Options

Trailers: A Brief History

17273757778101

Posts

  • Options
    see317see317 Registered User regular
    a
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    Stranger Things: Ghostbusters? Sure.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahZFCF--uRY

    75% of that trailer is just Locke and Key....

    edit: They wouldnt be so bankrupt to
    have a Ramis cgi ghost for the kid to say goodbye to or anything, right?

    RE: Moral and creative bankruptcy.
    You are familiar with Hollywood, right?
    I'm surprised they didn't have him in the trailer.

  • Options
    AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    Lost/reclaimed nostalgia flicks tend to be more sombre, at least when first unveiled.

    ... Man, I hope Finn Wolfhard doesn't get typecast.

    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • Options
    AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    Maybe. I think it loses a lot by being not full of schlubs and set in New York. I did think it would be
    Aykroyd's grandkids at first given that his parents left him a house.

  • Options
    urahonkyurahonky Cynical Old Man Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    Lost/reclaimed nostalgia flicks tend to be more sombre, at least when first unveiled.

    ... Man, I hope Finn Wolfhard doesn't get typecast.

    Yeah he's really good and a pretty fun dude. I hope the same.... he was in Stranger Things (obviously), It, It ch. 2, and now this. Hopefully he gets out of that.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I guess I'm a grumpy gus, but kid ghostbusters is kind of a meh from me.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    skeldareskeldare Gresham, ORRegistered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    Lost/reclaimed nostalgia flicks tend to be more sombre, at least when first unveiled.

    ... Man, I hope Finn Wolfhard doesn't get typecast.

    Yeah he's really good and a pretty fun dude. I hope the same.... he was in Stranger Things (obviously), It, It ch. 2, and now this. Hopefully he gets out of that.

    He's also in The Turning. His character seems at least a bit different in it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEEecoVnOTA

    Nintendo Console Codes
    Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
    PM Me if you add me!
    HAIL HYDRA
  • Options
    DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Seeing Paul Rudd in the trailer makes me expect to see one of the kids roll off a cliff in a wheelchair.

  • Options
    chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    Oh my lord, I must be getting old.

    I hate that trailer to an irrational degree.

    Hate. hate.

  • Options
    SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    I'm honestly not really interested in another rehash of an "adult" Ghostbusters so this take makes sense to me.

  • Options
    FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited December 2019
    I feel like the trailer would have been perfect if it had one of the OG Ghostbusters in the very end going, "I ain't afraid of no ghost."

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    I feel like the trailer would have been perfect if it had one of the OG Ghostbusters in the very end going, "I ain't afraid of no ghost."

    I mean, pretty soon they're all gonna be the ghosts...
    :-(

  • Options
    ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    I feel like the trailer would have been perfect if it had one of the OG Ghostbusters in the very end going, "I ain't afraid of no ghost."

    I mean, pretty soon they're all gonna be the ghosts...
    :-(

    The ghosts were inside them all along!

  • Options
    ZiggymonZiggymon Registered User regular
    Far better in tone, look and feel from 2016. Tease the mystery, save the jokes and cameos for later trailers.

  • Options
    AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    I feel like the trailer would have been perfect if it had one of the OG Ghostbusters in the very end going, "I ain't afraid of no ghost."

    I mean, pretty soon they're all gonna be the ghosts...
    :-(

    I was gonna make a quip about the Mandalorian, then I realized I was getting Carl Weathers and Ernie Hudson mixed up.

    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • Options
    notyanotya Registered User regular
    I'm honestly not really interested in another rehash of an "adult" Ghostbusters so this take makes sense to me.

    Yea I really liked it more than I thought I would. Which means when they have a trailer with all the originals GBs, I'll probably like it a lot less.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I guess I'm a grumpy gus, but kid ghostbusters is kind of a meh from me.

    It feels like an entirely different kind of film that's trying to cash-in on the name.

  • Options
    chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I guess I'm a grumpy gus, but kid ghostbusters is kind of a meh from me.

    It feels like an entirely different kind of film that's trying to cash-in on the name.

    Hollywood has never will never know how to leave well enough alone.

    Just put the original back in the theater, maybe clean up the jankiest FX shots, and let the money roll in.

  • Options
    Senna1Senna1 Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    Well wasn't the 2016 one a reboot. So like an alternate universe where the 2016 Ghostbusters were the only ones to ever bust?

    Probably, I guess. They could have theoretically played clips of that movie instead and had this one in that universe. I just felt like they were advertising that this isn't anything like Ghostbusters 2016 in the trailer.
    They went out of their way to say that there's been no ghost sightings 'in 30 years', so complete disavowal it is. Since the 2016 movie took place outside the 80's GB in-universe, this makes sense anyway.

    I'm surprisingly in for this. "Shandor Mining Co." suggests deeper ties to the original GB 1 story than just, "Hey, Ecto-1 is in that barn over there..."

    The 2009-ish Xbox 360 "Ghostbusters" game did a creditable job extending the story (and reuniting the OG cast) in a way that definitely did not suck. This bears no resemblance to that plotline, but I'm happy to give it a chance to be good and not pre-judge it as shit automatically.

  • Options
    AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    Senna1 wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    Well wasn't the 2016 one a reboot. So like an alternate universe where the 2016 Ghostbusters were the only ones to ever bust?

    Probably, I guess. They could have theoretically played clips of that movie instead and had this one in that universe. I just felt like they were advertising that this isn't anything like Ghostbusters 2016 in the trailer.
    They went out of their way to say that there's been no ghost sightings 'in 30 years', so complete disavowal it is. Since the 2016 movie took place outside the 80's GB in-universe, this makes sense anyway.

    I'm surprisingly in for this. "Shandor Mining Co." suggests deeper ties to the original GB 1 story than just, "Hey, Ecto-1 is in that barn over there..."

    The 2009-ish Xbox 360 "Ghostbusters" game did a creditable job extending the story (and reuniting the OG cast) in a way that definitely did not suck. This bears no resemblance to that plotline, but I'm happy to give it a chance to be good and not pre-judge it as shit automatically.

    Going back to Shandor is definitely in common with the game.

  • Options
    Senna1Senna1 Registered User regular
    Senna1 wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    Well wasn't the 2016 one a reboot. So like an alternate universe where the 2016 Ghostbusters were the only ones to ever bust?

    Probably, I guess. They could have theoretically played clips of that movie instead and had this one in that universe. I just felt like they were advertising that this isn't anything like Ghostbusters 2016 in the trailer.
    They went out of their way to say that there's been no ghost sightings 'in 30 years', so complete disavowal it is. Since the 2016 movie took place outside the 80's GB in-universe, this makes sense anyway.

    I'm surprisingly in for this. "Shandor Mining Co." suggests deeper ties to the original GB 1 story than just, "Hey, Ecto-1 is in that barn over there..."

    The 2009-ish Xbox 360 "Ghostbusters" game did a creditable job extending the story (and reuniting the OG cast) in a way that definitely did not suck. This bears no resemblance to that plotline, but I'm happy to give it a chance to be good and not pre-judge it as shit automatically.

    Going back to Shandor is definitely in common with the game.
    You're right... I should have said the setting bears no similarity, but the idea that Egon tracked further Shandor activities and set up shop there to investigate tracks pretty well, actually.

  • Options
    NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    edited December 2019
    Making the new GBs kids is a brilliant move. While the original was not made for kids, kids are one of it's biggest fanbases. Adults who saw it as kids wanted to be Ghostbusters, current kids want to be Ghostbusters, giving that power fantasy along with a fresh take on the material is brilliant.

    EDIT: I wholeheartedly support the inclusion sex jokes that will go over the heads of kids. Ghost blow jobs ahoy.

    Nobeard on
  • Options
    AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    What's the significance of Shandor?

    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • Options
    DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    What's the significance of Shandor?

    He's the crazy occult architect that built the building in the first movie.

    And also was apparently responsible for the goo in 2 according to wikipedia.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    I like to ART
  • Options
    notyanotya Registered User regular
    One thing I miss about the 80s and 90s era of movies with films like Ghostbusters is that we had an action movie, and all the stars were average looking middle aged dudes. Now unless it's Seth Rogen, they're all always obscenely attractive.

  • Options
    NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    One thing I miss about the 80s and 90s era of movies with films like Ghostbusters is that we had an action movie, and all the stars were average looking middle aged dudes. Now unless it's Seth Rogen, they're all always obscenely attractive.

    Schwarzenegger? Stallone?

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    see317 wrote: »
    a
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    Stranger Things: Ghostbusters? Sure.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahZFCF--uRY

    75% of that trailer is just Locke and Key....

    edit: They wouldnt be so bankrupt to
    have a Ramis cgi ghost for the kid to say goodbye to or anything, right?

    RE: Moral and creative bankruptcy.
    You are familiar with Hollywood, right?
    I'm surprised they didn't have him in the trailer.

    I have seldom been as excited for a movie as I am for that after the trailer there. Awesome!

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I guess I'm a grumpy gus, but kid ghostbusters is kind of a meh from me.

    It feels like an entirely different kind of film that's trying to cash-in on the name.

    They should've made the Ghostbusters/Transformers crossover instead.

    nibXTE7.png
  • Options
    autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »

    Man that looks like it has a completely different from the first one, which is a shame.

    The OST is going to be good though so that's something to look forward to.

    I like this trailer!

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • Options
    HeirHeir Ausitn, TXRegistered User regular
    edited December 2019
    Diehard GB fan here. The trailer gives me mixed feelings. It's not for me, but my son has begun to really like the franchise for the past year (he's nearing 4 years old). We even dressed up as Ghostbusters together for Halloween this year.

    So while the movie isn't aimed at me, I'm excited for him to watch it with me. We'll just hit up an Alamo Drafthouse so I can drink.

    Edit: FWIW if they made a new GB movie aimed at 80s kids, I'd prefer they have an older cast. They have to pick up where the OG crew left off. Maybe it's a franchise in a new area? Honestly you could still go with ghosts all but disappearing, making what happened in the 80s something that is hard for many people to really believe anymore. So I guess other than the young cast I'm still somewhat excited about this.

    Heir on
    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    Diehard GB fan here. The trailer gives me mixed feelings. It's not for me, but my son has begun to really like the franchise for the past year (he's nearing 4 years old). We even dressed up as Ghostbusters together for Halloween this year.

    So while the movie isn't aimed at me, I'm excited for him to watch it with me. We'll just hit up an Alamo Drafthouse so I can drink.

    Edit: FWIW if they made a new GB movie aimed at 80s kids, I'd prefer they have an older cast. They have to pick up where the OG crew left off. Maybe it's a franchise in a new area? Honestly you could still go with ghosts all but disappearing, making what happened in the 80s something that is hard for many people to really believe anymore. So I guess other than the young cast I'm still somewhat excited about this.

    If this were aimed at people our age it would be about people our age finding out "oh my god the ghost busters were real?"

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    One thing I miss about the 80s and 90s era of movies with films like Ghostbusters is that we had an action movie, and all the stars were average looking middle aged dudes. Now unless it's Seth Rogen, they're all always obscenely attractive.

    maybe you're thinking of 60s/70s movies? 80s was the birth of buff action heroes.

  • Options
    AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    What's the significance of Shandor?

    He's the crazy occult architect that built the building in the first movie.

    And also was apparently responsible for the goo in 2 according to wikipedia.

    Yeah, he was the leader of the Gozer cult, and the video game (which Aykroyd has called the third film, though I'd presume it's not canon for this actual third film) reveals that Shandor was also responsible for the
    pneumatic physical and spiritual tubes carrying slime around NYC which he was using to help bring about another destructor form and eventually he became a destructor himself and was even able to elevate his loyal followers into destructors. So they went all in on making him a series big bad.

    I'm kinda sad that ghosts haven't really been since 1989 because it sounds like it's pretty much reliant on influences from our side to bring them about which dismantles the need/chance of the original idea of Ghostbusters franchising out their business. THere'd never be enough.

  • Options
    DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    What's the significance of Shandor?

    He's the crazy occult architect that built the building in the first movie.

    And also was apparently responsible for the goo in 2 according to wikipedia.

    Yeah, he was the leader of the Gozer cult, and the video game (which Aykroyd has called the third film, though I'd presume it's not canon for this actual third film) reveals that Shandor was also responsible for the
    pneumatic physical and spiritual tubes carrying slime around NYC which he was using to help bring about another destructor form and eventually he became a destructor himself and was even able to elevate his loyal followers into destructors. So they went all in on making him a series big bad.

    I'm kinda sad that ghosts haven't really been since 1989 because it sounds like it's pretty much reliant on influences from our side to bring them about which dismantles the need/chance of the original idea of Ghostbusters franchising out their business. There'd never be enough.

    Yeah but
    I like that idea because it means it would more easily fade into memory and justify putting any/all their tech into a barn instead of expanding it and making it a part of the larger world

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    I like to ART
  • Options
    Beyond NormalBeyond Normal Lord Phender Registered User regular
    The trailer kind of reminded me of Extreme Ghostbusters and that's a good thing. I am cautiously optimistic of the new Ghostbusters film.

    Battle.net: Phender#1108 -- Steam: Phender -- PS4: Phender12 -- Origin: Phender01
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    I would have preferred more Extreme Ghostbusters instead of Super 8Busters.

    Being in a western town (probably New Mexico) just screams no budget.

    I'm not against it, it just needs to earn my ticket a bit more than Free Guy and WW84. Some of this is still reeling from the crappy GB '16 movie but also just "why?" And I'm also just kind of tired of seeing that Finn kid everywhere, cut your hair and do some push ups brah.

  • Options
    AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    edited December 2019
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    What's the significance of Shandor?

    He's the crazy occult architect that built the building in the first movie.

    And also was apparently responsible for the goo in 2 according to wikipedia.

    Yeah, he was the leader of the Gozer cult, and the video game (which Aykroyd has called the third film, though I'd presume it's not canon for this actual third film) reveals that Shandor was also responsible for the
    pneumatic physical and spiritual tubes carrying slime around NYC which he was using to help bring about another destructor form and eventually he became a destructor himself and was even able to elevate his loyal followers into destructors. So they went all in on making him a series big bad.

    I'm kinda sad that ghosts haven't really been since 1989 because it sounds like it's pretty much reliant on influences from our side to bring them about which dismantles the need/chance of the original idea of Ghostbusters franchising out their business. There'd never be enough.

    Yeah but
    I like that idea because it means it would more easily fade into memory and justify putting any/all their tech into a barn instead of expanding it and making it a part of the larger world


    But Ghostbusters is about the mundanity of it all. They have nuclear powered weaponry on their back and they're basically pest control. It was never about saving the world, they didn't form as part of a destiny or even in response to a world ending threat. They formed because it was the 80s, capitalism was in vogue, and they had the skills to capture a niche market while drinking cola and eating chinese food. They're just guys doing a job that just happens to involve ghosts. Their biggest threat is bureaucracy.

    This acts like a whole young adult destiny inheritance thing. That may not be the end result but I can't see the trailer being THAT misleading based on whats in it.


    EDIT: I have no idea what I was replying to, I went on a tangent.

    AlphaRomero on
  • Options
    amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    Fuck I love it. I'm in day one. I agree wholeheartedly with Alpha that the original ghostbusters was about three scientists on the verge of bankruptcy who found out that 1) ghosts are real and 2) they can be caught like pokemon, and they turned that into a lucrative side hustle with no moral thought as to what they're doing with spirits of the afterlife. Then they hire a guy off the street who was basically walking in from a temp agency to be their fourth member and not soon after realize they've inadvertently been building a battery to explode a barrier between realities.

    They save the day, only to be quickly hushed into obscurity by the city they saved. They manage to do it again, and I guess this time they put the cork back on the bottle, and just had to go on with their lives knowing they saved new york twice. I mean they are pest control, hell they introduce themselves as pest control for the most part.

    I dig the idea that 30+ years has gone by and we're at a point where only the very young impressionable gap that existed between gen-x and millenials even remember who they are.

    I love the fact that one of them kept all of this shit around, his lifes work, only for it to eventually turn to rust.

    I really like the fact that a bunch of kids are going to strap 30+ year old nuclear accelerators on their backs and go shoot lasers at things.

    I'm in.

    Ghostbusters (if you count the game) had its trilogy. This is Episode 7. Little bit of recycled plot, little younger cast, same adventure, only this time without Bill Murray taking heavy drugs over to a woman's apartment for a date and a ghost blowing dan akroyd in his sleep.

    are YOU on the beer list?
  • Options
    -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    only this time without Bill Murray taking heavy drugs over to a woman's apartment for a date

    I’ve seen Ghostbusters dozens of times and I never even thought about why would he have those drugs on hand when he was going there for a date...

  • Options
    amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    only this time without Bill Murray taking heavy drugs over to a woman's apartment for a date

    I’ve seen Ghostbusters dozens of times and I never even thought about why would he have those drugs on hand when he was going there for a date...

    and now you'll never think of anything else except why bill murray brought enough tranq to knock out an elephant over to dana's apartment.

    are YOU on the beer list?
  • Options
    amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    Jokes aside though, there was so much toxicity that came from what was once a great friendship between Murray, Ramis, and Akroyd, and a lot of it started not long after Ghostbusters.

    Like, if this is meant to be a good olive branch, which it sounds like it is with Reitman Jr helming it, I think that's kind of cool, and I'm excited to see what happens.

    are YOU on the beer list?
This discussion has been closed.