Like many others, I’m with it as far as I didn’t feel immediate seething hatred as soon as I watched it, but there was nothing funny in there.
Don’t remember where I saw it, but somebody somewhere put it best: It looks like a modern SNL parody of Ghostbusters, which is doubly disappointing given how everyone in Ghostbusters was on SNL, basically.
If we redid Ghostbusters 2 today, it would start with “Loose Ghosts?” with the guys from Loose Change. It would still be terrible, but the walking Statue of Liberty would step on them on the way uptown.
Heck I still can’t figure out what was so great about the first one. Outside of the setting concept I felt very meh about it. But then I had lots of exposure to Hong Kong action cinema beforehand so the action sequences were not groundbreaking or anything that everyone kept telling me they were.
It looks even MORE like a reboot now (including giant puffy white monster menacing the city), which will simply fuel even MORE hatred against an unnecessary remake.
Actually it can make it even worse. If this movie tanks, it’ll be all too easy for misogynistic studios to reject projects featuring female protagonists “Because look what happened to that Ghostbusters film!” I’m fairly ‘meh’ on what I’ve seen in these trailers; my joy at a female-lead action/comedy film will only take me so far.
I’m right there with you. I feel like the only amazing thing Harold Ramis and co. did was get Sigourney Weaver, thus mixing an performer with serious acting chops with renowned comedians. I also think that this movie didn’t age well, but that had more to do with the hokey theme song.
I assume that Chris Hemsworth is the actor with serious acting chops in this film?
Eeeeeeeh. I wouldn’t put Ghostbusters up there with Star Wars. I mean, I liked it a lot as a kid, but watching it as an adult, it’s basically Murray and Aykroid being less funny than the are in their other comic work, surrounded by a lot of flashy - but not exceptional for the time - special effects, and some not-very-scary horror elements.
It’s certainly got more heart and thought than the mercenary 80s toy commercials that Michael Bay is remaking (TMNT and Transformers, which had no soul in the first place, and thus are not really something to get mad about when they get a soulless remake), but a lot of the love for it still comes down more to familiarity than to actual quality.
The first Matrix was dumb as shit. I was dragged to the second thinking “Well, it couldn’t be worse than the first one!” And, boy, wow, did they surprise me…
When people go on about stuff like “Plan 9 From Outer Space” being bad I just tell them they have no idea what truly awful things lurk in the fringes of movie history and I have seen some of them.
This might have been stated elsewhere in the thread, but that ain’t the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man at the end.
SPOILER ALERT…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It’s (and I’ll be curious to see how this all shakes out) Rowan, a.k.a. the main villain, a.k.a. (per various toy fair photos) the Ghostbusters logo come to life.
Additional: I’m a male child of the 80s and I loved the first two Ghostbusters movies. I’m of the opinion that:
A reboot can be enjoyed on its own merits
A reboot fine can even be not as good as the original it’s based on, and still satisfy 1) above
Much of the love of the original Ghostbusters film is based on nostalgia, perhaps moreso than the objective quality of said originals
No reboot is ever necessary, but also no more or less necessary than any film with an original concept (Jupiter Ascending, anyone)?