Ghostbusters (Paul Feig, 2016)

Message

Forrest Taft · #26 Post by **Forrest Taft** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:04 pm

Pamela Reed? I believe you're thinking of Annie Ross! But yes, few things frightened me more when I was a child.

colinr0380 · #27 Post by **colinr0380** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:12 pm

Yes, it was amazing to find out it was the same Annie Ross who later on played the singer in Short Cuts! (Apparently she also dubbed Ingrid Thulin's singing voice in Salon Kitty too! That's quite an eclectic career!)

#28 Post by **swo17** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:13 pm

You're welcome

#29 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:14 pm

I must side with those who don't care for the original, despite loving it (or, more accurately, loving the animated series and all the wonderful toys) as a kid. When I watched it as an adult, Bill Murray just seemed like too much of a dick the whole time, and it wasn't nearly as funny as I'd remembered/hoped. Maybe this is why I'm not immediately tut-tutting a reboot like this?

#30 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:16 pm

swo17 wrote:You're welcome

At first YT loaded an ad for some Alison Pill vehicle and I was like, "What's her connection to anything we've been talking about?" So, in conclusion, cast Alison Pill in Ghostbusters IV.

colinr0380 · #31 Post by **colinr0380** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:18 pm

I still wonder if Rick Moranis hammering at the windows of the classy restaurant was a homage to The Graduate! And I love the way that everyone waits for the screams and squeaky slide down the windows to stop before returning to their conversations, a monster savaging someone just outside be damned! I guess thats callous 1980s New York for you though!

And of course Sigourney Weaver at her sexiest, even when being groped by a (literal) armchair!

EDIT: This has made me think back to my comments a while ago on Wild Tales and how relatively few comedies use depth of field for their jokes. The original Ghostbusters is one of the few to my mind that actually does, and that might be because it is also including a lot of dramatic/horrific moments that pan over to reveal monsters, or bulging kitchen doors, or show someone hammering at a window at the back of a restaurant! But I'm also thinking of Bill Murray doing that leap over the chair to greet Sigourney Weaver when she comes into the office, and so on!

#32 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:20 pm

colinr0380 wrote:And I love the way that everyone waits for the screams and squeaky slide down the windows to stop before returning to their conversations, a monster savaging someone just outside be damned! I guess thats callous 1980s New York for you though!

Compared to the New York City of Maniac and the Warriors, Ghostbusters' monsters and ghosts and giant marshmallows seem downright pleasant!

Luke M · #33 Post by **Luke M** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:17 am

I think it looks great and I could really warm up to more female-led blockbusters. I feel like from a creativity standpoint, there's a lot of great material to mine as opposed to simply casting someone like Ben Stiller or Seth Rogen. I could certainly be wrong but I'm excited to give it a chance.

#34 Post by **swo17** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:07 am

McKinnon's the only one who doesn't look like she's afraid to be in a movie. Also, those uniforms...ugh.

#35 Post by **cdnchris** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:11 am

I still find the original one fun, with a few chuckles, but not all that funny. It's more fun now that I can watch it with my kids, and they both get a big kick out of it. I'll more than likely take my daughter to this one.

Dylan · #36 Post by **Dylan** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:29 am

beamish13 wrote: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

Also Elmer Bernstein, whose score for the first film (overshadowed by the enormous success of the Ray Parker Jr. song) was for me the very, very best part about it. Just a beautiful, exciting, often spooky, old fashioned score.

I love both Ghostbusters films, both of which I'm sure I watched at least one-hundred times each as a kid (perhaps more than that), and both have stunningly grown funnier & in every way better for me as I get older. I didn't know what to expect from this new one, but I found the trailer rather wearying and none of the jokes worked for me. Also, and it could just be the trailer, but the tone also feels off. Last year's Pixels looked more like a Ghostbusters movie than this does. Hell, even Evolution looks closer now, and at the time that was a letdown. I was hoping at least the visual effects would look great, but the mostly tawdry CGI visuals in the trailer fall miserably short of the astonishing visual effects in the 1980s films, which look as great as visual effects have ever gotten. With that said, I did enjoy that brief glimpse of Slimer and I'm very curious how big his role will be...

flyonthewall2983 · Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:26 am

I'm in the Back to the Future camp but my brother is firmly in the GB camp. I will joke with him one day that not only does my franchise keep it's dignity because Zemeckis and Gale have steadfastly refused anything concerning remakes/reboots, but that at least my film got Huey Lewis while his pretended to.

That said my position is that I think the first Ghostbusters has the funnier lines of the two ("this man has no dick", pretty much the whole scene in the mayor's office). I'm really not as fond of the sequel as some surprisingly are.

I'm quite okay with the idea of female-led blockbusters, but doing it this way is taking one step back as it is forward. Especially when the one minority character is chalk full of cliches (where the counterpart to the original played him more as a blue-collar type guy who got smarter to the science as it goes along).

knives · #38 Post by **knives** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:29 am

Glad I'm not the only one who found the trailer crazy racist even in comparison to the original.

flyonthewall2983 · Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:42 am

I would say more typical than outright racist.

MongooseCmr · #40 Post by **MongooseCmr** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:25 pm

I had no expectations (or interest, to be frank. Chalk up another for the "I never got the appeal" side) for this but man that was a bad trailer. I almost feel bad for Feig and co, they had to deal with so much shit making this and in a sense seem to have proved everyone right for being against it.

jbeall · #41 Post by **jbeall** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:42 pm

I thought the trailer was funny, though it's a disappointing to see the African-American member once again relegated to the not-book-smart-but-streetwise role.

RossyG · #42 Post by **RossyG** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:33 pm

I thought the trailer looked bloody awful. It's like they're just using Ghostbusters as merely a vehicle for McCarthy's usual routine rather than treating it with any respect. The humour's too broad; there's no grit; the CGI is TV quality, and the ghosts aren't scary.

#43 Post by **mfunk9786** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:27 pm

Approximately how much respect is Ghostbusters owed in 2016?

#44 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:15 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Approximately how much respect is Ghostbusters owed in 2016?

Are you saying that it's illegitimate for RossyG or anyone else to want this film treated with respect because it is now old?

#45 Post by **swo17** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:18 pm

The original was merely a vehicle for Bill Murray's usual routine.

bearcuborg · #46 Post by **bearcuborg** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:22 pm

The reasons to respect the original are fairly obvious. I think the backlash over the new one is due in part to 80's nostalgia. I like the first one a lot, and think the humor still holds up. It shines best in it's low key absurdity, and oddball moments more than anything. This thread is the first time I've come across anyone who didn't really care for the original.

Still, with that said - I don't find any of the people in the new one all that funny. They would have been better off had they gone

Craig Robinson, Seth Rogan, James Franco, Danny Mcbride
or
Key and Peele, Anthony Anderson, Tracy Morgan
or
Mindy Kaling, Kristen Schaal, Issa Rae, Chelsea Peretti

In any case, I'm not losing sleep over any of it...

#47 Post by **domino harvey** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:25 pm

bearcuborg wrote:Key and Peele, Anthony Anderson, Tracy Morgan

This never would have happened, but that version sounds awesome

beamish13 · #48 Post by **beamish13** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:41 pm

Chelsea Perretti is a phenomenal choice. I love her droll sense of humor. Margaret Cho is another person who's far more talented than the 4 featured in this film.

beamish13 · #49 Post by **beamish13** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:46 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I'm in the Back to the Future camp but my brother is firmly in the GB camp. I will joke with him one day that not only does my franchise keep it's dignity because Zemeckis and Gale have steadfastly refused anything concerning remakes/reboots, but that at least my film got Huey Lewis while his pretended to.

While Zemeckis' post-1992 career trajectory has been tragic, I do love the fact that he's never changed a single frame of any of his films after their theatrical releases

bearcuborg · #50 Post by **bearcuborg** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:32 am

I can't say I think of Back to the Future as a franchise, partly because I'd rather watch Christopher Lloyd's cameo in A Million Ways to Die in the West, than BTTF III, and apart from a Cubs joke, BTTF II misses Crispen Glover severely. The first film is great after the first 15mins though.

Additionally, I think Zemekis has had a pretty strong line up of films since 92. I dug the 3D version of Polar Express, and his inventiveness with Beowulf. In particular the plane crashes in Castaway and Flight (and maybe Denzel's most fragile performance) were first rate.

Site Menu