were the originals really THAT good to even warrant a response like this? like they were funny, but seriously nothing special, i guess thats what nostaglia does to the human brain
Never seen them, but yes
theyre cheesy 80s comedies with no real substance nothing more, dont act like theyre remaking the fucking godfather or something
>>66646555
Its one of the best comedies ever made, all actors were in their prime
>murray
>ramis
>akroyd
>fuckin moranis
>>66646793
prime? thats why murray has about 45% of his hair mssing? ghostbusters is a fun ride but its not even close to being worth getting all butthurt over, wake me up when airplane! gets rebooted
Yes, because it surprised everybody by being genuinely funny, when everybody thought it was just another SNL movie gone wrong.
>actors in their prime
>interesting concept executed well
>great balance between humor, drama and action
>special effects that were really good for the time
It's a huge landmark in comedy, that it doesn't have to be "three dudes got bored and did shit on vacation" or "family man is an idiot" that was going on in that period.
It had jokes for kids and adults, it worked on all levels, and as a kid I wanted to BE a ghostbuster. It was fun, that's what worked, and the video games and toys that came with it.
I forgot to mention it had the catchiest fucking theme ever. I bought the soundtrack tape and wore it out.
>>66646555
The first one is legitimately one of the best ever comedies. The second is awful.
>>66646555
Agreed. Most of the people raging were probably not even conceived in the original films heyday.
This new one looks alright, but then I'm not a massive nerd or rose tinted glasses wearing retard.
I saw my younger kids watching the trailer, they said they'd like to see it. That's a more fitting review. I watched a bit and I'd like to see it with them.
I grew up with the original films and loved them. Bill Murray endorsed this version and he has always been exceptionally fussy when it comes to the ghostbuster legacy and any more productions. He's in it ffs. Though not as VM.
It's the only movie I've ever seen that's tackled issues of the paranormal in an intelligent manner.
Everyone else just claims they know everything about life and the universe merely by studying the shadows on the wall of their cave.
Fucking neanderthal.
>>66646555
As someone who was alive when this came out and saw it in theaters, yes it was really fucking special. Not only for comedy, but it pushed the envelope as far as special effects in movies. It was also highly original, the kind of movie no one would take a risk on these days unless it was a reboot.
>>66646878
Go fuck yourself. Airplane! did itself in with disastrous sequels, and there was butthurt about that.
>>66646878
Bill Murray was in his prime then, doesn't matter about his hairline. Can you not separate looks from talent? Do you think he is in that business because of his stunning good looks? Fuck around Jimmy.
>>66646721
Found the marketing shill
YES it's that bad. Don't remake good movies. Just don't fucking touch them. Leave them alone and cough up something new.
>>66646878
>thats why murray has about 45% of his hair mssing?
>not admiring the murrayhawk
>>66647030
Fuck it, gotta watch it again now.
>>66648114
Never got the hate for the second one.
HE IS VIGO
>>66648118
>Bill murray is in it, but not as Venkman
If there was ever a warning for a pile of dogshit...
>He endorsed it so it must be good
What a success The Royal Tenenbaums was
>>66648289
at least Tenenbaums had some dark humor legit funny things, that life aquatic movie is probably the worst movie he's ever done.
>>66648287
Second one has some good bits (Vigo, Janosz and Harold Ramis mainly) but otherwise it's just the same shit.
>>66648287
It was too early 90's and the statue of liberty scene was cringey as fuck.
Probably the only part I liked was when the Titanic finally arrived.
>>66646555
I have no real love for the original film, It's OK.
It's just that this new one looks so shit, and it's basically everything that's wrong with holywood right now. Lazy mediocre crap.
>>66648289
I've never seen it, but it seems well received. Even if it's bad his endorsement is more in favor of it being good than bad if you assume he endorses any film he's in.
>>66648349
Life aquatic was critically acclaimed wasn't it? I hated it personally.
The first Ghostbusters is a really great film all round. Good ensemble cast with great chemistry, great special effects work and an genuinely amusing script.
2nd is poor and pretty much the definition of how to make your sequel a carbon copy of the first but without any of the same quality.
The script is meh, Murray clearly doesn't wanna be there, the film has a meandering plot and the villain isn't as good.
This new one looks poor too but obviously there is gonna be more backlash because its just another reboot of something that probably won't work in this day and age.
Even the normies and plebs will get sick of unnecessary reboots eventually.
>>66648528
If you ever have to choose between swimming through lemon juice in a razor wire pool, and watching Royal Tenenbaums, pick the former.
Life aquatic is also an objective shitfeast.
>>66646878
Here's your (You)
>>66648287
I liked it too, most of it's target audience did too. The critics panned it.
The main complaints were, too cheesy and that it didn't break the mold or innovate like the first film. They had probably grow up a bit and were surprised that it was as childish as it was, whilst looking back with misty eyes at the first film. Which was pretty much the same.
>>66648118
>Bill Murray endorsed this version and he has always been exceptionally fussy when it comes to the ghostbuster legacy and any more productions.
Ahem.
1. Sony threatened to sue Murray if he didn't do a cameo.
2. Murray hates The Ghostbusters as a franchise and was strongly against doing the first sequel. He said okay if they promised he could do as little "ghostbusting stuff" as possible in the movie. He wanted minimal time in the suit and the proton pack and minimal time with anything involving slime. Most of the time he hangs out with Dana and her baby, well, well away from the Ghostbusters.
>use shitty electronic theme rather than the glorious original theme for first trailer
>>66646555
The entire point of the new movie is that yes, the old one WAS something special or else they wouldn't have rebooted it and they want to create nostalgia for it. They completely screwed that up and so it has no point of even existing.
>>66648635
Sue on what grounds?
>>66646555
The first one is fucking great. The second is pretty shit. But yes the original movie is loved by an entire generation of people. As a kid who grew up in the 80's, I have hated every remake of an 80's movie so far.
Conan
Robo cop
POLTERGEIST
All sucked. I have zero hope for this.
>>66648707
Don't know. Murray probably signed something he shouldn't have. Maybe years ago.
There's a leaked email.
>>66648635
Bullshit.
http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/08/bill-murray-explains-why-he-decided-to-appear-in-the-new-ghostbusters-film/
"THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE"
Fuck off nerd.
There is a scene where a ghost gives Dan
>>66648785
Hey baby. Wanna suck my dick? :)
>>66648806
Doubtful. He's probably on too many drugs for viagra to even work.
>>66646555
"yes"
>>66648737
I keep forgetting they remade poltergeist.
Literally nobody talks about it.
>>66648635
Bill Murray didn't want to do ghost buster 2 because he hated Dan aykroyd.
>>66648349
>Hating on based Team Zissou
Nigger, I will come to your house tonight and skull fuck you.
I still cry anytime I watch that movie when Ned dies. Pretty much love all of that directors movies.
>>66648785
>Murray will “appear as a character out to debunk the new Ghostbusters crew.”
So he's playing Walter Peck?
Everything about this movie screams WRONG.
>>66648289
Wasn't Murray contractually obligated before they announced the gender switch? He tried to back out before his management said to bite the bullet as to not attract a liberal media backlash.
>>66649028
It fits the real Bill Murray.
Still not good though.
>>66646555
>sony makes yet another made by committee soulless cookie cutter reboot-sequel of a beloved movie
>add in some forced "feminism" bullshit
>response from most people is "this looks bad. I probably wont see it"
>WHAT THE FUCK WHATS UP WITH THIS OVER REACTION TO THIS MOVIE, HUH? FUCK THE ORIGINALS, WHAT ARE YOU, A SEXIST?!
Sony is in full damage control mode and are literally trying to shame people into seeing their movie and are angry at potential customers for not buying a ticket to see their mediocre movie. This is going to be a huge disaster
>>66646555
Eat my ass.
the point is they had to go all feminist and make one with women as if the original was intentionally sexist and was made only to make a statement
not going to see it purely based on that
>>66646555
The original is absolutely a classic. Ghostbusters 2 was only ever okay and probably shouldn't have been made.
Does anyone have a link to this GB remix? I kinda dig it.
Not at all
They're hotpocket r****t pandering imdb sensibility trash
>>66646555
OP, are you a Sony intern doing damage control?
>>66646555
Yes, they were sony shill.
>>66646555
It was a novel premise with at least two beloved comedy actors, (the lead turning in a strong and memorable performance on that same strength), and AFAIK no one in the cast has gone on to molest children or get caught doing anything else particularly evil. In other words, the franchise hasn't been tainted by bad press.
A dozen "ghost-catcher" animus that have appeared over the years are fundamentally derivative of it. For that Matter, Men in Black's film execution is also plainly derivative (alien-catchers in New York, "getting slimed")
There was a toy-tie-in to rival Star Wars and Ninja Turtles. I think mom still has my old proton pack and fire-house tucked away somewhere, maybe.
Also, it's set in New York, in the 80s, a classic period. OP underestimates how much New Yorkers love this shit.
There's the odd funny part, but I think every time I laughed there wasn't supposed to be a joke.
Then you get ghost blowjobs, a possessed Sigourney Weaver having (implied) sex with everything (apparently possession a) gives you a ton of makeup and new, revealing clothing, and b) gives you an uncontrollable desire to mate with anything that claims it's the "Gatekeeper" (regardless of the factual accuracy of this).
I also hate the "science" stuff going on... these guys are fucking fraudsters from the start, Venkman is just trying to get in his students' pants and the whole thing is gross.
Then the whole thing turns into a big quasi-product placement for a fake food item.
Incredible, since I actually love nearly everyone involved in this film.
>>66646721
Agenda Pusher detected!
>>66646878
>45% of his hair mssing
What did that have to do with Murray's talent?
>>66646555
While it is not wrong to assume many people have their vision clouded by nostalgia, the first movie really was original, funny and had good effects for the time, which made it stand out. even without being a big fan of ghostbusters i recognize it deserves the attention it gets.
a reboot would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that so far the acting, the comedy and the effects all seem mediocre, standard. and switching all characters for females hardly adds anything to it.
>>66646555
I never finished the first Ghostbusters because they removed it from Netflix, but I did love what I saw.
I think I only had 10 or 20 minutes left actually.
It's not about the originals, it's about this particular trailer painting a picture of a movie that doesn't look very good.
>>66646555
Horny female Egon clone for all the /tv/ cucks to pleb over. Enjoy your shitty movie.
>>66646878
Holy shit you pathetic shill. The best you have is a crack about Murray's hair.
This flick is exactly what happens when you shit out a calculated, market-researched pile of shit versus a labor of love.
This is what happens when you try to cater to people rather than tell a story.
You end up with shit that no one wants. People will spin this over and over again and it will come down not to the fact that people don't want to see all-female Ghostbusters, but that people don't want to watch a movie that feels this by-the-numbers and lifeless.
>>66649126
It amazes me how a studio owned by nips is making trash that will completely bomb in Asian markets.
$150 million budget, holy shit.
The exact moment when post "Animal House" comedy surrendered to special effects and kid-friendly spectacle.
literally a 1/5
>>66649126
They've deleted hundreds of comments today alone. Someone is going to be working hard at Sony PR for the next few weeks. Even the Fantastic Four reboot didn't have that bad of a like to dislike ratio when the trailer dropped.
When does this shit bomb come out? I can't wait to watch it tank.
Serious question. Why do people care about bad remakes of movies they like? How does it affect you at all?
>>66651789
I don't like when things disgrace the good name of things I like.
I can't pretend that Ghostbusters is some sacred cow. It's barely in the top five comedies by Harold Ramis, let's stop pretending it's something that it isn't.
1. Caddyshack
2. Stripes
3. Vacation
4. Groundhog Day
5. Ghostbusters
>>66651375
>not finishing a movie in one sitting
could only marathon the first hour and 20 mins huh?
>>66647979
It was a ripoff of a Huey Lewis song. Ray Parker paid Lewis an undisclosed sum for ripping it off.
Never liked originals all that much. Cant even remember them at this point.
It's like every other remake of an 80's movie; no one likes them because they keep comparing them to the originals and holding the older ones on a pedestal.
>>66652873
or because the remake brings nothing new to the table and is literally just an attempt from people out of originality to cash in on known franchises, which shows on how mediocre everything is.
Kids that have died will love it!
Good ground game.
>>66652420
No movie is sacred
