New Ghost Busters reboot trailer

[Kojiro]

I don't have any problem with the mechanic per se. It seems to me the idea of weakening something before capture is fairly logical. Time will tell what those guns are actually about, I just hope they don't make the proton packs redundant.

[TheFeniX]

It will elicit the same groans that came from Thor readers when it was proclaimed Mjolnir was more powerful in the hands of a female... because... female.

I agree with the rest of your post. I just wanted a chuckle on this. We're discussing in another thread about not changing comic characters to keep them true to the source material and I have to ask: they made Thor a woman? Why should I care if Spiderman is recast as a minority if they'll give Thor, a Norse God with basis in real-world mythology, a vagina? Female Thor sounds cool though. A shame I do not like comics. I did read a few Spawn back in the day though.

Semi-related: Reminds me of this panel I saw on the interwebs somewhere of Wonder Woman with some guy in her lasso. He says something sexist and she cold-cocks him with a line about mansplaining. "Mansplaining" is used verbatim. I'm sure the writer thought it was a great you go girl moment. The only thing I could think of was her willingness to use super-strength to possibly kill a tied up prisoner makes her over-qualified to work for the NYPD.

I don't know if the most recent Ghostbusters video game is considered canon, but in it, Ray explains that you need to blast the ghost to a certain extent first, in order to weaken it, before you can actually suck it up in a trap... so maybe that's what the pistols and gauntlet are for?

The game, which was pretty damn solid BTW except fuck those stupid Civil War ghosts, was written by Ramis and Aykroyd. I'd consider it more canon than what we're getting in 2016. But still, I would say the original movies trump it more than the "slam and drain" mechanics added to make the game better than the NES version. Oh God, flashback... and not a good one.

Still, I don't see faithfulness to any GB source material being on the checklist for this trainwreck that seem poised to shit gold when it flies off the rails.

[Darth Nostril]

But still, I would say the original movies trump it more than the "slam and drain" mechanics added to make the game better than the NES version. Oh God, flashback... and not a good one.

Oh man the ZX Spectrum version .... let's, let's just not go there okay?

Took half a dozen attempts to watch this shit heap all the way through.
What a complete and utter pile of crap. I will not be wasting my time nor money watching Bridesmaids II : The Haunting.

[Kojiro]

I agree with the rest of your post. I just wanted a chuckle on this. We're discussing in another thread about not changing comic characters to keep them true to the source material and I have to ask: they made Thor a woman? Why should I care if Spiderman is recast as a minority if they'll give Thor, a Norse God with basis in real-world mythology, a vagina? Female Thor sounds cool though. A shame I do not like comics. I did read a few Spawn back in the day though.

They didn't actually make Thor a woman. They just engineered things to get Mjolnir, the powers and name of Thor transferred to a female character. She just happens to be a better Thor than Thor ever was. She's so damned good at being Thor he literally gives her his name.

These Ghostbusters will be compared to the originals, that's just unavoidable and given the attention this has garnered around gender they'll need to be very careful any way they go. What they really need to do is the same thing as the boys but differently. They need to establish these women can do the same, against the same kind of challenges with the same kind of advantages. Skewing it for or against in either direction with draw ire. And ideally without talking about how ectoplasm got in their cracks.

Also there's a new international trailer. Some interesting changes and one really cringe worthy moment.

[TheFeniX]

Mary Sues are pretty common in comics from what I know. But I get your point.

As for Ghostbusters, I don't think they have to be careful at all. From what I've been reading since getting involved in this thread, this movie is basically poised to get critics gushing all over it and make a ton of money. I know Bridesmaids made really good money. Hell, even I had a few laughs at it, but I don't place it above a movie like Grown-ups. However, critics rave about how it shows women can do fart and poop jokes and be incredibly awkward just as well as men can. I wouldn't argue there, it's sometimes even funnier. However, calling that kind of writing "witty" seems like a double standard when a guy doing it is considered juvenile.

[Lord Revan]

Based on the trailer this new movie as the problems most if not all bad reboots have they changed the things they shouldn't and copied the parts that they should have changed poorly.

[TheFeniX]

Based on the trailer this new movie as the problems most if not all bad reboots have they changed the things they shouldn't and copied the parts that they should have changed poorly.

You can keep whatever themes you want as long as you understand what made them originally work. You can change some/many of them and still make a faithful reboot if your writers (once again) try to make them work. The Thing reboot (don't care if it was a prequel) did not work WRT to the "can't trust anyone" angle because it did nothing to setup original trust. The instant "we have to protect our discovery from these greedy Americans" put a huge dent in that while making no fucking sense since they'd already filmed everything, had ample evidence, and somehow believed whatever government got involved wasn't going to stomp on them immediately because "HOLY SHIT ALIENS!" I know so little about the Norwegians and their interactions. I know just enough for the director to advance the plot how he sees fit. That's a problem when you want me to care about how the characters feel and are reacting to a situation. It was a cheap way to build tension and it didn't work at all.

The John Carpenter version differs wildly from it's source material and is pretty much accepted as "fucking awesome." The characters had established relationships. Childs and MacReady were established as.. maybe not rivals, but not exactly the best of friends. Other characters had more friendly relationships. Either way, the tension worked in that movie because these were people who, no matter their bullshit, tended to trust each other. You have to when you've got nothing but each other to lean on: you're in Antarctica. The Alien eroding that trust through multiple avenues was a large part of why that movie will be remember for many more years.

Trying to play the same themes in the reboot, with a outsider like an American played by Winstead, felt like a cheap knock-off because they wanted to wholesale capture those original moments without putting in the time to explain to me why it works. My wife had never seen the Carpenter version and she felt the same way: all the talk about trust when no trust was ever established. The Norwegians were leery of the Americans from the start and did everything to shut them out. WInstead's rant rings hollow because why the fuck would they listen to her? That said, I felt her performance itself was pretty god damned good. But I'm also biased because I've had a crush on her since Scott Pilgrim.

Oh yea, and your CGI was worse than 1980s puppets. They tried a lot harder back then though.

[Tsyroc]

Oh yea, and your CGI was worse than 1980s puppets. They tried a lot harder back then though.

Studio ADI originally did a lot of it practically but the release got delayed and what started out as CGI tweaking turned into complete CGI replacement.
They were not happy.

[Q99]

This looks pretty good to me. Looks like they'll keep the sense of humor, which is vital. And give the cast a similar dynamic, but not just cut-pasting the characters.