GHOSTBUSTERS 3
Discussion
I can't bring myself to be as offended as some of you. The original was a great film when I was a kid, but it was drawn with some pretty broad brushes and some fairly crude stereotypes (including the 'zany' character, the wimp and so on). What made it was the cracking relationship the leads established.
The trailer to me seems to be playing it pretty straight - the same characters, fighting a similar battle. It's not going to come with the huge novelty the original had, but there's no reason it can't work. If Bond can petty much reboot from scratch, why not this? The original will always be a classic, but to my kids it looks like an 'old film'.
And is "in very crack, very hard to wash off" so much different from "yes, he has no dick"?
The trailer to me seems to be playing it pretty straight - the same characters, fighting a similar battle. It's not going to come with the huge novelty the original had, but there's no reason it can't work. If Bond can petty much reboot from scratch, why not this? The original will always be a classic, but to my kids it looks like an 'old film'.
And is "in very crack, very hard to wash off" so much different from "yes, he has no dick"?
Tuna said:
I can't bring myself to be as offended as some of you. The original was a great film when I was a kid, but it was drawn with some pretty broad brushes and some fairly crude stereotypes (including the 'zany' character, the wimp and so on). What made it was the cracking relationship the leads established.
Which one was the wimp and the zany one?Tuna said:
And is "in very crack, very hard to wash off" so much different from "yes, he has no dick"?
What aside from the fact that one seems to be a rather less than subtle sexual euphemism for 'ejaculate' getting into 'cracks' and the other is an insult based on a play on words of the character's surname (peck = pecker = dick = dickless).This type of 'really not subtle gross out gag' is pretty much par for the course for a Paul Feig movie (see predictions in post #5 on page one of this thread). Was this movie ever going to be anything other than "Bridesmaids" with proton packs.
king thanks.Vincefox said:
Official youtube trailer has 74k likes and 110k dislikes.
It's not because they're female, it's because it's lazy, poorly written and generically cast.
Yup the only part of the trailer I liked was when the black woman was beating the ghost out of the fat one at the end It's not because they're female, it's because it's lazy, poorly written and generically cast.
The rest was predictable trash.
EDIT: and maybe the reason I "liked" that bit was not because it was good, but because it wasn't as bad as the rest.
Edited by Mr_Yogi on Friday 4th March 09:31
Watched the trailer for a second time and it seems a lot worse now. The ghosts look like cartoons and have no menace to them, unlike that library ghost or demon dogs from the original that scared the crap out of me when I was a kid. The streetwise sassy black character is going to be really annoying as well - she even says "Aww hell no" 
I thought that vomit ghost looked really good. Trying to draw memories of the original library ghost.
Durzel said:
SNL-busters.
I'm going to pretend this doesn't exist. Nothing to do with an all-female cast, it's <insert SNL alumni> remaking a film that never needed remaking, that no one was clamoring to be remade, in what is clearly going to be an box-ticking anodyne unfunny disaster.
Reveals the weakness of the current SNL lot against the old SNL-busters?I'm going to pretend this doesn't exist. Nothing to do with an all-female cast, it's <insert SNL alumni> remaking a film that never needed remaking, that no one was clamoring to be remade, in what is clearly going to be an box-ticking anodyne unfunny disaster.
The dickless gag is comedy gold. Context, direction, timing, perfect, possibly the best line in one of the best films ever (IMO, I'm of that era so may be biased). The equivalent in the trailer wouldn't have made me snigger when I was 12.
I did have a glimmer of hope as my understanding was that Dan Aykroyd was involved in the writing as I thought I'd read that somewhere. I couldn't believe it but that's what I understood. On closer inspection he is credited on IMDB but its 'based on the film "Ghostbusters" written by...'
The only other thing that gives me hope is that the original (surviving) cast seem to have cameos. Given the reported difficulties in getting Bill Murray to sign up to GB3 over the past 20 years, surely his appearance implies some kind of blessing.
I did have a glimmer of hope as my understanding was that Dan Aykroyd was involved in the writing as I thought I'd read that somewhere. I couldn't believe it but that's what I understood. On closer inspection he is credited on IMDB but its 'based on the film "Ghostbusters" written by...'
The only other thing that gives me hope is that the original (surviving) cast seem to have cameos. Given the reported difficulties in getting Bill Murray to sign up to GB3 over the past 20 years, surely his appearance implies some kind of blessing.
Mr Gearchange said:
Jeez. I consider myself to be the biggest GB fan the world has ever seen - watched it hundreds of times, know every word, have the screenplay literally 'own the t-shirt'
Even I am going to wait until i have watched it before I slag it off.
I barely managed about 15 minutes of Bridesmaids before I had to turn it off and the trailer strongly indicates to me that this is going to be Bridesbusters. We could all be wrong of course and it could be absolutely brilliant but I'm not holding my breath.Even I am going to wait until i have watched it before I slag it off.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff