Is this It For Ghostbusters Two....

[TordelBack]

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.

[von Boom]

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

[dweezil2]

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.

[M.I.K.]

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.

[dweezil2]

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!!!! 

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

I thought it looked fun without giving too much away.

[Darren Stephens]

I thought it looked fun without giving too much away.

Me too. Looking forward to it.

[Buttonman]

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

[Ghost MacRoth]

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...

[Hawkmumbler]

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.

[Buttonman]

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!

[JOE SOAP]

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


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

[ThryllSeekyr]

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. 

[James Dilworth]

It looks like an Adam Sandler movie.

[JamesC]

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.