Ghostbusters (Paul Feig, 2016)

[Professor Wagstaff]

Ghostbusters (2016)

[Trees]

Ghostbusters (2016)

Not a single laugh in the entire trailer for me.

[knives]

I guess that means it will be as funny as the original.

[DarkImbecile]

I guess that means it will be as funny as the original.

Blasphemer!

[mfunk9786]

*raises hand* I never saw the appeal with Ghostbusters either, and I especially don't see the appeal in men's rights activism, so this seems like something I'll stay as far away from as possible

[Forrest Taft]

I guess that means it will be as funny as the original.

Agree with this. And I like the originals. I liked them when I saw them as a kid, and I like them just fine now, but I never thought these were funny movies. I just thought they were fun. Slightly related: This article on Norbert Grupe aka Wilhelm von Homburg, the villain of part II, is a worthwhile read. Not the most sympathetic fella...

[flyonthewall2983]

He was also in Die Hard as one of Gruber's henchmen.

[Roger Ryan]

For me, the original Ghostbusters works because of the balance between the lead performances. The earnest Aykroyd and Ramis characters (and Ernie Hudson's as well, for that matter) are fully inside the reality of the story whereas Murray's character is outside it and mocking it - this is what generates almost all the laughs. Judging from the trailer, that dynamic does not seem to be present in the new version. The other strength of the original is a very funny supporting performance from Rick Moranis. I just looked through the cast list for the 2016 edition to see if I could suss out who might be playing a role similar to Moranis' - didn't find anything conclusive, but did notice that someone plays "pimp ghost"!

[willoneill]

and I especially don't see the appeal in men's rights activism, so this seems like something I'll stay as far away from as possible

I'm going to be willing to risk looking ignorant and ask what you're talking about.

[knives]

Some Internet idiots are upset that women are playing roles traditionally played by men.

[willoneill]

Some Internet idiots are upset that women are playing roles traditionally played by men.

Right, that I knew. It's just the way mfunk phrased is response made it seem like he was avoiding the film because of men's rights activism in the film. But instead he's just avoiding the film because men's rights activists are avoiding the film, which makes him ... a men's rights activist? That can't possibly be right.

[flyonthewall2983]

He's also going to avoid talking about the film online (except here possibly), is what I think he meant.

[mfunk9786]

That's exactly what I meant, apologies if it came off as obtuse. The dialogue around the film online is equal parts overly preachy for something as banal as a Ghostbusters remake and overly hostile and misogynistic for something as banal as a Ghostbusters remake

[domino harvey]

Wiig and even McCarthy can be very funny if the material is suited to their strengths, and I'm not familiar enough with the other two SNL alums to pass judgment, and there's nothing wrong with flipping the genders (literally no one complained when Adventure Time did it) so long as the final product is funny and worthwhile entertainment, which remains to be seen. MRA/Red Pill/PUAs &c avoiding the film for starring women are of course idiots, but what else is new?

[beamish13]

Much like Judd Apatow, Paul Feig has no visual style or sense of editing whatsoever. I'm just not fond of the cast, either; McCarthy and Jones in particular just annoy me, and Wiig is bland.

I don't think Ivan Reitman is a particularly great filmmaker, either. But he had Laszlo Kovaks, Richard Edlund and one of the best art departments ever assembled on a film to be his backbone on the original film

[beamish13]

For me, the original Ghostbusters works because of the balance between the lead performances. The earnest Aykroyd and Ramis characters (and Ernie Hudson's as well, for that matter) are fully inside the reality of the story whereas Murray's character is outside it and mocking it - this is what generates almost all the laughs. Judging from the trailer, that dynamic does not seem to be present in the new version. The other strength of the original is a very funny supporting performance from Rick Moranis. I just looked through the cast list for the 2016 edition to see if I could suss out who might be playing a role similar to Moranis' - didn't find anything conclusive, but did notice that someone plays "pimp ghost"!

Moranis was inarguably the highlight of the original; just a stunningly great performance that only happened because John Candy backed out at the 11th hour.

[domino harvey]

Have you ever seen Moranis do improv? There are (or were, at least) some amazing clips on YouTube of him either before or during SCTV where he is just unbelievably sharp and on his toes, messing with a reporter sent to do a story on him. All those SCTV alums knew what they were doing when it came to comedy, even if most of them ended up cashing pay checks post-SCTV

[beamish13]

Have you ever seen Moranis do improv? There are (or were, at least) some amazing clips on YouTube of him either before or during SCTV where he is just unbelievably sharp and on his toes, messing with a reporter sent to do a story on him. All those SCTV alums knew what they were doing when it came to comedy, even if most of them ended up cashing pay checks post-SCTV

No, I can't recall seeing him do improv, but I'll definitely seek out those clips. I always thought that he and Catherine O'Hara were SCTV's most valuable members.

[domino harvey]

I just looked and couldn't find it, one of those accounts that just upped SCTV bits uploaded it a few years ago, hopefully they'll reup it again soon

[lacritfan]

I'm not familiar enough with the other two SNL alums

I think Leslie Jones is pretty funny in this...where she's the opposite of a Ghostbuster.

[Professor Wagstaff]

Slightly related: This article on Norbert Grupe aka Wilhelm von Homburg, the villain of part II, is a worthwhile read. Not the most sympathetic fella...

I'd also recommend this video essay from the Youtube series No Small Parts.

[thirtyframesasecond]

*raises hand* I never saw the appeal with Ghostbusters either, and I especially don't see the appeal in men's rights activism, so this seems like something I'll stay as far away from as possible

Oh I don't know. It has two great bits for sure; when Murray/Ackroyd calls the lawyer 'dickless' and when Ackroyd gets fellated by a ghost, which I'm certain doesn't always get cut when the movie's shown during Sunday afternoons on UK TV.

[colinr0380]

I think the zombie in the taxi cab was the moment that scared (and scarred) me most as a child (up there with the lady getting turned into a robot near the end of Superman III). It was probably the first zombie I had seen in a film and I remember even at 8 or 9 being concerned over whether the ghost had just spirited itself entirely into the taxi or, perhaps even worse, had turned a living taxi driver into a zombie!

EDIT: Though I never saw the scene of Dan Aykroyd's "O face" until I got the unedited DVD decades later, so perhaps that would have been the thing that would have traumatised me! (but why cut that out from the television screenings and yet leave the zombie in there!?!)

[Professor Wagstaff]

The zombie cab driver always got me too. After countless viewings in my life, I saw the original film in theatres during its 30th anniversary and was surprised by how how creepy I found certain images or moments (particularly the arrival of Zuul and Gozer).

[thirtyframesasecond]

Oh yeah Pamela Reed going through that machine is the scariest thing ever!