known at least one female boarder being actively driven away by his misogynistic ramblings, an individual whom I thought brought far more to the community than TS, I can't lie that i'm grateful for the mods desision. Mayor has his problems, it's time he dealt with them himself rather than venting inappropriate attitudes on here, which I consider a generaly very liberal and polite place.

Quote from: JamesC on 10 June, 2016, 06:54:19 AM
Anyway, I watched Spy the other night, which stars Melissa McCarthy and it was really good fun. I think this new Ghostbusters might be alright you know.

I really enjoyed Spy, so I too have modest expectation of Ghostbusters 2016.

Quote from: Tordelback on 10 June, 2016, 06:06:03 AM
Sorry for dragging this out further, but I am sorry to see TS banned, although I can't see what else could have been done. Despite obvious problems the guy is a genuinely obsessive fan of Slaine, and all sorts of overlapping interests like 80s games, RPGs, LotR, and it's clear the forum was a significant point of human contact for him: one of us, in other words. I liked a lot of his rambling descriptive posts. However, I'm sorrier still that he never seemed to understand why his self-reported behaviour and attitudes towards women was fundamentally wrong, and his accounts of it inappropriate for this site.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's sorry to see him go.  It's obvious that he had problems and while his homophobia and sexism were concerning, his ongoing mental condition is also concerning.  I think it's wishing to much to hope that he'll grow out of these attitudes, but I do hope he finds some happiness and a more peaceful mental state.

Yeah, I often thought it was good that he was part of a community that would pull him up when needed but without flaming or abusing him. But I don't know what the PM business was, so it's hard to say.

Odd, just saw this news on social that Sony has released the gag reel and B-Roll footage from the new Ghostbusters film in US.

But was it normally come out after the film's release or for DVD release? Are Sony that desperate now?

Quote from: Goaty on 29 June, 2016, 09:40:06 PM
Odd, just saw this news on social that Sony has released the gag reel and B-Roll footage from the new Ghostbusters film in US.

But was it normally come out after the film's release or for DVD release? Are Sony that desperate now?

It's very common. Marvel always release B-roll footage early as did IMGlobal for Dredd before it was released. It can get re-used for news items.

Sorry i was means for gag reel.

If that's what they cut out, what they leave in must be pure gold!

uh uh, if anyone find gag?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9ToObWsx0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9ToObWsx0)

Managed 5 mins...gave up looking.

Mmmm lots of reviews said it good? Oh well.

Off to watch it tonight.

Monday seems like an odd day to release a movie. Was it an attempt to get out positive reviews before the North American opening weekend (which was not expected to be massive)?

Most likely released it on a monday to get a longer opening weekend box office return.

Not sure how much the lowly UK will actually add to that but it looks like the China knock back will lose them a few yuans. Though the original films did great without China so there should be no excuses in that regard if the film doesn't do well.

Quote from: Stan on 14 July, 2016, 07:35:55 PM
Not sure how much the lowly UK will actually add to that but it looks like the China knock back will lose them a few yuans. Though the original films did great without China so there should be no excuses in that regard if the film doesn't do well.

Foreign films only receive 25% of Chinese box-office earnings as opposed to roughly 50% in the US - Chinese distributors/the state get the rest. Unless a film earns hundreds of millions in China - not common - it's not that big a loss.

kevin smith says its funny & made for kids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uekLK0znyMA

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 14 July, 2016, 07:39:50 PMForeign films only receive 25% of Chinese box-office earnings as opposed to roughly 50% in the US - Chinese distributors/the state get the rest. Unless a film earns hundreds of millions in China - not common - it's not that big a loss.

I was thinking about that earlier but couldn't remember the percentage. Even Jurassic World's $200m China take isn't much with that taken into account. Compared to what it made overall, that is.

Went to see it this afternoon and I found it thoroughly enjoyable! 

I was smiling and chuckling the whole way through.  The cast are all incredibly charming, affable and funny.

The action is VERY cartoony and clearly geared towards a younger audience but it sits well within the general tone of the film.  The Ghostbusting plot itself is a bit patchy but the whole film is so light and breezy it didn't really matter that much.

I really do hope this film does well.  I left the cinema in such an upbeat mood I genuinely want them to  come back for more. 

Ghostbusters is heading toward a $45M weekend opening after winning Friday with a $17.1M gross.

Ghostbusters cost $144M (plus $100M P&A), so anything in the $40M range is a mediocre start for this reboot. Anything north of $50M is ideally safer.

Ghostbusters could still get to a $50M opening thanks to an A- CinemaScore with the under 25 crowd, and an overall B+.

Initial estimates for Ghostbusters were in the low $30M range, but thanks to great reviews (at 73% fresh) and a blitzkrieg marketing campaign, the studio made more than expected.

While a B+ CinemaScore typically generates a final domestic B.O. that's 3 times a film's opening weekend, Melissa McCarthy's films usually make between 4 and 6 times their opening weekends, so it's possible that Ghostbusters could see a final domestic B.O. that's north of $150M.

Roger Ebert had some fascinating insights about the 1984 Ghostbusters, which still ring true today with VFX comedies in general.

"This movie is an exception to the general rule that big special effects can wreck a comedy," wrote Ebert in his review of the original film, further adding on his show At the Movies that Ghostbusters "is the funny combination of two types of movies that usually don't work well together.

On one hand this is a big budget special effects picture with lots of sensational, earth shaking effects in it, and on the other hand, it's a very funny movie to listen to because of the sly and understated dialogue."

The fact of the matter is that VFX comedies are still hard to pull off at the B.O. and if you count them up, the successes are far and few between (read Men in Black, Night at the Museum, and arguably Bruce Almighty and Ted). Adam Sandler's arcade comedy Pixels was billed as a kind-a of Ghostbusters type comedy  last summer, but failed with $78.7M at the domestic B.O.

http://deadline.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-weekend-box-office-1201787149/

Thumbs up from the Tips household. Takes a while to get going but some good laughs and a good general tone of fun and breeziness keep you engaged. Some of it is a bit... er... broad and you can see some of the jokes coming but the charm of the characters/cast wins through (contrast with what a dick Bill Murray's character is in the original).

I saw it today.

I found some of the banter between the ladies a bit tedious, but overall it was pretty good.

I'll admit I was concerned the characters might turn out to be female versions of the originals  but thankfully they were all original and distinct personalities in their own right.

This is not a remake at all. It's a film that plays with the idea "what would happen if the Apocalyptic ghost think happened in a different if similar world and was fought by another group of defenders. And it worked.  Similar tropes, certainly, but that was to be expected and was no bad thing.

Was it as good as the original? In my opinion, no, it wasn't. But it was a lot of fun, and that's the main thing. 

$46m domestic and $65m worldwide. So basically $33m wiped off the budget. They could really do without Star Trek coming out this weekend. Particularly as it's reviewing quite well.

The Ghostbusters release appears to be a little more spread out though, in fairness.

Quote from: Mardroid on 18 July, 2016, 02:40:46 AM
It's a film that plays with the idea "what would happen if the Apocalyptic ghost think..."

Or "ghost thing" even.

Got to see this yesterday, when Mrs Panther decided against Bourne.

For a film beset with horrible misogyny from the first announcement, Ghostbusters is ironically a pretty sexist film, with every male character either a weak weirdo or tragically stupid.  Hemsworth plays a character who, from the first appearance, appears to have mental health issues rather than be a loveable hunk of meat.  Imagine if the original, rather than a strong willed Sigourney Weaver, featured an idiotic bimbo who Bill Murray kept trying to molest.  It's that level of unpleasant.

There also appears to have been a [spoiler]big dance number removed from the final act[/spoiler] which then appears over the credits.  It's removal renders the[spoiler]transformation of new york into the 1970s [/spoiler] completely irrelevant.

Quote from: Modern Panther on 31 July, 2016, 09:39:10 PMFor a film beset with horrible misogyny from the first announcement, Ghostbusters is ironically a pretty sexist film, with every male character either a weak weirdo or tragically stupid.

I'm not sure it's irony as a knowing gender flip of the status quo. I know a few blokes who've taken this in a negative fashion but most brushed it off as a swipe and thought fair enough. More to the point, I've seen countless women respond to complaints with, essentially, "Aw, you poor dears. That must be so difficult for you!" And while one might argue that sexism in either direction isn't a good thing, it's one thing to have it in a relatively knockabout comedy, and another to have it permeate through a huge range of films across all other genres, right to the present day.

Quote from: Modern Panther on 31 July, 2016, 09:39:10 PM
Got to see this yesterday, when Mrs Panther decided against Bourne.

For a film beset with horrible misogyny from the first announcement, Ghostbusters is ironically a pretty sexist film, with every male character either a weak weirdo or tragically stupid.  Hemsworth plays a character who, from the first appearance, appears to have mental health issues rather than be a loveable hunk of meat.  Imagine if the original, rather than a strong willed Sigourney Weaver, featured an idiotic bimbo who Bill Murray kept trying to molest.  It's that level of unpleasant.

There also appears to have been a [spoiler]big dance number removed from the final act[/spoiler] which then appears over the credits.  It's removal renders the[spoiler]transformation of new york into the 1970s [/spoiler] completely irrelevant.

[spoiler]The big dance number was in the leaked script - something along the lines of the villain taking control of the soldiers/police? I guess it was just cut and pasted[/spoiler]

Quote from: Modern Panther on 31 July, 2016, 09:39:10 PM
...an idiotic bimbo who Bill Murray kept trying to molest.  It's that level of unpleasant.

Wasn't that the first 10 minutes of the original film? A student in Venkman's university, no less. I agree that Any Sexism Is Bad, but the situation when reversed is almost every other mainstream film ever made. File this under 'knowing wink', I suspect.

All this with the caveat that I haven't seen this yet of course. ::)

Yeah, we watched the original Ghostbusters very recently, and Bill Murray's intro scene is well creepy - misusing the authority of his job to try and seduce a female student about half his age.  And this is the scene that's supposed to make us like and sympathise with our deadpan hero.

How times change.

Quote from: Modern Panther on 31 July, 2016, 09:39:10 PM
... a loveable hunk of meat.  Imagine if the original, rather than a strong willed Sigourney Weaver, featured an idiotic bimbo who Bill Murray kept trying to molest.  It's that level of unpleasant.

Our party all assumed that was pretty much the point/joke about the character.

Men's feelings bedamned, the original still works for me because it's completely irreverent so the new one could populate itself with as many stupid characters as it wants as long as it's still entertaining. I don't expect a film about ghost exterminators to be a P.K.E. Meter of gender politics even if it was a conscious decision to make the team female.

The only thing that came close to perturbing me in GB was that it needed to go through the motions, moving from scene to scene like a stylus crossing empty, crackly vinyl to the next track, which got in the way of the stuff that approached originality - like Ronan, the Metal gig and the obvious excising of some other threads - but it's still a funnier, better film than Ghostbusters II by a long mile.

I posted a quick bit in the last movie watched thread, but now that it's the next day and I've had time to process my feelings about the film, I thought I'd put them here.

Firstly, I thought the film was great. Nothing wrong with it at all. I loved all the various cameos throughout the film. And there were a lot of great gags too. One of the biggest complaints I've read is that the ghosts look too fake...I actually heard them referred to as "Haunted Mansion Ghosts". I thought this was meant to be a childrens film. Just like how the haunted mansion is a childrens film. I did not go in expecting s#!7 your pants scary ghosts. The ghosts were perfectly fine.

Another common complaint I've read is that it's sexist because Chris Hemsworth is playing an idiot. Even though he is Australian. And how he acts on screen is how the majority of aussies are in real life. People say that he is objectified throughout the film...really? Women have been objectified in cinema since the beginning, and now finally they have switched it up and men are screaming that it's not fair? I had no problem with the way his character was portrayed.

The biggest complaint though is that all of these middle age fat balding nerds crying that their beloved franchise has been raped by Hollywood. Boo-f%$&%#-hoo. This isn't the first film to be remade. I'm a fan of the original The Day The Earth Stood Still. Was I upset when they made a modern version of it? No. Guess what. My copy of the original is still exactly the same as it was the day I got it. The creation of a newer version did not devalue the original one bit. If you really don't want to see your favorite childhood film ruined in a remake, then don't go. But don't cry like it's the worst thing that has ever happened. Because other people still want to see it.

If you haven't seen it, and you have kids, go and see it. If you haven't seen it and you don't have kids, go and see it all the same. It might be the last time you get to see [spoiler]Dan Aykroyd[/spoiler] on the big screen!

Quote from: GordonR on 01 August, 2016, 12:17:53 PM
Yeah, we watched the original Ghostbusters very recently, and Bill Murray's intro scene is well creepy - misusing the authority of his job to try and seduce a female student about half his age.  And this is the scene that's supposed to make us like and sympathise with our deadpan hero.

How times change.

It was creepy, definitely, and I'm pretty sure it was intended to be creepy, and designed for us to not like Venkman from the outset.  However, as we follow through the film and we follow his journey he does eventually redeem himself, and become the hero - almost.  He's still pretty creepy when he's trying to kiss Dana in the closing credits.

This was my problem with it.  It's a perfectly adequate comedy, and I certainly don't think that its existence has any damaging effect on the original, or that my childhood is now ruined.

Venkman's behaviour in the early scenes sets him up as a manipulative and morally weak coward.  He is gradually redeemed until he becomes worthy of the attention of Dana.

In this version, the only character development around Hemsworth's character is that Gilbert starts unpleasantly leering at him and suddenly realises that he is beneath her. 

Every male character in the film is portrayed as a useless buffoon.  This may well have been a "I'm drinking a mug of man tears" type attempt at humour/revenge, but I thought that having a character who was such an extreme caricature really slowed down the scenes he was in.  Someone actually wrote a whole exchange where he talks about his dog, Mike Hat. 

Now it $70 million loss.