|
ozmunkeh posted:I for one am shocked that a cheap remake of a much loved movie looks "a bit poo poo really". Is $150 million cheap now? What a world we live in.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
Pierogi posted:It's probably a soft reboot like a lot things now. Most of the surviving '84 main cast are doing cameos but not as the original characters, seems like a hard reboot to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Is $150 million cheap now? What a world we live in. Didn't you hear? It's clearly a low budget fan film parody because reasons
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Man Sony must be in dire straits if they're distributing fan films. It's actually based on this fan film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-sXWts_S4o Awkward cringe comedy gave us Spinal Tap and Seinfeld. Vastly prefer that to the era of Scary Movie and Adam Sandler.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Didn't you hear? It's clearly a low budget fan film parody because reasons because it looks like one. Nah that's not fair. A fan film might have a good joke or two in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
I liked it. Y'all sexist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Asiina posted:I liked it. If serious: gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Didn't you hear? It's clearly a low budget fan film parody because reasons You are taking this way too personally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
$150 million? What did they spend that on? Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Man Sony must be in dire straits if they're distributing fan films. "Fan film" was the first thing that came to mind, yeah. I chuckled at the blonde's reaction to the car, "is it the wig or the hat", and ghost punching, but most of the jokes and effects fell flat to me. The character interactions are what could save the movie, so I'll just wait for reviews. EDIT: The last part could have been funny but they just had to include a "That's gonna leave a mark" line. EDIT: Actually, I might watch it just to spite the people writing the terrible YT comments. Renoistic fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
I dunno, it looked kind of alright to me. A watch when it's on Netflix kind of movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:I dunno, it looked kind of alright to me. A watch when it's on Netflix kind of movie. That's some pretty faint praise you're damning it with there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Here's hoping the VFX team do a poo poo ton better on the film than they did on the trailer. That's usually the case but those ghosts, especially the slime-barfing one, were atrocious. Also Sony gives me little hope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Who is the male Sigourney Weaver for this one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
It's good that it goes for a fairly different visual style, like a low rent Tim Burton. At the very least, it seems like they're putting a decent amount of thought into the world they're making based on this feature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VayXii8HtyE It looks like it has the set-pieces, and much like the original, the """Scares""". However, this film will live and die on it's comedy, be it slapstick or banter. And at this point, Paul Feig is a wild card on whether he will deliver, and co-writer Katie Dippold (who did a bunch of Parks and Rec plus The Heat) is similarly not a surefire thing. Add to that the fact that it is a tentpole for Sony, a studio that brought us Amazing Spiderman 2. A film so hacked together and utterly destroyed by desperate executives I think they might be subservient to Disney now. Despite all that, it's super weird to look at Paul Feig as Pharmacist Sanders. With his secret blend of 11 Drugs and Vitamins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Rurea posted:Who is the male Sigourney Weaver for this one? Liam Hemsworth That was disappointing, I was excited before seeing that trailer 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
I really, really hope the new Ghostbusters is awesome. Not just because I'm 100% going to see it and I want it to be worth my time/money, but also so that all the people who have been hating on it so much will have to shush.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
the_american_dream posted:Liam Hemsworth He was originally announced as the Janine, but considering the trailer shows him being possessed, yeah, he's probably the Dana as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
It reminded me of Goosebumps, which I liked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:You are taking this way too personally. Nah, I'm not taking it personally. The trailer didn't even really do anything for me. But the "lol that's looks low budget" is just so fedora-neckbeard-look-at-me-being-edgy that it has to be called out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:That's some pretty faint praise you're damning it with there. I'm weird in that I believe there is a middle ground between great and terrible movies. Some movies are just okay, and that's okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
I hope that's just a really lovely trailer like the first Days of Future Past one, because that looked horribly disappointing. I didn't like the way the ghosts looked especially. They look all CGI ghost person with no unique look. They looked like the dead army from Return of the King with not that much better effects. No distinction between ghosts outside maybe the big tall one. The best part of the original was how different all the ghosts looked. These looked cheap. Melissa McCarthy twisting her head around with a goofy blank look on her face was slightly amusing though. But that's just a reference to a better movie so it's not even clever. Febreeze fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
I'm hopeful. It looks like the cast has good chemistry and the few bits of interplay are nice. (Plus, I dig what McKinnon's doing there. Also, I dig McKinnon in general.) The bigger question is the scope and the VFX, and obviously since the movie's still 4.5 months away from release, there's plenty of work left where that's concerned. I'm probably going to see it, because I even saw loving Pixels in the second-run theater to see if it was really that bad, but I'll wait for Trailer 2 to make bigger claims about quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Is $150 million cheap now? What a world we live in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Nah, I'm not taking it personally. The trailer didn't even really do anything for me. But the "lol that's looks low budget" is just so fedora-neckbeard-look-at-me-being-edgy that it has to be called out. Mhmmm, mhmm. A trailer that was nothing but references and high school production "comedy" with half-rear end props and lovely cgi doesn't look like a low budget fan film. I'm glad I've got you on the case. Peanut President fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
I think I may just not a fan of Paul Fieg's brand of humor. Too loud, too broad, too abrasive. I remember liking Bridesmaids alright, but Spy and The Heat both looked completely antithetical to what I enjoy in both trailers and clips of full scenes. I'll just check out until reviews, I guess, then try to discern from those if I'd enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Spy's great, it has Jason Statham cussing everybody else out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
I rarely see comedies in the movie theater because they just tend to disappoint. I enjoyed Spy.Snowglobe of Doom posted:Most of the surviving '84 main cast are doing cameos but not as the original characters, seems like a hard reboot to me. What's stopping that Harold Ramis cameo? 
Mierenneuker fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
the_american_dream posted:Liam Hemsworth Wrong Hemsworth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Mhmmm, mhmm. A trailer that was nothing but references and high school production "comedy" with half-rear end props and lovely cgi doesn't look like a low budget fan film. I'm glad I've got you on the case. wrong those neon ghosts rule you drool
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
I giggle at parts of it and unlike most comedy trailers the jokes weren't something I just flat out hated but just didn't really did anything for me. So I'm hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:What's stopping that Harold Ramis cameo? I'd place 50/50 odds on that happening, actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
The first scene in that trailer is exactly the same as the first scene in Ghostbusters where they approach the lady ghost in the library, except there's barf now. People get possessed by the evil ghost like in the first movie except there's barf now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of all these ladies but yeah, it looks really bad to me. Then again Sony makes bad trailers. Then again Sony makes bad movies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
I love what I see in the trailer more than I like the actual trailer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
I figured nu-Ghostbusters was going to be bad but that trailer just blew away all my expectations. It's going to be really bad, that wasn't even remotely funny and I don't buy that these women are supposed to be a bunch of dorks that shoot proton beams at ghosts. Not to mention that it just looks like a slightly higher budgeted Ghostbusters SNL skit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
HE IS VIGO! You are like the buzzing of flies to him!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Deakul posted:I don't buy that these women are supposed to be a bunch of dorks that shoot proton beams at ghosts. ??? What is stopping you from buying this
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
I love all the people involved in the Ghostbuster film but wow it looks terrible. I had some high hopes for it too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
PBS Newshour posted:??? I dunno, just something about them. I might be too ingrained with the original cast to picture anyone else as Ghostbusters but I have my doubts that these women will have the same charm and chemistry with each other that the original cast had.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:46
|
|