Ghostbusters "Who ya gonna call? The Meh busters!"

[Tornado]

Is that humongous black lady as absurdly sassy as the production still makes her out to be? 

[Boomer]

23 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Is that humongous black lady as absurdly sassy as the production still makes her out to be? 

It's pretty much the only character she plays on SNL. 

[Milo]

Eeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

The least I can say is that it doesn't seem to be packed with crude raunchy humor given the production staff's previous credentials. At the same time, most of the jokes fall flat, and the CG is pretty conspicuous too. I mean, yeah, they are ghosts, so they are supposed to not look completely realistic, but it still kinda sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

Doesn't look awful, yet there really isn't anything too great about it either. Largely expecting a lukewarm quality level on the same ballpark of Sony's Total Recall and Robocop revivals.

2 hours ago, Brad said:

The style of comedy is more contemporary to fit with the new time (and new desired audience)

Why call it a Ghostbusters movie then.

The original film's humor is a huge part of what makes the original Ghostbusters work as a comedy and why it's considered a classic. The new film's humor and jokes as seen in the trailer show the film are going for a considerably different approach instead. That's not bad in itself, but given the movie/franchise in question, that humor is not being presented in a vacuum. Why change a huge part of what defines the original for the sake of attracting modern/new audiences? Especially since they've already taken steps to do that by making it a continuity reboot (hence the contemporary setting and the new all-female cast)? If I wanted to watch a modern comedy, I'd simply go see a different film for those desires. Making a new Ghostbusters film (reboot, sequel, or no) implies I'm getting a new adaptation of the original formula and not what's in every other current comedy.

1 hour ago, Tornado said:

Is that humongous black lady as absurdly sassy as the production still makes her out to be?

There's a scene at the end of the trailer where McCarthy's character gets possessed, and the black lady's character tackles her to the ground and slaps her (even after the ghost leaves), while saying "the power of Christ compels you"...

Especially strange to me, because Hudson's character in the original didn't really have any (obvious) stereotypical traits to him. He was largely an everyman who's main reason for joining the team was so he could collect a paycheck.

[Mania Pipe]

Okay... that was a trailer... I think? Really, the only thing l can say about the trailer is a big "ehhh". Hopefully the actual film when released will be a lot different than what the trailer showed off and change our impressions on it, but man oh man I'm a bit anxious about this movie now. Because if THIS is what they have to offer in the actual movie, then I'll be sad.

[Badnik Mechanic]

Ok now I have some free time... here is every problem I have with the impression that the movie is giving in no particular order.

1: The first ghost we see looks terrible, it looks like plastic CG, compare it to the ghost in the library 

2: The slime looks terrible.

3: Suddenly I have a craving for Pringles... oh hi trailer product placement.

4: Oh look, a vagina joke, hey remember how the original movies had penis jokes... no.... oh yeah... they didn't have any!

5: Every ghost so far doesn't look like a ghost, more like extras covered in luminous blue paint.

6: The black character is.... stereotype bad. Look I get it Winston wasn't a scientist either, but he wasn't stupid, nor was he a negative stereotype. Yes he joins the ghostbusters because he needs the money, but look at him, he comes across respectful but also with a then street smart attitude. This lady is every negative black stereotype.

7: "I'm the crazy one! I'll be doing crazy silly stuff for cheap laughs! Look at my purple hair!"

8: "I'm licking the equipment, remember how Ray did that... no? Well... I do because that's sexy!" No really what the fuck is that!? 

9: You love references to other movies right! Of course you do! We can turn them into jokes too! The power of reference compels you!

10: The movie doesn't even know it's own history. "Four scientists saved New York" Erm... no they didn't, they saved the world. It's written on the box of the original movie "They're here to save the world".

 

11: The worst part of it... If it truly is as bad as this trailer makes it out to be, somewhere in this movie will be a 'dedicated to the memory of Harold Ramis.' He deserved a better dedication than what this currently offers.

[Diogenes]

2 minutes ago, Detective Hogfather said:

4: Oh look, a vagina joke, hey remember how the original movies had penis jokes... no.... oh yeah... they didn't have any!

No such thing as a dick joke in a classy movie like Ghostbusters.

 

[Badnik Mechanic]

Just now, Diogenes said:

No such thing as a dick joke in a classy movie like Ghostbusters.

Ok 1. And was this used to sell the movie? 

For goodness sake, the trailer has a 'Da Da' sound effect after she says that line as if it's put there in place of a drum crash. 

[Diogenes]

Just now, Detective Hogfather said:

Ok 1. And was this used to sell the movie? 

Does it matter?

[Badnik Mechanic]

Just now, Diogenes said:

Does it matter?

Yeah, because it speaks volumes as to what both the rest of the dialogue is like as well the humour if that was deemed trailer worthy.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

So they made one vagina joke, It doesn't mean the rest of the movies going to have that type of humor. 

Oh and in the meantime I don't mind those type of jokes as long as they're not used in a harmful way

[Diogenes]

3 minutes ago, Detective Hogfather said:

Yeah, because it speaks volumes as to what both the rest of the dialogue is like as well the humour if that was deemed trailer worthy.

Are you seeing an implication other than "is as irreverent as the original Ghostbusters"?

Come on man, own up to your fuckup. You tried to make it sound like a low-class joke is blasphemous to the GB name yet that's exactly the shit the originals were up to. For all I know the movie might end up sucking huge hairy balls but let's not Catch-22 it into the grave before it's even out.

[The Tenth Doctor]

I don't know, quite often you can judge humour by it's first joke, and trailer as a whole. Let's take Deadpool for example. It's also a comedy this year. 

 

It's first joke was an insult toward the previous movie he appeared in. Behold the actual film had a few of those. Heck, this teaser had pretty much all the humour the film would cover. If Ghostbusters goes this way, we can expect a few vagina jokes. 

[Badnik Mechanic]

7 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Come on man, own up to your fuckup. You tried to make it sound like a low-class joke is blasphemous to the GB name yet that's exactly the shit the originals were up to. For all I know the movie might end up sucking huge hairy balls but let's not Catch-22 it into the grave before it's even out.

It's 2016 and they're trying to sell us Ghostbusters with a vagina joke...

What part of that isn't stupid?

[Diogenes]

Just now, Detective Hogfather said:

It's 2016 and they're trying to sell us Ghostbusters with a vagina joke...

What part of that isn't stupid?

What part of it is? Do you think Ghostbusters is supposed to be above jokes like that?

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

If they were trying to sell as GB with a vagina joke, it would have been heavily focused on. Actually more so than it's other jokes. 

To be honest, I think it's a wee bit out there to compare to look at this trailer and say that it's gonna be a low budget internet film. It's like saying that it's gonna be on the same plane as 50 Shades of Black and.... yeah no.

[Badnik Mechanic]

1 minute ago, Diogenes said:

What part of it is? Do you think Ghostbusters is supposed to be above jokes like that?

I think most things which aren't a try hard are supposed to be above jokes like that.

[Diogenes]

Just now, Detective Hogfather said:

I think most things which aren't a try hard are supposed to be above jokes like that.

Again: I already showed that the original was not above dick jokes. Why should this one be above the equivalent?

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Unless you are trying to say the joke is sexist...?

[Tara]

I mean, yeah, I don't think the joke in question here was particularly funny, but I also don't think I'd cite Ghostbusters as some high-brow comedy.  The fact that it wasn't used to advertise the film sort of just seems to be clinging onto it for really no good reason.

Besides that, genital jokes aren't inherently bad.  I mean, they have the propensity to slip from immature to downright insensitive depending on the writer, but I don't see them as so low brow that they're not worth mentioning in comedy ever.

 

[Ryannumber1gamer]

If you really want to get technical, there is two dick jokes in the original. The one Dio posted, and the one that's basically implied by "He slimed me". That said however, there's a massive difference. Those jokes in the original aren't shoved into our faces, and is even implied so the user actually has to think about the possible joke when the line is taken out of context. Here, they try to shove it in your face by going "Yeah, for the record, when I got slimed, it went everywhere, and I mean everywhere. Every little crack, was tough to wash out of there". 

That's the difference. The original wasn't above the jokes, but they were much smarter about how they actually handled it. That's why the no dick joke works well, it's not focused on for long, and in the context, it makes it work even more. Peter is a deadpan snarker. That's his character, and he's pissed off, and even better is the set up. The viewer isn't expecting the joke. It comes out of nowhere, and is still set up. The previous line from Ray has him insulting Walter Peck by calling him a bunch of things such as dickless, and then when asked, he explains the danger of shutting off the containment system. It builds up a extreme situation which the viewer wouldn't expect a joke in the middle of. So when asked "If this true?", and knowing the insult line had already passed, you aren't expecting a line from Peter saying "Yes, it's true. This man has no dick". You have to keep in mind that comedy isn't just about the joke. It's about the timing, situation, writing, tone, and general attitude of how it's said. It's not a point of high brow, or low brow humor. It's the conditions the joke is said.

Because of the fact the viewer isn't expecting the line, and in such a serious situation, and especially in such a serious and deadpan tone as how Peter says it, it brings more comedy to the line. Here, the situation isn't nearly as dire, it isn't set up, it goes on for far too long, and they keep trying to rub in a joke that wasn't even that funny to begin with.

Also @Detective Hogfather you missed the biggest history mistake in the trailer. Winston isn't a scientist. Only Peter, Ray, and Egon were scientists while Winston was employed as the forth Ghostbuster who knew how to operate the equipment, and such. Fair enough, in The Video Game, he says he's working on his PHD, but in the original two movies, and especially the first movie, which the trailer is talking about, Winston was not a scientist. He was a Ghostbuster, sure. But not a scientist.

[Brad]

3 hours ago, Supt. Gabe said:

Why call it a Ghostbusters movie then.

Money.

But I think people would also be more offended and call it a cheap knock off if they tried to imitate the original's humour. It's probably a better creative decision to give a new cast with different personalities and chemistry a new style of humour to suit contemporary needs.

It's also really unfair to judge a movie's ability to tell intelligent jokes in a two minute trailer when you compare it two feature length films which probably used the exact same techniques to sell that movie to audiences of that time. Y'all need to chill and wait for it to come out.

[Milo]

6 minutes ago, Brad said:

Money.

But I think people would also be more offended and call it a cheap knock off if they tried to imitate the original's humour. It's probably a better creative decision to give a new cast with different personalities and chemistry a new style of humour to suit contemporary needs.

Asking for the movie to not go in a different comedic style doesn't mean I want it to be a complete rehash of the original film's jokes and writing either.

The writers can / could had made new jokes, gags, and comedic scenarios for the new film that are also still faithful to the original style and tone of the earlier movies. You don't have have to go to either extreme of either being nothing like the original or being a direct copy of it.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

3 minutes ago, Brad said:

Money.

But I think people would also be more offended and call it a cheap knock off if they tried to imitate the original's humour. It's probably a better creative decision to give a new cast with different personalities and chemistry a new style of humour to suit contemporary needs.

It's also really unfair to judge a movie's ability to tell intelligent jokes in a two minute trailer when you compare it two feature length films which probably used the exact same techniques to sell that movie to audiences of that time. Y'all need to chill and wait for it to come out.

But I don't think that's a very fair argument. The entire point of a trailer is to entice us to go see it. To convince us that it is in fact a good film. There's a reason why bad films get a lot of money sometimes, and that's because of how well the advertising is. It's meant to represent what the film is going to be like. Fair enough, maybe it isn't the best jokes, but that still means they've failed to put together a trailer that actually brings in smart humor that will get us to go see it. For example, you aren't going to convince someone to go see Toy Story 3 by showing a bunch of toilet humor. You need to be smart about what humor you use in the trailer because that is going to represent your film. If not, then they've failed in the advertising, and the fall out is on them, and them alone. If it's true it's smarter, then it's their fault for picking jokes that show the movie just trying to be a raunchy comedy, with jokes that just end up falling on it's face.

[Brad]

8 minutes ago, Supt. Gabe said:

Asking for the movie to not go in a different comedic style doesn't mean I want it to be a complete rehash of the original film's jokes and writing either.

The writers can / could had made make new jokes, gags, and comedic scenarios that suit it that are also still faithful to the original style and tone of the earlier movies. You don't have have to go to either extreme of either being nothing like the original or being a direct copy of it.

Oh I know, I get what you were saying - it's just a fine line for a movie like this to tread. We don't know what else this flick has packing, and it's just trying to be its own branch of the franchise rather than go over what's already been done. The movie has every potential to bust out things that reminisce Ghostbusters of old but I see no issue in taking it in a new direction. 

7 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

But I don't think that's a very fair argument. The entire point of a trailer is to entice us to go see it. To convince us that it is in fact a good film. There's a reason why bad films get a lot of money sometimes, and that's because of how well the advertising is. It's meant to represent what the film is going to be like. Fair enough, maybe it isn't the best jokes, but that still means they've failed to put together a trailer that actually brings in smart humor that will get us to go see it. For example, you aren't going to convince someone to go see Toy Story 3 by showing a bunch of toilet humor. You need to be smart about what humor you use in the trailer because that is going to represent your film. If not, then they've failed in the advertising, and the fall out is on them, and them alone. If it's true it's smarter, then it's their fault for picking jokes that show the movie just trying to be a raunchy comedy, with jokes that just end up falling on it's face.

Entice you? Yes. Give away the entire film's comedic value by putting the best jokes in the trailer? Definitely not. Seeing the best parts of the movie in the first trailer rarely happens, and when a movie trailer overshares it normally turns off viewers or garners even more complaints.

Fair enough if you didn't enjoy what comedy you saw in the trailer, that's subjective. But a lot of them are quirky one liners. Meant to generate a quick bitesize laugh from an audience, and I'm sure they exist alongside a wide caliber of other jokes in the film which don't fit into a reveal trailer. The stuff you talk about - tone, set up, delivery, build up, etc. can't be seen in a trailer. You don't know where these scenes take place, what scenes came before them, what jokes came before them, what the characters have developed to in order to reach that point in the movie.

It's clear this movie has respect for its source material from the trailer I'd garner. I think it's fair we respect them enough to see if they can make this movie good, being unbiased and recognising the approach they're going for - and if they don't, they don't. I'm not claiming this trailer sold me or anything, it was just inoffensive and non-descript as hell.

[Tornado]

Half of Bill Murray's dialogue in the first movie were sex jokes.