Movie News/Discussion Thread 2

[Cheeky Devlin]

I've rewatched it a few times and there's some cool, and pretty obscure references in there.

Some of these might be "spoilers" so I've blanked them.

In the living room just as they run to hide under the table, there are piles of books stacked vertically.

When we hear Venkman start his "Call it fate" monologue, they're entering Shandor Mining Co. Ivo (or Evo) Shandor was the architect who designed the apartment building from the first movie.

During the chase through the town in Ecto-1 you can just make out that they are pursuing...... And this one might be a genuine spoiler and not just a cool easter egg

Slimer

There's the more obvious collection of "spores, moulds and fungus".

That's just from this short trailer and I'm still going through it.

[Cheeky Devlin]

Oh and just to get everyone in the mood for the new movie, here's Ray Parker Jr stalking some poor woman through a neon hellscape.

[Parksey]

I posted this over at rllmuk, but I was surprised that everyone loved the Ghostbusters trailer:

I've got to preface this post with the fact I'm not a massive fan of Ghostbusters, though the second movie certainly was a favourite of mine when I was very young (not sure why it was 2 rather than 1 that got stuck on repeat, blame my parents). But when I watched the trailer I just felt the whole tone was a little off, and coming here and reading some other opinions made me realise why.



It's the reverence in that trailer. Whoever said that it was treating the original foursome as mythical Jedi-like figures, and their proton packs akin to holy relics like a lightsabe is spot on. They talk about the ghostbusters in hushed towns, sort of how Han Solo talked about the Jedi in the first few Force Awakens trailer ("it's true... all of it"). 



It struck me as weird for a number of reasons. Firstly is the real world context, and that the plot of both movies happens in the 80s. To the kids in this new iteration, yeah, it might feel like absolutely ages away, but it's not some mysterious event from the annals of time, being pieced together from fossils and ancient texts. Presumably what happened in NYC in those movies wouldn't be treated like some religious event but rather like something like Live Aid, or the Berlin Wall coming down. 



The second problem is with the tone of the other two movies. The Ghostbusters weren't revered heroes, they were losers. They were everyman losers, misfits in society, down on their luck or hopeless quacks. A lot of the comedy came from the fact they were losers who, miraculously, had a crackpot scheme that actually paid off. But even at the end of the movies, they were losers. The heroes of the first film are put out of business and sued in the second (almost like they had to revert to the status quo of them being at a low ebb for the sequel). This plucky underdog trope is fairly classic comedy ground. It's obviously satisfying for the audience at the end if they come out on top, but they can't permanently be on that pedestal. The first two films don't treat it's main quartet with any reverence so why does this trailer? To me, that feels like fandom wish fulfillment rather than Ghostbuster-y. 



And that third problem is sort of tied up in how the franchise is revered in this way. I despair at fandom sticking "lore" and "canon" in where it's not needed. Ghostbusters doesn't need lore - the first film, at it's heart, is quite a basic, classic comedy set up, as I previously said. You have four losers who can't do get anything right, who have a crazy idea that some how hits lucky. It's simple and feels like a comedy sketch, most probably due to the franchise's SNL roots. The set up itself has legs, the script helps it along, but what elevates it is the chemistry of the cast. The "lore" and reverence has come afterwards, a lot of it driven by fans. 



I feel like a lot of this reverence is from nostalgia for "Old Good Things" and it's partially from fans and, more specifically, fostered and encouraged by studios who want to get this fans to see their latest offerings. It's the same with Star Wars, with these self-aware callbacks, winks and nods, repetitions and rehashes etc. 



So yeah, the tone feels really weird for me. It could just be this first trailer, designed to milk that nostalgia. The mystical reverence could be largely contained within that granddaughter character/the younger cast, and maybe Paul Rudd's obsessive fan.The old cast are involved so it'll be interesting to see how they are brought back. 



I want the original three to be losers. If Egon is involved due to CGI wizardry, I don't want him to be a wise old Obi Wan-style force ghost.  I want him to be a loser; Egon was a loser. 

[Tafdolphin]

Isn't it odd how this one departs far more from the original than the 2017 remake did but has received almost none of the ire.

I wonder why...?

[Godzilla]

I think it's a lot to do with the reason the film was made. One was made to use an IP to get bums in seats to see a genuinely forgettable film. The other is made by people who love the film and want to honour it's spirit.

[Tafdolphin]

I think it's a lot to do with the reason the film was made. One was made to use an IP to get bums in seats to see a genuinely forgettable film. The other is made by people who love the film and want to honour it's spirit.

Yeah, but the latter is the one that got all the abuse!

[Tomous]

I think it's a lot to do with the reason the film was made. One was made to use an IP to get bums in seats to see a genuinely forgettable film. The other is made by people who love the film and want to honour it's spirit.

The majority of the reaction to the 2016 film was simply because it was women.

It was actually a decent film. Not amazing but certainly not awful.

[Banjo]

I think it's a lot to do with the reason the film was made. One was made to use an IP to get bums in seats to see a genuinely forgettable film. The other is made by people who love the film and want to honour it's spirit.

Yeah, but the latter is the one that got all the abuse!

Won't deny, that was pretty well done.

[Tafdolphin]

You have no idea how tempting it was just to post 'strawberry float off' and a laughing emoji.

Worked out for the best though.

[Ironhide]

I'm definitely in the minority here but I've never liked Ghostbusters.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

It was actually a decent film. Not amazing but certainly not awful.

As is nearly every single remake/reboot of an old franchise.

So disappointing.

[7256930752]

I think it's a lot to do with the reason the film was made. One was made to use an IP to get bums in seats to see a genuinely forgettable film. The other is made by people who love the film and want to honour it's spirit.

The majority of the reaction to the 2016 film was simply because it was women.

It was actually a decent film. Not amazing but certainly not awful.

But entirely forgettable. It was nothing more than something to strap a Melissa McCarthy film too. I'm sure there were people on the internet that hated it due to the women leads but most people didn't like it for the same reason they didn't like the RoboCop, Predator and Total Recall remakes, they were made purely to generate cash on the back of an established franchise, nothing more.

[Tafdolphin]

I think it's a lot to do with the reason the film was made. One was made to use an IP to get bums in seats to see a genuinely forgettable film. The other is made by people who love the film and want to honour it's spirit.

The majority of the reaction to the 2016 film was simply because it was women.

It was actually a decent film. Not amazing but certainly not awful.

But entirely forgettable. It was nothing more than something to strap a Melissa McCarthy film too. I'm sure there were people on the internet that hated it due to the women leads but most people didn't like it for the same reason they didn't like the RoboCop, Predator and Total Recall remakes, they were made purely to generate cash on the back of an established franchise, nothing more.

But this is missing the point. None of those films you mention received a fraction of the vitriol that Ghostbusters 2016 did. And that's because they didn't star women in the lead roles. The majority of the hate was absolutely from the alt-right and man-babies that couldn't take it.

Also, I do like the implication in here that most films are made purely for the art rather than being products of, I dunno, a gigantic industry driven solely by profit.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

But this is missing the point. None of those films you mention received a fraction of the vitriol that Ghostbusters 2016 did. All that poison was precisely because of the women leads.

Yep. It didn't deserve to be singled out like that.

[Tafdolphin]

[7256930752]

I think it's a lot to do with the reason the film was made. One was made to use an IP to get bums in seats to see a genuinely forgettable film. The other is made by people who love the film and want to honour it's spirit.

The majority of the reaction to the 2016 film was simply because it was women.

It was actually a decent film. Not amazing but certainly not awful.

But entirely forgettable. It was nothing more than something to strap a Melissa McCarthy film too. I'm sure there were people on the internet that hated it due to the women leads but most people didn't like it for the same reason they didn't like the RoboCop, Predator and Total Recall remakes, they were made purely to generate cash on the back of an established franchise, nothing more.

But this is missing the point. None of those films you mention received a fraction of the vitriol that Ghostbusters 2016 did. And that's because they didn't star women in the lead roles. The majority of the hate was absolutely from the alt-right and man-babies that couldn't take it.

Also, I do like the implication in here that most films are made purely for the art rather than being products of, I dunno, a gigantic industry driven solely by profit.

I try not to read much from the alt right corners of the internet so I'll take your word for that, surely those places will dislike any film that has a female, gay, minority race, etc lead so using them as the benchmark for the level of vitriol is a little pointless?

I've inferred that cynical remakes of revered films is why people take issue, nothing about the industry as a whole.

[Tafdolphin]

I don't think you have to hang out on alt-right message boards to understand the majority of hate that film had was driven by bad people, nor that said hate was massively disproportionate. I mean, it made the news. Regularly. For a while.

[7256930752]

I don't think you have to hang out on alt-right message boards to understand the majority of hate that film had was driven by bad people, nor that said hate was massively disproportionate. I mean, it made the news. Regularly. For a while.

Ok but that's not why the non alt right fans of the original had issues with the film.

[Moggy]

The 2016 movie received vitriol because manbabies cannot handle four women being the leads.

But it was also a gooseberry fool movie.

[Tafdolphin]

I don't think you have to hang out on alt-right message boards to understand the majority of hate that film had was driven by bad people, nor that said hate was massively disproportionate. I mean, it made the news. Regularly. For a while.

Ok but that's not why the non alt right fans of the original had issues with the film.

What wasn't? The women?

Of course it was.

And yes it was an entirely average to poor film.