I haven’t gone to the cinema in years.
This could do it.
blfsays
I haven’t gone to the cinema in years.
This could do it.
Yes, it’s a pretty good reason to never go again.
(A competent adaption of a Terry Pratchett Discworld story, or perhaps a Neil Gaiman script, might entice me to into the movehorrorhouse, but beyond that, I don’t see any reason to bother.)
doubtthatsays
Strange. I read some early release breakdown that claimed the new GB would take place in a universe separate from the other movies – the original Ghostbusters never existed. That just seemed like a weird choice. I’m glad to see that was bullshit.
All funny people. Hopefully it’s as fun as it looks.
Kaintukee Bobsays
@3:
It isn’t really clear to me if this is a remake or a sequel, honestly. The core crew is definitely reminiscent of the original 3 Ghostbusters (with, of course, a 4th streetwise character). There’s an obvious parallel for Ray and Egon made clear in the trailer, and the Winston analogue is clear. We can likely assume the remaining character is Venkeman-like. This would be expected of a remake, and possibly of a ‘next-gen’ sequel.
That said, it does start off referencing the original movie, but we also see the characters going through things we wouldn’t expect to see if the existence of the original 4 were canon – why would they need to re-create the proton packs? Why would they need to research the theory behind capture (as it implies they do)? Equipment upgrades are simple enough to see happening (and I’m honestly a bit excited to see what new tech they use) but not complete re-development.
In short, this trailer does not clearly demonstrate to me whether or not the movie takes place in a world where there were GhostBusters in the 80s.
I’m so looking forward to taking #1 to the cinema. We’ll have all the popcorn and assorted male tears.
Though there’s some pretty thorough criticism of the roles race wise: the white women are scientists, the black woman’s street wise.
Nemosays
I find myself annoyed by the possession scene. Surely her neck would be broken? Maybe not a problem for the ghost, but a problem once it leaves.
moarscienceplzsays
Well, this certainly is proof (as if we needed more) that Hollywood is officially scared of trying anything actually new. That said, I love Melissa McCarthy, this does look like fun, and I want to support movies with women in the lead roles, so count me in!
praesays
@5: was my first thought, too. Well, not completely, but “hmm, there are a lot of cliches on that black woman”.
Also, the movie looks somewhat indie-low-budget-y to me. Especially the costumes. While I remember them to be even worse, they still look kinda cheap and remind me of janitors…
In the end, I don’t think this movie will have any success. The world just isn’t ready for an all-female party of main characters with normal-looking women.
moarscienceplzsays
Nemo #6
Surely her neck would be broken?
*Psst* it’s a movie. About ghosts.
And don’t call me Shirley.
;-)
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem))says
I too don’t understand the “reboot not sequel” statement (from the producers) when the trailer starts with “30 yrs ago, NYC was saved by 4 scientists” (obv. reference to destruction of Marshmallow Man).
It would make sense that it took 30 yrs for the ghosts to regain a foothold on reality, motivating the new team to form in order to squash it,
mention, previously, of Neil Gaiman, brings to mind that American Gods is in production for TV, and Mr. Wednesday has been cast.
microraptorsays
Maybe they’re just saying 30 years ago because that’s when the first movie came out? But yeah, it’s not making a lot of sense, especially since Slimer seems to be one of the ghosts (and he was officially friendly and helpful by the events of GB2).
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem))says
re 8:
I disagree. maybe “the world” isn’t as misogynistic as often portrayed, With all the fear of refugees it seems like a sure thing to portray it as expelling ghosts, for a bit of catharsis.
regardless of remake-or-reboot-or-sequel, looks like a fun “version” of GB:original. so I will be there also.
Athywren - not the moon you're looking forsays
I like the look of this… it’s got just enough going for it to excite me, while still having enough making me grit my teeth and roll my eyes that I might go in with sub-basement level expectations, which has tended to give good results, enjoyment-wise. And yeah, the Winston analogue being the black woman is irritating. Firstly, there was more to Winston than being black. Secondly, what? A black woman can’t be a paranormal scientist? On the other hand, though, I guess they could’ve gone a lot worse there – I would’ve been totally cool with here being the Venkmanian skepticynic, but it would’ve been much too easy for them to take the magical voodoo woman angle. So glad they don’t seem to have done that, at least.
@Nemo, 6
I find myself annoyed by the possession scene. Surely her neck would be broken? Maybe not a problem for the ghost, but a problem once it leaves.
This film crosses over with the Marvel universe. She’s a mutant/inhuman with owl powers. True fact that was definitely not hastily retrieved from a bodily orifice!
@prae, 8
In the end, I don’t think this movie will have any success. The world just isn’t ready for an all-female party of main characters with normal-looking women.
I think the world is ready for a lot more than we, and film makers give it credit for. You’ve got to remember that we of the “regressive” left see a lot of the worst attitudes toward women in action – the angriest reactions against what the world is becoming ready for – I think an all-female party of normal-looking women might actually go down well. I’m willing to admit that I might be proven depressingly wrong about that, but I’m wearing my optimism hat today, and so that’s what I believe at this moment.
Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thoughtsays
The neck does bother me a bit, because later she complains about the slap even though during the first one the gost is still inside. It means she should have felt her neck breaking.
Other than that (yes, I know, a movie about gosts, but I do expect it to be consistent in the span of 2 minutes at least).. I suppose it looks good. I hope it won’t be just a gender swapped copy, but a movie that can stand on its own.
marcolisays
I never liked the Ghost busters, but this looks like it would be a fun bit of fluff. And hearing the bitching and moaning from any dudebros would make it better.
It’d be fun if they had to dispell some misogynistic ghost of a british comedian who thinks offensive language that doesn’t offend him isn’t offensive. Or maybe some old british professor who tries to dear muslima his way out of the ghost trap. Hey.. There are so many ghosts in the secular/atheist community they could do a whole episode about getting rid of old memes and ghosts…
marcolisays
I never liked the Ghostbusters movies, but this one looks like a fun bit of fluff. Also the whining from the dude bros would make it even better.
I get the impression some of you missed the outrage and cries of “You’re ruining my childhood!” from some quarters when it was announced that the new Ghostbusters would be women.
Yeah, the trailer did nothing to sell me on this idea. I was ready to go with it, but the overuse of stereotype just in the trailer made me go “ugh”
Maybe the full movie will be worthwhile, but I have a very tempered enthusiasm.
Arniesays
If you like music, you might like the Ghostbusters theme played by the Band Geeks
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays
Large popcorn for me.
Drink? Eh… sure. Make it a large combo, for the drink I’ll have bigot tears.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays
@Arnie:
Batman. You call the Batman.
Not familiar with the Band Geeks. I dig ’em. I’d go see them live.
Athywren - not the moon you're looking forsays
@Arnie, 22
Duuuude, how did they get Batman to play with them?
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays
Think this is how they credit it?
“Ghostbusters (Theme) by Band Geeks ft. the Batman”
Rob Grigjanissays
Wiig and McCarthy are funnier than Murray and Aykroyd, so there is that.
praesays
OT, but regarding movies: go watch Zootopia. I just did, and I can almost hear the fundies raging about it.
Gregory Greenwoodsays
I can’t tell yet whether this will be a good, bad, or indifferent movie (apart from the racial stereotyping, which as noted by others even in this short trailer is already egregious), but it has already lead to a flood of angry, misogynist dudebro tears, with yet more sure to follow, and that alone justifies its existence.
I’d prefer my man-tear generators to be actually good pieces of fiction as well, ’cause there’s less chances of them turning it around and going “SEEE WIMMINZ SUKSZ IN MOOVIZ LOL” and forcing me to violently expell blood from my nose.
Potential squee! I have fond memories of seeing the original when it first came out in theaters, but indeed it could be fun too.
taraskansays
I think all the YT comments suggesting this somehow ruins the original need to rewatch the original. That’s some unfunny shit, and honestly, this looks like more of the same. This one might be lighter on the misogyny jokes, but there’s no guarantee. In the plus column, there is that Paul Feig did a pretty good job with Spy, Bridesmaids, and The Heat, I think, and is using the same pool of actors.
At least it isn’t another superhero movie…or is it?
Also taking bets on those same commenters being just fine with Affleck-Batman.
birgerjohanssonsays
As I recall my reaction to the two first films, they took a potentially great idea (if script done by Neil Gaiman or Terry Pratchett) and turned it into Meh!
BTW the MRAs are apparently out there in force , talking shit abouyt the film without having seen it.
And why do they keep ignoring the detective angle potential, like inteviewing murder victims? Or raising zombies to kill off their own murderers? That would be fun to see.
andyosays
Wiig and McCarthy are funnier than Murray and Aykroyd, so there is that.
Well, Aykroyd probably still believes the movie was a documentary, that’s kind of funny.
mordredsays
I really dislike remakes. Especially remakes of movies that shaped my childhood. But, in the trailer at least, the cast rocks!
Maybe I will give it a chance.
Pteryxxsays
The Mary Sue’s article about Patty being the only non-scientist refers back to previous minimizing of the lone black character in the original. Here’s Ernie Hudson talking to EW about the character Winston should have been: (EW 2014)
I look back on Ghostbusters in a very fun way, but it’s got so many mixed feelings and emotions attached to it. When I originally got the script, the character of Winston was amazing and I thought it would be career-changing. The character came in right at the very beginning of the movie and had an elaborate background: he was an Air Force major something, a demolitions guy. It was great.
Now I’ve heard, over the years, that the part had been written for Eddie Murphy—all of which Ivan Reitman says is not true. But it was a bigger part, and Winston was there all the way through the movie. […]
The night before filming begins, however, I get this new script and it was shocking.
The character was gone. Instead of coming in at the very beginning of the movie, like page 8, the character came in on page 68 after the Ghostbusters were established. His elaborate background was all gone, replaced by me walking in and saying, “If there’s a steady paycheck in it, I’ll believe anything you say.” So that was pretty devastating.
I’m panicked. I don’t sleep that night. It was like my worst nightmare is happening. The next morning, I rush to the set and plead my case. And Ivan basically says, “The studio felt that they had Bill Murray, so they wanted to give him more stuff to do.” I go, “Okay, I understand that, but can I even be there when they’re established?” And of course, he said no, there’s nothing to do about it. It was kind of awkward, and it became sort of the elephant in the room.
I see this differently now—and I don’t mean any kind of animosity or anything towards anyone, certainly not towards Ivan or the guys. I was a single dad, and we were struggling to kind of hold on and pay the rent. I still needed to do this job. 30 years later, I look back at the movie and it works very well the way it is. I think the character works with what he has to work with. But I’ve always felt like, “Man, if I could’ve played that original character…”
Commenters at the Mary Sue also pointed out how the 80s cartoon, The Real Ghostbusters, got dumbed down by network meddling after its successful first season, including making Janine nurturing and maternal, and Winston the black driver. References from this youtube video, including an interview with J. Michael Straczynski partially transcribed by a fan site here and in this 1987 article:
J. Michael Straczynski, a story editor on numerous episodes of last season’s “The Real Ghostbusters,” disagrees. Straczynski, who read Q5’s reports on the cartoon series and participated in a Q5 seminar, will write several episodes of “The Real Ghostbusters” for ABC this season but has recently done more extensive work for a new syndicated version of “The Real Ghostbusters”–which, ironically, will continue to feature the “old” Janine.
“They (Q5) wanted us to knock off all the corners,” he said. “Janine was a strong, vibrant character. They wanted her to be more feminine, more maternal, more nurturing, like every other female on television.”
Straczynski expressed the highest regard for Trias and ABC, but he said that he believes “network paranoia” has led them to use Q5. “It is a truly insidious organization, I make no bones about it at all. A lot of their research and theories are strictly from voodoo,” Straczynski continued. “I think they reinforce stereotypes–sexist and racist. I think they are not helping television, they are diminishing it.” […]
In addition to Janine’s new look, described in notes on one DIC character drawing as “generally less harsh & ‘slutty,’ ” she will have a warmer, more nurturing relationship with Slimer, a childlike comic character who sometimes dissolves into slime.
I couldn’t give a damn if all the characters have been replaced by women. Good for them! But, by the looks of the trailer they just rehashed a bunch of stuff, right down to the original stupid slimer CG models, put a new wrapper on it and shipped it out.
I fucking HATE remakes.
treefrogdundeesays
I haven’t seen the originals since I was a kid. Unfortunately, this looks like a prime example of Hollywood’s ability to take a beloved movie from two or three decades ago and transform it into a paint-by-numbers piece of garbage that ruins another precious childhood memory. And considering the nearly 2-to-1 down-vote on YouTube right now, I expect this reboot to go the same way. I think I’ll void this one like a lice-infested Ewok.
vytautasjanaauskassays
How would anyone with aesthetic sensibilities above those of pond slime find anything in that trailer remotely appealing?
Perhaps it’s just me, but I wouldn’t class movies or television as a precious memory. Enjoyable, sure. Memorable, maybe. In some cases, pure suffering. Anyroad, as this is a movie you are going to “void this one like a lice-infested Ewok”, I don’t see how it could possibly affect your wonderful memory. As much as you dislike the idea, I expect this movie will also end up being someone’s precious childhood memory.
ObTrivia: I was 27 when the movie came out in 1984.
Rob Grigjanissays
drksky @38:
I fucking HATE remakes.
I quote enjoyed the 1941 remake of The Maltese Falcon.
Athywren - not the moon you're looking forsays
@Rob Grigjanis
I quote enjoyed the 1941 remake of The Maltese Falcon.
Bah! That film ruined my grandfather’s childhood!!
treefrogdundeesays
@ Caine
Movies, TV, and related media have an enormous ability to influence our personal growth and direction, whether for good (David Attenborough) or evil (anyone who finds anything appealing in the Kardashians or Donald Trump). So its perfectly reasonable to consider certain ones precious memories. In the case of Ghost Busters, I thought the original was fun enough but it never really grabbed my young imagination as say Star Wars or others so I’m indifferent here. But based on Hollywood’s abysmal and nearly total record this century of making reboots that disgust the hardcore fans they were intended to cater to, I’m not holding my breath here. When the notion of digging up old favorites from two decades prior to give them a new life first came around, the announcement of every new reboot was greeted with wonder and bated breath by the fans. Now, every new reboot is greeted with groans and pleas for mercy.
It isn’t anything about this movie in particular (though it does look pretty awful) but more my distrust of Hollywood’s ability to do ANY reboot well.
A. Noydsays
treefrogdundee (#39)
And considering the nearly 2-to-1 down-vote on YouTube right now, I expect this reboot to go the same way.
Seriously? That’s obviously the result of brigading by the same misogynistic man-babies who have been whining about this movie since they got the first whiff of it, not the result of random watchers giving their honest, individual opinions. But hey, they’re also incredibly concerned about preserving the integrity of their precious, precious childhood memories (or so they say), so maybe you should take the ratings to heart.
So its perfectly reasonable to consider certain ones precious memories
Now please explain how a new movie can do any harm to this precious memory. I can certainly understand how new information about a product can ruin things retroactively, like the fact that Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, but since you’re perfectly fine to ignore this movie the only way it can “ruin somebody’s childhood memories” is because those people thought they, and only they held the keys to this particular movie and that they’re entitled to decide about this forever. In other words, the harm they suffer is as real as the harm christians suffer by the existence of other religions or people without any religion.
treefrogdundeesays
@ A. Noyd,
Do you have any actual proof of that? Or was that just another “its all misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc, etc” knee-jerk reaction? And it doesn’t explain the fact that the legions of fanboys (and fangirls) I live and work with on a daily basis have had few good things to say about it. As hard as it is for you to accept, it just might be that the reaction this reboot is getting has little to do with misogyny but is because this looks like a lousy movie.
@ Giliell
I don’t know how to put it into words. But as someone who grew up on the original Star Wars, no matter how much I try to put the prequels out of my head, they still manage to pop their way into my conscious where they sit like a scar that just won’t heal.
chigau (違う)says
JAQ of no one in particular
Based on this trailer, would you go to this movie?
I’d say it’s a good thing I never saw the trailer.
Vivecsays
I absolutely can’t stand the original Ghostbusters – it’s in that genre of severely overhyped comedy that could get you shitlisted if you couldn’t quote it on demand when I was growing up. Pretty much the only cool part about it was the ghost effects, but that’s it.
Looking at the trailer, I already like the few scenes in the trailer more than the entirety of the previous ghostbusters franchise. Not too into the racial stereotyping in order to ~be faithful to the original~ or whatever, but all things being equal I think I’ll like this more.
I don’t know how to put it into words. But as someone who grew up on the original Star Wars, no matter how much I try to put the prequels out of my head, they still manage to pop their way into my conscious where they sit like a scar that just won’t heal.
I wished I had your problems. Seriously. Have you considered that the problem is actually you?
Athywren - not the moon you're looking forsays
@treefrogdundee
legions of fanboys (and fangirls) I live and work with on a daily basis
Legions? Do you mean “six or seven of the people I live and work with on a daily basis”?
A. Noydsays
treefrogdundee (#48)
Do you have any actual proof of that? Or was that just another “its all misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc, etc” knee-jerk reaction?
Yeah, the misogynist side of the internet, famous for vote brigading, has only been having a loud, drawn-out tantrum for half a year, but maaaaaybe I’m overreacting and assigning blame too quickly when the trailer got well over 10k downvotes in a few hours of being posted.
it just might be that the reaction this reboot is getting has little to do with misogyny
You’re an idiot if you believe that. I was doing you the favor of not just assuming you’re against it because of misogyny, but that’s getting harder the more you talk.
[The prequels] still manage to pop their way into my conscious where they sit like a scar that just won’t heal.
But as someone who grew up on the original Star Wars, no matter how much I try to put the prequels out of my head, they still manage to pop their way into my conscious where they sit like a scar that just won’t heal.
Jesus Christ onna stick. Has it not occurred to you that this sort of obsession is seriously unhealthy? Honestly, I don’t think you should watch any movies at all. I’d suggest a book, but you might do this with books too.
Yeah, the misogynist side of the internet, famous for vote brigading, has only been having a loud, drawn-out tantrum for half a year, but maaaaaybe I’m overreacting and assigning blame too quickly when the trailer got well over 10k downvotes in a few hours of being posted.
Yep. The toxic sexism dripping all over in regard to this is so obvious, it’s bloody painful. If someone isn’t seeing that, well, chances are…
One of the things I disliked intensely about the original was the paean to testosterone. There were a lot of cringe inducing moments in that flick. I expect there will be some in the new one, too, but I would hope for less.
Athywren - not the moon you're looking forsays
@Caine, 55
I used to believe the following clip was a hilarious joke… I’ve come to realise it was a serious moment in the series:
My, my. I never watched the ‘prequels’, because it didn’t interest me. I’ve never been terribly impressed by Lucas’s, um, talents, but I did enjoy Star Wars along with everyone else back in the day. I just don’t grok people for whom film is more real than reality. Especially when the film in question is a popcorn flick.
microraptorsays
Caine @56:
Well, Bill Murry won’t be a lead character in this one, and since he was the source of the worst sexism in the original Ghostbusters that ought to count for something.
Athywren - not the moon you're looking forsays
@Caine,
Well I’m one of those weirdos to whom Star Wars is terribly important… I do recognise that it’s only a fantasy, though, and recognise its many flaws… and, honestly, I prefer the games over the films – they’re fine, but it’s the universe they’re set in that interests me more than the films themselves, much as I enjoy them. Although, having said that, I may have already seen Force Awakens 80 bajillion times… the fourth viewing was str-*is suddenly silenced*
treefrogdundeesays
“You’re an idiot if you believe that. I was doing you the favor of not just assuming you’re against it because of misogyny, but that’s getting harder the more you talk.”
No, I’m basing my opinion on the fact that this blog is the first place I’ve heard anything positive about the movie. I wasn’t the one who first brought up misogyny. At the expense of stating the obvious, of course I’m against misogyny. But I also think its possible to say a movie looks idiotic without that being based on some ingrained desire to beat women back to the “good ‘ol days” of the 1930s.
“Has it not occurred to you that this sort of obsession is seriously unhealthy?”
No, obsession would be if I sat at home sticking needles in a George Lucas voodoo doll. Only mentioning “Boy, those prequels sucked” when Star Wars comes up as a topic for whatever reason is a normal response by someone who felt massively let-down by them.
“The toxic sexism dripping all over in regard to this is so obvious, it’s bloody painful. If someone isn’t seeing that, well, chances are…”
Thank you for reminding me of the petty side of the progressive movement, that is people who automatically assume that anyone who doesn’t share their orthodoxy must be a member of some predefined cliche. No, I’m not a misogynist. Yes, I think the MRAs should go have intercourse with themselves. No, I won’t bother spending more time trying to convince you of my equal-rights bonafides. Because if your automatic response to a difference of opinion is to assume the speaker is coming from a position of bigotry, then I really don’t give a rat’s ass about your opinion of me.
treefrogdundeesays
Seriously people, there is a disturbing chance that this time next year the country will be led by a fascist. I would think there are more important things to do than dissect each other’s reasons for why they think a movie looks stupid.
Athywren - not the moon you're looking forsays
@treefrogdundee
“Has it not occurred to you that this sort of obsession is seriously unhealthy?”
No, obsession would be if I sat at home sticking needles in a George Lucas voodoo doll. Only mentioning “Boy, those prequels sucked” when Star Wars comes up as a topic for whatever reason is a normal response by someone who felt massively let-down by them.
Star Wars actually didn’t “come up” as a topic – you brought it up. And then likened the impact the prequels had on you to “a scar that just won’t heal.” Obsession isn’t a binary thing. It’s on a scale, and, sure, your bringing it up and comparing its impact to a chronic wound is not on the same level as sticking needles into a voodoo doll, but it’s still a bit weird.
I would address the misogyny thing, but… ugh. Look, first, you’re arguing that a thing we know happens wasn’t done by people we know have a history of doing that thing and who have been ranting about this remake for months now. Secondly, this isn’t the only place on the internet where people have mildly positive things to say about it (and it’s also not a place where people have no criticisms of it). Third, you can tell that the film is going to be bad based on the first trailer. Seriously. Are you new to films or something? And this whining about bonafides while you’re squirming around accepting that a basic claim you made might not be all that informative? Come on….
Athywren - not the moon you're looking forsays
Also, the internet isn’t a country, and not all of us live in the country that you assume the internet is. But, sorry, issues don’t stop mattering just because there are other issues.
A. Noydsays
treefrogdundee (#61)
No, I’m basing my opinion on the fact that this blog is the first place I’ve heard anything positive about the movie.
Which is just your limited experience. Meanwhile, the preview’s exceptionally bad rating is much better explained as the work of the downvote-happy misogynists who have had a particular and vocal hatred of this movie since they heard of it.
I wasn’t the one who first brought up misogyny. At the expense of stating the obvious, of course I’m against misogyny.
Yeah, your failure to bring up misogyny was the problem, not you saying the movie looks idiotic. Now you’re just downplaying the misogyny at the same time as you’re playing up the nonsensical ruining of precious childhood memories angle, which is one of the prime complaints of the misogynists. So no, you don’t get to act like we’re being knee-jerkey and cliquish to get suspicious of you.
(#62)
I would think there are more important things to do than dissect each other’s reasons for why they think a movie looks stupid.
Says the one who came here to lament the impending destruction of a precious childhood memory, as if that’s not entirely trivial.
Vivecsays
Treefrogdundee could have saved the time and just called us the “regressive left” rather than mincing words like that.
“Don’t talk about how sexism affects peoples tastes and actions because Trump” is just another “Stop quibbling about islamiphobia because terrorism”
I haven’t gone to the cinema in years.
This could do it.
Yes, it’s a pretty good reason to never go again.
(A competent adaption of a Terry Pratchett Discworld story, or perhaps a Neil Gaiman script, might entice me to into the move
horrorhouse, but beyond that, I don’t see any reason to bother.)Strange. I read some early release breakdown that claimed the new GB would take place in a universe separate from the other movies – the original Ghostbusters never existed. That just seemed like a weird choice. I’m glad to see that was bullshit.
All funny people. Hopefully it’s as fun as it looks.
@3:
It isn’t really clear to me if this is a remake or a sequel, honestly. The core crew is definitely reminiscent of the original 3 Ghostbusters (with, of course, a 4th streetwise character). There’s an obvious parallel for Ray and Egon made clear in the trailer, and the Winston analogue is clear. We can likely assume the remaining character is Venkeman-like. This would be expected of a remake, and possibly of a ‘next-gen’ sequel.
That said, it does start off referencing the original movie, but we also see the characters going through things we wouldn’t expect to see if the existence of the original 4 were canon – why would they need to re-create the proton packs? Why would they need to research the theory behind capture (as it implies they do)? Equipment upgrades are simple enough to see happening (and I’m honestly a bit excited to see what new tech they use) but not complete re-development.
In short, this trailer does not clearly demonstrate to me whether or not the movie takes place in a world where there were GhostBusters in the 80s.
I’m so looking forward to taking #1 to the cinema. We’ll have all the popcorn and assorted male tears.
Though there’s some pretty thorough criticism of the roles race wise: the white women are scientists, the black woman’s street wise.
I find myself annoyed by the possession scene. Surely her neck would be broken? Maybe not a problem for the ghost, but a problem once it leaves.
Well, this certainly is proof (as if we needed more) that Hollywood is officially scared of trying anything actually new. That said, I love Melissa McCarthy, this does look like fun, and I want to support movies with women in the lead roles, so count me in!
@5: was my first thought, too. Well, not completely, but “hmm, there are a lot of cliches on that black woman”.
Also, the movie looks somewhat indie-low-budget-y to me. Especially the costumes. While I remember them to be even worse, they still look kinda cheap and remind me of janitors…
In the end, I don’t think this movie will have any success. The world just isn’t ready for an all-female party of main characters with normal-looking women.
Nemo #6
*Psst* it’s a movie. About ghosts.
And don’t call me Shirley.
;-)
I too don’t understand the “reboot not sequel” statement (from the producers) when the trailer starts with “30 yrs ago, NYC was saved by 4 scientists” (obv. reference to destruction of Marshmallow Man).
It would make sense that it took 30 yrs for the ghosts to regain a foothold on reality, motivating the new team to form in order to squash it,
mention, previously, of Neil Gaiman, brings to mind that American Gods is in production for TV, and Mr. Wednesday has been cast.
Maybe they’re just saying 30 years ago because that’s when the first movie came out? But yeah, it’s not making a lot of sense, especially since Slimer seems to be one of the ghosts (and he was officially friendly and helpful by the events of GB2).
re 8:
I disagree. maybe “the world” isn’t as misogynistic as often portrayed, With all the fear of refugees it seems like a sure thing to portray it as expelling ghosts, for a bit of catharsis.
regardless of remake-or-reboot-or-sequel, looks like a fun “version” of GB:original. so I will be there also.
I like the look of this… it’s got just enough going for it to excite me, while still having enough making me grit my teeth and roll my eyes that I might go in with sub-basement level expectations, which has tended to give good results, enjoyment-wise. And yeah, the Winston analogue being the black woman is irritating. Firstly, there was more to Winston than being black. Secondly, what? A black woman can’t be a paranormal scientist? On the other hand, though, I guess they could’ve gone a lot worse there – I would’ve been totally cool with here being the Venkmanian skepticynic, but it would’ve been much too easy for them to take the magical voodoo woman angle. So glad they don’t seem to have done that, at least.
@Nemo, 6
This film crosses over with the Marvel universe. She’s a mutant/inhuman with owl powers. True fact that was definitely not hastily retrieved from a bodily orifice!
@prae, 8
I think the world is ready for a lot more than we, and film makers give it credit for. You’ve got to remember that we of the “regressive” left see a lot of the worst attitudes toward women in action – the angriest reactions against what the world is becoming ready for – I think an all-female party of normal-looking women might actually go down well. I’m willing to admit that I might be proven depressingly wrong about that, but I’m wearing my optimism hat today, and so that’s what I believe at this moment.
The neck does bother me a bit, because later she complains about the slap even though during the first one the gost is still inside. It means she should have felt her neck breaking.
Other than that (yes, I know, a movie about gosts, but I do expect it to be consistent in the span of 2 minutes at least).. I suppose it looks good. I hope it won’t be just a gender swapped copy, but a movie that can stand on its own.
I never liked the Ghost busters, but this looks like it would be a fun bit of fluff. And hearing the bitching and moaning from any dudebros would make it better.
It’d be fun if they had to dispell some misogynistic ghost of a british comedian who thinks offensive language that doesn’t offend him isn’t offensive. Or maybe some old british professor who tries to dear muslima his way out of the ghost trap. Hey.. There are so many ghosts in the secular/atheist community they could do a whole episode about getting rid of old memes and ghosts…
I never liked the Ghostbusters movies, but this one looks like a fun bit of fluff. Also the whining from the dude bros would make it even better.
I looks like it might be a fun take on that idea, but why does the CGI look so crappy?
Marcus Ranum #15
I think some of those aren’t dead…
I get the impression some of you missed the outrage and cries of “You’re ruining my childhood!” from some quarters when it was announced that the new Ghostbusters would be women.
Looking forward to all the outrage from the MRAs, and I hope the movie is a good one, but the trailer was kind of “meh.”
Yeah, the trailer did nothing to sell me on this idea. I was ready to go with it, but the overuse of stereotype just in the trailer made me go “ugh”
Maybe the full movie will be worthwhile, but I have a very tempered enthusiasm.
If you like music, you might like the Ghostbusters theme played by the Band Geeks
@Arnie:
Not familiar with the Band Geeks. I dig ’em. I’d go see them live.
@Arnie, 22
Duuuude, how did they get Batman to play with them?
Think this is how they credit it?
“Ghostbusters (Theme) by Band Geeks ft. the Batman”
Wiig and McCarthy are funnier than Murray and Aykroyd, so there is that.
OT, but regarding movies: go watch Zootopia. I just did, and I can almost hear the fundies raging about it.
I can’t tell yet whether this will be a good, bad, or indifferent movie (apart from the racial stereotyping, which as noted by others even in this short trailer is already egregious), but it has already lead to a flood of angry, misogynist dudebro tears, with yet more sure to follow, and that alone justifies its existence.
@greg 29
I’d prefer my man-tear generators to be actually good pieces of fiction as well, ’cause there’s less chances of them turning it around and going “SEEE WIMMINZ SUKSZ IN MOOVIZ LOL” and forcing me to violently expell blood from my nose.
Potential squee! I have fond memories of seeing the original when it first came out in theaters, but indeed it could be fun too.
I think all the YT comments suggesting this somehow ruins the original need to rewatch the original. That’s some unfunny shit, and honestly, this looks like more of the same. This one might be lighter on the misogyny jokes, but there’s no guarantee. In the plus column, there is that Paul Feig did a pretty good job with Spy, Bridesmaids, and The Heat, I think, and is using the same pool of actors.
At least it isn’t another superhero movie…or is it?
Also taking bets on those same commenters being just fine with Affleck-Batman.
As I recall my reaction to the two first films, they took a potentially great idea (if script done by Neil Gaiman or Terry Pratchett) and turned it into Meh!
BTW the MRAs are apparently out there in force , talking shit abouyt the film without having seen it.
And why do they keep ignoring the detective angle potential, like inteviewing murder victims? Or raising zombies to kill off their own murderers? That would be fun to see.
Well, Aykroyd probably still believes the movie was a documentary, that’s kind of funny.
I really dislike remakes. Especially remakes of movies that shaped my childhood. But, in the trailer at least, the cast rocks!
Maybe I will give it a chance.
The Mary Sue’s article about Patty being the only non-scientist refers back to previous minimizing of the lone black character in the original. Here’s Ernie Hudson talking to EW about the character Winston should have been: (EW 2014)
Commenters at the Mary Sue also pointed out how the 80s cartoon, The Real Ghostbusters, got dumbed down by network meddling after its successful first season, including making Janine nurturing and maternal, and Winston the black driver. References from this youtube video, including an interview with J. Michael Straczynski partially transcribed by a fan site here and in this 1987 article:
I couldn’t give a damn if all the characters have been replaced by women. Good for them! But, by the looks of the trailer they just rehashed a bunch of stuff, right down to the original stupid slimer CG models, put a new wrapper on it and shipped it out.
I fucking HATE remakes.
I haven’t seen the originals since I was a kid. Unfortunately, this looks like a prime example of Hollywood’s ability to take a beloved movie from two or three decades ago and transform it into a paint-by-numbers piece of garbage that ruins another precious childhood memory. And considering the nearly 2-to-1 down-vote on YouTube right now, I expect this reboot to go the same way. I think I’ll void this one like a lice-infested Ewok.
How would anyone with aesthetic sensibilities above those of pond slime find anything in that trailer remotely appealing?
July 15 can’t come soon enough.
treefrogdundee:
Perhaps it’s just me, but I wouldn’t class movies or television as a precious memory. Enjoyable, sure. Memorable, maybe. In some cases, pure suffering. Anyroad, as this is a movie you are going to “void this one like a lice-infested Ewok”, I don’t see how it could possibly affect your wonderful memory. As much as you dislike the idea, I expect this movie will also end up being someone’s precious childhood memory.
ObTrivia: I was 27 when the movie came out in 1984.
drksky @38:
I quote enjoyed the 1941 remake of The Maltese Falcon.
@Rob Grigjanis
Bah! That film ruined my grandfather’s childhood!!
@ Caine
Movies, TV, and related media have an enormous ability to influence our personal growth and direction, whether for good (David Attenborough) or evil (anyone who finds anything appealing in the Kardashians or Donald Trump). So its perfectly reasonable to consider certain ones precious memories. In the case of Ghost Busters, I thought the original was fun enough but it never really grabbed my young imagination as say Star Wars or others so I’m indifferent here. But based on Hollywood’s abysmal and nearly total record this century of making reboots that disgust the hardcore fans they were intended to cater to, I’m not holding my breath here. When the notion of digging up old favorites from two decades prior to give them a new life first came around, the announcement of every new reboot was greeted with wonder and bated breath by the fans. Now, every new reboot is greeted with groans and pleas for mercy.
It isn’t anything about this movie in particular (though it does look pretty awful) but more my distrust of Hollywood’s ability to do ANY reboot well.
treefrogdundee (#39)
Seriously? That’s obviously the result of brigading by the same misogynistic man-babies who have been whining about this movie since they got the first whiff of it, not the result of random watchers giving their honest, individual opinions. But hey, they’re also incredibly concerned about preserving the integrity of their precious, precious childhood memories (or so they say), so maybe you should take the ratings to heart.
treefrogdundee
Now please explain how a new movie can do any harm to this precious memory. I can certainly understand how new information about a product can ruin things retroactively, like the fact that Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, but since you’re perfectly fine to ignore this movie the only way it can “ruin somebody’s childhood memories” is because those people thought they, and only they held the keys to this particular movie and that they’re entitled to decide about this forever. In other words, the harm they suffer is as real as the harm christians suffer by the existence of other religions or people without any religion.
@ A. Noyd,
Do you have any actual proof of that? Or was that just another “its all misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc, etc” knee-jerk reaction? And it doesn’t explain the fact that the legions of fanboys (and fangirls) I live and work with on a daily basis have had few good things to say about it. As hard as it is for you to accept, it just might be that the reaction this reboot is getting has little to do with misogyny but is because this looks like a lousy movie.
@ Giliell
I don’t know how to put it into words. But as someone who grew up on the original Star Wars, no matter how much I try to put the prequels out of my head, they still manage to pop their way into my conscious where they sit like a scar that just won’t heal.
JAQ of no one in particular
Based on this trailer, would you go to this movie?
Chigau @ 49:
I’d say it’s a good thing I never saw the trailer.
I absolutely can’t stand the original Ghostbusters – it’s in that genre of severely overhyped comedy that could get you shitlisted if you couldn’t quote it on demand when I was growing up. Pretty much the only cool part about it was the ghost effects, but that’s it.
Looking at the trailer, I already like the few scenes in the trailer more than the entirety of the previous ghostbusters franchise. Not too into the racial stereotyping in order to ~be faithful to the original~ or whatever, but all things being equal I think I’ll like this more.
treefrogdundee
I wished I had your problems. Seriously. Have you considered that the problem is actually you?
@treefrogdundee
Legions? Do you mean “six or seven of the people I live and work with on a daily basis”?
treefrogdundee (#48)
Yeah, the misogynist side of the internet, famous for vote brigading, has only been having a loud, drawn-out tantrum for half a year, but maaaaaybe I’m overreacting and assigning blame too quickly when the trailer got well over 10k downvotes in a few hours of being posted.
You’re an idiot if you believe that. I was doing you the favor of not just assuming you’re against it because of misogyny, but that’s getting harder the more you talk.
Aw, poor you.
treefrogdundee:
Jesus Christ onna stick. Has it not occurred to you that this sort of obsession is seriously unhealthy? Honestly, I don’t think you should watch any movies at all. I’d suggest a book, but you might do this with books too.
A. Noyd:
Yep. The toxic sexism dripping all over in regard to this is so obvious, it’s bloody painful. If someone isn’t seeing that, well, chances are…
One of the things I disliked intensely about the original was the paean to testosterone. There were a lot of cringe inducing moments in that flick. I expect there will be some in the new one, too, but I would hope for less.
@Caine, 55
I used to believe the following clip was a hilarious joke… I’ve come to realise it was a serious moment in the series:
Athywren:
My, my. I never watched the ‘prequels’, because it didn’t interest me. I’ve never been terribly impressed by Lucas’s, um, talents, but I did enjoy Star Wars along with everyone else back in the day. I just don’t grok people for whom film is more real than reality. Especially when the film in question is a popcorn flick.
Caine @56:
Well, Bill Murry won’t be a lead character in this one, and since he was the source of the worst sexism in the original Ghostbusters that ought to count for something.
@Caine,
Well I’m one of those weirdos to whom Star Wars is terribly important… I do recognise that it’s only a fantasy, though, and recognise its many flaws… and, honestly, I prefer the games over the films – they’re fine, but it’s the universe they’re set in that interests me more than the films themselves, much as I enjoy them. Although, having said that, I may have already seen Force Awakens 80 bajillion times… the fourth viewing was str-*is suddenly silenced*
“You’re an idiot if you believe that. I was doing you the favor of not just assuming you’re against it because of misogyny, but that’s getting harder the more you talk.”
No, I’m basing my opinion on the fact that this blog is the first place I’ve heard anything positive about the movie. I wasn’t the one who first brought up misogyny. At the expense of stating the obvious, of course I’m against misogyny. But I also think its possible to say a movie looks idiotic without that being based on some ingrained desire to beat women back to the “good ‘ol days” of the 1930s.
“Has it not occurred to you that this sort of obsession is seriously unhealthy?”
No, obsession would be if I sat at home sticking needles in a George Lucas voodoo doll. Only mentioning “Boy, those prequels sucked” when Star Wars comes up as a topic for whatever reason is a normal response by someone who felt massively let-down by them.
“The toxic sexism dripping all over in regard to this is so obvious, it’s bloody painful. If someone isn’t seeing that, well, chances are…”
Thank you for reminding me of the petty side of the progressive movement, that is people who automatically assume that anyone who doesn’t share their orthodoxy must be a member of some predefined cliche. No, I’m not a misogynist. Yes, I think the MRAs should go have intercourse with themselves. No, I won’t bother spending more time trying to convince you of my equal-rights bonafides. Because if your automatic response to a difference of opinion is to assume the speaker is coming from a position of bigotry, then I really don’t give a rat’s ass about your opinion of me.
Seriously people, there is a disturbing chance that this time next year the country will be led by a fascist. I would think there are more important things to do than dissect each other’s reasons for why they think a movie looks stupid.
@treefrogdundee
Star Wars actually didn’t “come up” as a topic – you brought it up. And then likened the impact the prequels had on you to “a scar that just won’t heal.” Obsession isn’t a binary thing. It’s on a scale, and, sure, your bringing it up and comparing its impact to a chronic wound is not on the same level as sticking needles into a voodoo doll, but it’s still a bit weird.
I would address the misogyny thing, but… ugh. Look, first, you’re arguing that a thing we know happens wasn’t done by people we know have a history of doing that thing and who have been ranting about this remake for months now. Secondly, this isn’t the only place on the internet where people have mildly positive things to say about it (and it’s also not a place where people have no criticisms of it). Third, you can tell that the film is going to be bad based on the first trailer. Seriously. Are you new to films or something? And this whining about bonafides while you’re squirming around accepting that a basic claim you made might not be all that informative? Come on….
Also, the internet isn’t a country, and not all of us live in the country that you assume the internet is. But, sorry, issues don’t stop mattering just because there are other issues.
treefrogdundee (#61)
Which is just your limited experience. Meanwhile, the preview’s exceptionally bad rating is much better explained as the work of the downvote-happy misogynists who have had a particular and vocal hatred of this movie since they heard of it.
Yeah, your failure to bring up misogyny was the problem, not you saying the movie looks idiotic. Now you’re just downplaying the misogyny at the same time as you’re playing up the nonsensical ruining of precious childhood memories angle, which is one of the prime complaints of the misogynists. So no, you don’t get to act like we’re being knee-jerkey and cliquish to get suspicious of you.
(#62)
Says the one who came here to lament the impending destruction of a precious childhood memory, as if that’s not entirely trivial.
Treefrogdundee could have saved the time and just called us the “regressive left” rather than mincing words like that.
“Don’t talk about how sexism affects peoples tastes and actions because Trump” is just another “Stop quibbling about islamiphobia because terrorism”
Slightly different, international trailer is out: