Jump to content

Ghostbusters -Afterlife


papalazarou
 Share

Recommended Posts

I still haven't seen the 2016 movie, but that was primarily marketed as a comedy.

 

This could be a case of overcorrection by the marketing people: "If we don't put jokes in the trailer, it might stop people associating it with the unpopular 2016 one! So let's try and sell it as a mysterious epic fantasy adventure, instead of a sprightly comedy!"

 

Or, more pessimistically: that overcorrection could apply to the whole film, so that there are no jokes available to put in the trailer in the first place. 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Ghostbusters is a 1984 American supernatural comedy film

Yeah, not getting any comedy vibe from that trailer, well in the same way the original was. Even Paul Rudd feels boringly serious.

 

Compare the new one to the original 1984 trailer, with all of its 80s voiceover glory.

 

 

It starts off as almost a trailer for Poltergeist, but pretty soon you know it's this bunch of schlubs that's going to somehow save the world...

 

 

24 minutes ago, Nick R said:

I still haven't seen the 2016 movie, but that was primarily marketed as a comedy.

 

This could be a case of overcorrection by the marketing people: "If we don't put jokes in the trailer, it might stop people associating it with the unpopular 2016 one! So let's try and sell it as a mysterious epic fantasy adventure, instead of a sprightly comedy!"

 

Or, more pessimistically: that overcorrection could apply to the whole film, so that there are no jokes available to put in the trailer in the first place. 🤷‍♂️

.

Yeah, maybe they're over-correcting a bit from the last disaster, so hopefully it still turns out to be good and not some shitty Stranger Things take on 80s nostalgia, but just focused on Ghostbusters.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They usually whip up different trailers these days for different aspects of a movie don't they. Sometimes it makes it seem like they don't know how to sell it, but how many times have we variously seen a serious trailer, a spectacular trailer, a funny trailer, and a story trailer for one movie. I'm more taken by this with the new trailer, as in I'll probably watch it, whereas the first trailer just made it look like something I wasn't remotely interested in seeing. Not because I'm precious about Ghostbusters*, but just because it looked like a clean reboot for kids.

 

I'm all for the return of Gozer, as long as it's the same actress and she looks exactly the same as she did in 1984.

 

*I am though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/07/2021 at 09:25, Art Vandelay said:

Really enjoyed the return of those swirling slight orb things. That effect still looks amazing in the original so glad they've kind of just throwing their hands up and admitting it can't be bettered. Can't see much not to like in general from that in truth. 

The pink ribbon things? If so, I watched a trailer breakdown with the director, he was saying they went back and scanned in the original 70mm film of the effects, so they are the EXACT same ones from the first film :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found Ghostbusters (2016) to be terrible. Excruciatingly, toe-curlingly unfunny. I still remember sinking down into my cinema seat with a sense of dread – that feeling it dawns on you that you’ve paid to see a film which is irredeemably bad. Yet I honestly regard Ghostbusters (1984) as one of the most overrated genre films of the last forty years, and I wanted to like the new one without any sense that the original was an untouchable classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 25/08/2021 at 17:54, Monkeyboy said:

A big problem with the 2016 film is that scenes ran on too long. Someone on youtube did a re-edit of certain scenes, making them funnier purely by cutting away earlier.

 

I think it's more the US approach to comedy which is "We have big comedy names, the cream of SNL, so let's just let them do endless takes of ad-libs and they'll be hilarious comedy GOLD" that has plagued US comedy since Anchorman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 25/08/2021 at 17:54, Monkeyboy said:

A big problem with the 2016 film is that scenes ran on too long. Someone on youtube did a re-edit of certain scenes, making them funnier purely by cutting away earlier.


This is usually the problem with American comedy. Setup, punchline, someone explains the punchline and takes all the wind out of it. It should go setup, punchline, even funnier response to punchline. Frasier nails this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doctor Shark said:

Reviews are coming in and they're all very positive. Some speak of too much schmaltz, too much fan service, but even those ones say it doesn't detract too much from what is a good movie.


Having seen it, and thoroughly enjoyed it, those reviews sound about right. Sure that some really won’t like the schmaltz, but I found the film to be incredible warm-hearted and fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/08/2021 at 19:48, Festoon said:

 

I think it's more the US approach to comedy which is "We have big comedy names, the cream of SNL, so let's just let them do endless takes of ad-libs and they'll be hilarious comedy GOLD" that has plagued US comedy since Anchorman.

 

Most of Bill Murray's lines in the original Ghostbusters were ad libbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big Ghostbusters fan so only saw the trailer for this when watching Bond last week - but the tone of it was a bit a mess and I couldn't tell whether they were going for Stranger Things type small-town serious, teen adventure, a dramatic comedy or a mix of everything.

 

It didn't make me want to see it, at any rate.

 

29 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

Most of Bill Murray's lines in the original Ghostbusters were ad libbed.

 

Hasn't the definition of 'ad libbed' changed quite a bit since back then though, where it now means lots of lines are workshopped during filming and the 'best' being used versus something truly being a bit more off-the-cuff and running with it (albeit it would still be honed)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.