# Ghostbusters (trailer)



## Kramodlog (Mar 3, 2016)

Nostalgia, nostalgia. 

[video=youtube;w3ugHP-yZXw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw[/video]


----------



## Umbran (Mar 3, 2016)

It looks pretty good, so far.

However, watching the trailer got the theme music stuck in my head, with super glue or something.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Mar 3, 2016)

Yeah, it actually doesn't look bad. It had some funny scenes, and a Slimer cameo.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 3, 2016)

I really hope this is good. The trailer makes it feel more slapstick and frenetic and shouty than the dryer wit of the original. Or maybe I'm just getting old!


----------



## Umbran (Mar 3, 2016)

Morrus said:


> I really hope this is good. The trailer makes it feel more slapstick and frenetic and shouty than the dryer wit of the original. Or maybe I'm just getting old!




Given that the original was 30 years ago?  I think that you're getting old is pretty much unquestionable.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 3, 2016)

Umbran said:


> Given that the original was 30 years ago?  I think that you're getting old is pretty much unquestionable.




Shhhh! Denial is a powerful force!


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 3, 2016)

Morrus said:


> I really hope this is good. The trailer makes it feel more slapstick and frenetic and shouty than the dryer wit of the original. Or maybe I'm just getting old!




I got that same impression too, which again might just an age thing* 

for instance what I assume is the Library ghost scene with its slime vomit just made me cringe

I do like that they are freely referencing the original and hope they also do so in the movie

* It may also be a female comediene thing which admitting might make me sound like a misogynist snob


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 3, 2016)

I wonder if they are going to aim for a younger audience than the original. The orginal was rather dark for kids.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 3, 2016)

It looks interesting and fun (but then trailers always try to present the best face possible).  I do like the gender-swap concept, even if there was originally much hate towards it.  If the other trailers are good, I'll definitely go see this.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Mar 3, 2016)

30 years? The last Ghostbusters movie was a nebulous 10 - 20 years ago. Just like The Crow, Empire Records, the original Star Wars trilogy, Aliens, Predator, Terminator, Conan the Barbarian, and everything else from my childhood/teens.

The trailer has me pretty darn excited for the film.



Umbran said:


> Given that the original was 30 years ago?  I think that you're getting old is pretty much unquestionable.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 3, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Shhhh! Denial is a powerful force!




Tell that to "Gods of Egypt," which is currently running at 12% on the Tomatometer.  Denial does not save you from Teh Trvth!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 3, 2016)

Umbran said:


> Tell that to "Gods of Egypt," which is currently running at 12% on the Tomatometer.  Denial does not save you from Teh Trvth!




Denial, not The Nile.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 3, 2016)

I think denial is involved in "Gods of Egypt" as much as the river is.


----------



## psiconauta_retro (Mar 4, 2016)

I am a big Ghostbusters fan and 10 minutes ago I was super excited to notice that the trailer is already available, now I feel disheartened. I want to keep a positive attitude and hope that the movie will be good.


----------



## Rune (Mar 4, 2016)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> 30 years? The last Ghostbusters movie was a nebulous 10 - 20 years ago. Just like The Crow, Empire Records, the original Star Wars trilogy, Aliens, Predator, Terminator, Conan the Barbarian, and everything else from my childhood/teens.
> 
> The trailer has me pretty darn excited for the film.




Ghostbusters 2 came out in 1989, so 26.5 - 26.75 years, probably (pretty sure it was a summer release, but not absolutely certain). Closer to 30 than 20.

Edit = Actually, _none_ of the movies you listed are between 10 - 20 years old, although I suppose an argument could be made for the "original" (depending on how you use the term) Star Wars trilogy.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 4, 2016)

Rune said:


> Ghostbusters 2 came out in 1989, so 26.5 - 26.75 years, probably (pretty sure it was a summer release, but not absolutely certain). Closer to 30 than 20.
> 
> Edit = Actually, _none_ of the movies you listed are between 10 - 20 years old, although I suppose an argument could be made for the "original" (depending on how you use the term) Star Wars trilogy.




I think that Ralif Redhammer's reference might have been one to getting old, where everything starts to feel like it happened no more than 20 years ago. I'm currently still trying to figure out why my new passport came back with the picture of some old fart on it


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Mar 4, 2016)

Hahahah, yes indeed. I feel like I'm constantly saying "it can't have been that long ago!"

And where are all these gray hairs in my beard coming from?



Ryujin said:


> I think that Ralif Redhammer's reference might have been one to getting old, where everything starts to feel like it happened no more than 20 years ago.


----------



## Rune (Mar 4, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> I think that Ralif Redhammer's reference might have been one to getting old, where everything starts to feel like it happened no more than 20 years ago. I'm currently still trying to figure out why my new passport came back with the picture of some old fart on it




Well, I guess I botched _that_ Wisdom (Intuition) check! Carry on, then. Nothing to see, here...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 4, 2016)

Wait for word of mouth on this one.


----------



## Abraxas (Mar 5, 2016)

Unless the word of mouth makes it sound incredible I think I'll be waiting till it shows up on netflix.


----------



## Henry (Mar 5, 2016)

Despite the customary rounds of hatred from Internet naysayers I've been seeing in the news, the trailer makes it look like a lot of fun, and the level of comedy talent in it means I'll have a good time with it, so I'm looking forward to it. Might be a "date night movie" for the wife and me, seeing as how we don't have a lot of overlapping movie tastes that we find compelling enough to see in the theater.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Mar 7, 2016)

.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 7, 2016)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> As much as people have been saying how all these female comedians are great, I was hoping to see some of the comedy in the trailer (not being familiar/seeing films that cast was in previously).
> 
> If I did not know it was a comedy, by viewing the trailer, I would never have thought so.




Whether or not you found it funny, that trailer is nothing but comedy. A bit too obvious and raucous for my tastes, but it's pretty hard to imagine somebody watching that trailer and not recognising the jokes as jokes, even if you didn't like them.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 7, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Whether or not you found it funny, that trailer is nothing but comedy. A bit too obvious and raucous for my tastes, but it's pretty hard to imagine somebody watching that trailer and not recognising the jokes as jokes, even if you didn't like them.




Yeah I counted about 10 joke set ups but none of them were particularly funny and the only one to elicit a chuckle was the "Lets Go" nice girl exchange when the four are shown suited up.

both the loud sassy black woman and the jolly fat girl stereotypes annoy me too


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Mar 7, 2016)

.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 7, 2016)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> I re-watched the trailer.
> 
> Still do not find it funny.




Well, that's certainly an adjustment from your position that you were actually incapable of identifying the (many) jokes.

Whether you find it funny or not is down to your taste, I guess; as I said, it wasn't really to my taste in humour, either. I expect I'll still go see it though, as I'm a sucker for nostalgia.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 7, 2016)

I know a lot of people have been panning the trailer for the new Ghostbusters.  However, I recently went back and watched the trailer for the original film, and I was surprised at how bad it is.  It can't make up its mind whether it's a horror trailer or a comedy trailer, and it ends up doing both poorly.  And it's not as if it can't be done well.  The trailer for the Ash vs the Evil Dead series was a great horror comedy trailer.

"They catch the ghosts that won't stay dead."  That's an actual line said by a professional voice actor in the trailer.  And it's not like it's the voiceover guy's fault.  He didn't write that crap.  And, he has a good voice for doing horror trailers: given the appropriate horror soundtrack in the background, I could easily see him narrating over the original Exorcist trailer.

Even worse, it's barely funny.  There's maybe one moment where I half-chuckled at the trailer.  The Little Shop of Horrors trailer, which is from the same time period, is far better.

By just about every possible comparison that I can conceive of, the new Ghostbusters trailer is better than the old one.  Whether the new film will be good or not, only time will tell.  The trailers for Dredd, and for Live, Die, Repeat made them look like crap, but I've heard they're actually quite good.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 7, 2016)

[video=youtube;vntAEVjPBzQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vntAEVjPBzQ[/video]

is this the Trailer you're talking about?

no it doesn't come across as comedy, nor a horror. It comes across as an action adventure movie - which is what it was

of course that might be nostalgia talking


----------



## Istbor (Mar 7, 2016)

Seems a mixed bag to me.  I like a couple of those actresses, but so far the comedy style provided does not seem a fit to what I feel the Ghostbusters has been in the past.  Not really a good thing or a bad thing, just different. 

I like those dual pistols the one Ghostbuster has.  Looks cool.

Going to be hard to beat the original cast really. Though, if this is set up more for the children, then it might do very well.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 7, 2016)

One thing that I think contributes so much to many sci-fi films which end up being classic favourites - Ghostbusters, Star Wars, etc. - is the sound. Recognisable sound effects, soundtrack, and so on. These contribute so much to the feel of a film. I feel like this is starting to become something of a lost art; I don't see it in many modern sci-fi or superhero movies. To be elevated to an iconic status, the sound has to be right.

They say that smell triggers memory more than any other sense. I think in terms of movies, sound effects and music are the equivalent of "smell".  A movie can be utterly transformed with the right sound effects and music.

This movie has the sound effects, it looks like.  That's a good thing. For music, the main Ghostbusters theme song is important, of course, but the rest of the score really enhances that original movie.


----------



## Istbor (Mar 7, 2016)

Yes, I agree with you in this Morrus.  It sounded like Ghostbusters and it had quality effects besides that.  

Plus the new twist on the theme was great.


----------



## Rune (Mar 7, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> I know a lot of people have been panning the trailer for the new Ghostbusters.  However, I recently went back and watched the trailer for the original film, and I was surprised at how bad it is.  It can't make up its mind whether it's a horror trailer or a comedy trailer, and it ends up doing both poorly.  And it's not as if it can't be done well.  The trailer for the Ash vs the Evil Dead series was a great horror comedy trailer.
> 
> "They catch the ghosts that won't stay dead."  That's an actual line said by a professional voice actor in the trailer.  And it's not like it's the voiceover guy's fault.  He didn't write that crap.  And, he has a good voice for doing horror trailers: given the appropriate horror soundtrack in the background, I could easily see him narrating over the original Exorcist trailer.
> 
> ...




That trailer seemed pretty funny to me. It's humor was a lot more _subtle_ than the new one, though...


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 7, 2016)

Rune said:


> That trailer seemed pretty funny to me. It's humor was a lot more _subtle_ than the new one, though...




I know all entertainment is subjective, but Ghostbusters was a comedy movie (albeit with dramatic elements in certain moments), and a trailer for a comedy movie should make me laugh in order for me to think about going to see it.  The trailer shouldn't leave me thinking "that was mildly more entertaining that the last commercial that was on."


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 7, 2016)

Rune said:


> That trailer seemed pretty funny to me. It's humor was a lot more _subtle_ than the new one, though...




I guess that says something about today's comedy, since Bill Murray is about as subtle as a joy buzzer.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 8, 2016)

There are some movies that are classic, they come together with story, music, visuals, casting and timing (right place, right time).  This is why I do not think, reboots and re-visioning of classic movies work well. This has the appearance of a cast thrown together with jokes.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 8, 2016)

Hand of Evil said:


> There are some movies that are classic, they come together with story, music, visuals, casting and timing (right place, right time).  This is why I do not think, reboots and re-visioning of classic movies work well. This has the appearance of a cast thrown together with jokes.




I feel the same way and so, a few years back, swore off reboots/remakes (so I won't be seeing this movie  ).


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 8, 2016)

To be fair though, it's not as if the cast of the original is what was originally intended.  John Belushi was supposed to play Murray's part, until he died.  And I've heard that Eddie Murphy was originally supposed to play Winston.  Would have been a much different movie, filled with SNL alums, if they got what they originally intended to do.  Speaking of which, aren't a lot of the female cast in the new film SNL alums?

In the end though, if a reboot or a sequel to any good film is bad, it's not like we really lose anything.  I love the original Ghostbusters.  If the new film sucks (I hope it won't), that's not going to tarnish my love for the two originals sitting on my DVD shelf.  It's not like they're going to pull a Lucas and alter and reissue the originals and claim that the reissue is a purer form of the director's vision for the films.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 9, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> To be fair though, it's not as if the cast of the original is what was originally intended.  John Belushi was supposed to play Murray's part, until he died.  And I've heard that Eddie Murphy was originally supposed to play Winston.  Would have been a much different movie, filled with SNL alums, if they got what they originally intended to do.  Speaking of which, aren't a lot of the female cast in the new film SNL alums?
> 
> In the end though, if a reboot or a sequel to any good film is bad, it's not like we really lose anything.  I love the original Ghostbusters.  If the new film sucks (I hope it won't), that's not going to tarnish my love for the two originals sitting on my DVD shelf.  It's not like they're going to pull a Lucas and alter and reissue the originals and claim that the reissue is a purer form of the director's vision for the films.




Well considering that Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis wrote and starred I reckon we already got the writers vision for the movie
albeit that Akroyds original draft was a very very different concept. 

The original cast were largely SNL (Harold Ramis was an SNL writer with Akroyd) and as far as I know all four of the new ones have come through SNL too. 

but yes the part was originally Belushis but was then rewritten (and Bill Murray was given permission to ad lib). Apparently Rick Moranis' character was originally written for John Candy and they had Paul Rubens in mind for Gozer.  Akroyd had just worked with Eddie Murphy in Trading Places and had him in mind for the part but he was apparently too busy filiming Beverly Hills Cop. According to one report Winstons backstory originally had him as an Air Force demolitions expert but it was cut back in order to give Bill Murray more camera time.

I think that what makes the original good is the set up is an action horror but you put some very talented comedians in that and let them go. Bill Murray is of course one of the greatest ad libbers in show business and they all had great chemistry which made the original a classic. I think that this new bunch have comedic ability but the trailer makes it look like they are trying to make a comedy rather than just being comedians reacting to their setting.

lets see what happens...


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 9, 2016)

Morrus said:


> One thing that I think contributes so much to many sci-fi films which end up being classic favourites - Ghostbusters, Star Wars, etc. - is the sound.



I'm not sure if that's only true for sci-fi movies, but it's clearly true for several of my all-time favorites: Bladerunner, Alien, 2001. I actually watched several movies and tv shows just because I was interested in the soundtrack or musical score, e.g. There Will Be Blood (Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood), Les revenants (Mogwai). 

It's also the best part I remember about the first 'The Crow' movie - I don't know how often I've listened to that soundtrack. It even led me to discover several bands that are now favorites of mine.

Unfortunately, too many movies and tv shows overdo it in the musical department. I recently watched a movie which had background music or songs in every single second. This was incredibly annyoing after a while and actually distracted me from the movie. Another bad example, at least for me, are the Lord of the Rings movies. I. just. cannot. watch. them. anymore. And just because of the musical score: if I never hear 'Frodo's' Theme' again it will be too early!


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 9, 2016)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm not sure if that's only true for sci-fi movies, but it's clearly true for several of my all-time favorites: Bladerunner, Alien, 2001. I actually watched several movies and tv shows just because I was interested in the soundtrack or musical score, e.g. There Will Be Blood (Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood), Les revenants (Mogwai).
> 
> It's also the best part I remember about the first 'The Crow' movie - I don't know how often I've listened to that soundtrack. It even led me to discover several bands that are now favorites of mine.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many movies and tv shows overdo it in the musical department. I recently watched a movie which had background music or songs in every single second. This was incredibly annyoing after a while and actually distracted me from the movie. Another bad example, at least for me, are the Lord of the Rings movies. I. just. cannot. watch. them. anymore. And just because of the musical score: if I never hear 'Frodo's' Theme' again it will be too early!




I think that one of the worst mistakes a movie can make is to use a heavy handed soundtrack to tell you how you should feel, every minute of its run.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2016)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm not sure if that's only true for sci-fi movies, but it's clearly true for several of my all-time favorites: Bladerunner, Alien, 2001. I actually watched several movies and tv shows just because I was interested in the soundtrack or musical score, e.g. There Will Be Blood (Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood), Les revenants (Mogwai).
> 
> It's also the best part I remember about the first 'The Crow' movie - I don't know how often I've listened to that soundtrack. It even led me to discover several bands that are now favorites of mine.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many movies and tv shows overdo it in the musical department. I recently watched a movie which had background music or songs in every single second. This was incredibly annyoing after a while and actually distracted me from the movie. Another bad example, at least for me, are the Lord of the Rings movies. I. just. cannot. watch. them. anymore. And just because of the musical score: if I never hear 'Frodo's' Theme' again it will be too early!




"Sound" not "score".  The score is half of it, but I was also talking about the wail of a TIE fighter, the sound of a proton pack powering up, the TARDIS materialising - sounds which become iconic on their own.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 9, 2016)

Morrus said:


> "Sound" not "score".  The score is half of it, but I was also talking about the wail of a TIE fighter, the sound of a proton pack powering up, the TARDIS materialising - sounds which become iconic on their own.




Iconic. Or infamous. Know what the Wilhelm Scream is?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> Know what the Wilhelm Scream is?




I do.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2016)

Here's another trailer.  Mainly the same for the first three-quarters, then some different stuff for the last quarter.

[video=youtube;qrtgJKDECI8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtgJKDECI8[/video]


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 9, 2016)

hmm that was better even if they are doing boob jokes

also does is say something that the US Trailer capped off with a loud black woman whereas the international focusses on boobs?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> hmm that was better even if they are doing boob jokes
> 
> also does is say something that the US Trailer capped off with a loud black woman whereas the international focusses on boobs?




Not that I can think of. Unless the well-known country "International" has some kind of shared cultural character than the country "US" does not. That seems unlikely to me.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 9, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Not that I can think of. Unless the well-known country "International" has some kind of shared cultural character than the country "US" does not. That seems unlikely to me.




our common humanity is all about boobs?


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 9, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> our common humanity is all about boobs?




At least until we're weaned.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 9, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Here's another trailer.




Thanks, I didn't know the international trailer was out yet.  I think it looks good.  I did think the crowd-surfing joke was a little ironic given all the flak the movie's been getting.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2016)

What does "international" mean in this context? Just "not American"?


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 9, 2016)

Morrus said:


> What does "international" mean in this context? Just "not American"?




Pretty much.  It's basically an industry reference.  Hollywood markets films differently in America than it does abroad.  A recent prime example of this is to check out the differences in tone and content for the pride and prejudice and zombies trailers.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> Pretty much.  It's basically an industry reference.  Hollywood markets films differently in America than it does abroad.  A recent prime example of this is to check out the differences in tone and content for the pride and prejudice and zombies trailers.




OK. It's not how I would use the word.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 9, 2016)

It's probably not how I'd use it either really.  With trailers ending up online, they're really all international trailers in that they're available for international consumption.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> It's probably not how I'd use it either really.  With trailers ending up online, they're really all international trailers in that they're available for international consumption.




Well, term clearly doesn't include the internet. It's TV and cinemas.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 10, 2016)

Morrus said:


> OK. It's not how I would use the word.




my understanding is that International Trailer is the one that gets translated into non-English languages (there is a Ukrainian version) with the English language version being essentially not-America.

apparently advertising in America has to be different to the rest of the world


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> my understanding is that International Trailer is the one that gets translated into non-English languages (there is a Ukrainian version) with the English language version being essentially not-America.




So a trailer in England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc. is not "international", seeing as it's in English? Or is "international" American slang for "foreigner"? Seems like a slightly different basic usage of the word. There's overlap, to be sure, but it sounds like the word means something different in the US.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 10, 2016)

Morrus said:


> So a trailer in England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc. is not "international", seeing as it isn't translated? Or is "international" American slang for "foreigner"?
> 
> If I use the word "international" I don't mean "not English". Seems like a very different basic usage of the word. There's overlap, to be sure, but it sounds like the word means something different in the US.




yup International is foreigner in Hollywood advertising speak

- I think of it as the better quality offering to the more sophisticated audience


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 10, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> apparently advertising in America has to be different to the rest of the world




In general, I don't think it has to be different here (I live in the US) than in the rest of the world.  It's not as if we're altogether less sophisticated than other countries (I mean, some parts of the US, sure, but not in general).  

The one main thing that does probably have to be different in the US is nudity.  For some reason, probably a holdover from puritan settlers, nudity and sexuality is far more controversial here than violence is.  I never really thought that made sense, that making life was more controversial than taking it, or that you could have a western show a graphic lynching at the hands of vigilante justice but god forbid a boob shows up or it's instantly rated R, but I'm just one person.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 10, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> In general, I don't think it has to be different here (I live in the US) than in the rest of the world.  It's not as if we're altogether less sophisticated than other countries (I mean, some parts of the US, sure, but not in general).
> 
> The one main thing that does probably have to be different in the US is nudity.  For some reason, probably a holdover from puritan settlers, nudity and sexuality is far more controversial here than violence is.  I never really thought that made sense, that making life was more controversial than taking it, or that you could have a western show a graphic lynching at the hands of vigilante justice but god forbid a boob shows up or it's instantly rated R, but I'm just one person.




Oh, there are parts of the world *far* stricter than the US in puritanical terms!


----------



## Istbor (Mar 10, 2016)

I am not sure I see how the second trailer is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. Seems just like a different approach to the same movie.  

It could very well be a good or great movie.  Though the question remains, will it be a good Ghostbuster's movie? There is a lot of nerd rage out there.  Mostly for the style of comedy seen being favored compared to the originals.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 10, 2016)

Istbor said:


> I am not sure I see how the second trailer is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. Seems just like a different approach to the same movie.
> 
> It could very well be a good or great movie.  Though the question remains, will it be a good Ghostbuster's movie? There is a lot of nerd rage out there.  Mostly for the style of comedy seen being favored compared to the originals.




Not just the comedic style, but also the visual style.  I've seen a few comments that don't speak well of the appearance of the ghosts compared to the original films.  I think they're right that it looks different, but I don't think that it looks any worse than the original in that regard.  I think that it looks different in that way largely because of the advances in special effects over the last 30+ years.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 10, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> Not just the comedic style, but also the visual style.  I've seen a few comments that don't speak well of the appearance of the ghosts compared to the original films.  I think they're right that it looks different, but I don't think that it looks any worse than the original in that regard.  I think that it looks different in that way largely because of the advances in special effects over the last 30+ years.




the original ghosts had a purple glow with less defined outlines which helped them look like classic 'indistinct ghostly forms' as opposed to the new ones which have a sharp bright blue glow - which may be an example of older special effects sometimes working better than crisp sharp cgi. 

I am hoping we get some of the scary visuals that the originals had - like the libray ghost, the zombie taxi driver and the Zuul dog


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 10, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> the original ghosts had a purple glow with less defined outlines which helped them look like classic 'indistinct ghostly forms' as opposed to the new ones which have a sharp bright blue glow - which may be and example of older special effects sometimes working better than crisp sharp cgi.
> 
> I am hoping we get some of the scary visuals that the originals had - like the libray ghost, the zombie taxi driver and the Zuul dog




The trailer for the new one includes the library ghost: that's the one that vomits the ectoplasm in the trailer for the new one.


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Mar 11, 2016)

Hmm, not quite sure I liked the trailer. I'm still hopping we'll see something like Melissa McCarthy in Spy in the sense of a fun and unexpected spin, but judging solely by the trailer, it's a movie I'd probably watch on Netflix and skip on the big screen.

I also admit to be a bit confused with all the -apparently IC- references to the old movies. I'm sure I've read or heard somewhere this one was supposed to be a reboot instead of a sequel or spin-off.

Maybe a second trailer will polish the presentation and make it seem compelling to watch.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 11, 2016)

Cristian Andreu said:


> Hmm, not quite sure I liked the trailer. I'm still hopping we'll see something like Melissa McCarthy in Spy in the sense of a fun and unexpected spin, but judging solely by the trailer, it's a movie I'd probably watch on Netflix and skip on the big screen.
> 
> I also admit to be a bit confused with all the -apparently IC- references to the old movies. I'm sure I've read or heard somewhere this one was supposed to be a reboot instead of a sequel or spin-off.
> 
> Maybe a second trailer will polish the presentation and make it seem compelling to watch.




It is a reboot.  Just out of curiosity, what in-character references are you referring to?  There is some text at the beginning that refers to the original film being released 30 years ago in the real world, but I haven't seen any in-character references to the original ghostbusters in the trailer for the new film.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 11, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> It is a reboot.  Just out of curiosity, what in-character references are you referring to?  There is some text at the beginning that refers to the original film being released 30 years ago in the real world, but I haven't seen any in-character references to the original ghostbusters in the trailer for the new film.




the only thing I could possibly point to is the logo appearing as subway graffiti, but I do see how that beginning text could confuse some people. It does seem to be a bit disingenuous to me, almost 'cheating'  in as much as they reference '30 years ago' to appeal to us old fans but then go about rebooting the whole thing into something 'new'. 

unless of course they going to make some in-movie 'joke' as a reference, then that'll be cool


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 11, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> the only thing I could possibly point to is the logo appearing as subway graffiti, but I do see how that beginning text could confuse some people. It does seem to be a bit disingenuous to me, almost 'cheating'  in as much as they reference '30 years ago' to appeal to us old fans but then go about rebooting the whole thing into something 'new'.
> 
> unless of course they going to make some in-movie 'joke' as a reference, then that'll be cool




I just figured that the text at the beginning was a shameless nostalgia ploy, just like the Chewie we're home bit from TFA (and half a dozen other things from TFA, but I won't go into that again).  I don't really blame Hollywood for pushing the nostalgia angle when trying to sell either a reboot or a decades-later sequel (like Mad Max).  It's probably the best tool they have for spreading general awareness about a reboot or late sequel.

Edit: With regard to the subway graffiti, I think that may be where the team gets their logo from.  Recall in the most recent trailer (the "international" version), we have a scene of Hemsworth's character trying to come up with a logo for the team and it not being well received.  It could well be that someone drew a ghost on that wall, then someone else came by and put the circle with a line through it over the ghost, and the ghostbusters see that on the wall when taking the subway to get somewhere.


----------

