The first, not completely insulting, Ghostbusters trailer.

OK, this does not… look entirely awful, yes.

There’s an interesting difference that you can see in the trailer itself, in fact.  In the first Ghostbusters movies, proton packs and guns, despite the name, were fundamentally imagined as tools; they had a tool-like appearance, and were clearly designed with an industrial aesthetic.  This crew thinks of proton technology as being weapons.  This is going to be more of an action-comedy film than its predecessors, I think.

Via @IMAO_.

Moe Lane

PS: I understand that this movie is mutilating your childhood in a casually sadistic fashion.  I’ve seen Ghostbusters more times than I can count, too. I’m just saying that the trailer doesn’t look completely awful and that that one Ghostbuster is apparently going go melee some ghosts.  That’s all.

PPS: OK, one other thing.  I do kind of like the fact that the four leads are not supermodels. This may be a switch in my opinion from earlier: I’m not sure.  But there’s some solid comedic talent up on the screen there.

18 thoughts on “The first, not completely insulting, Ghostbusters trailer.”

  1. Completely awful, no. Enough to get me to pay movie theater prices? also, no.

  2. So, the lineup, as presented in the splash page for the video is (left to right): Stantz, Venkman, Spengler and Zeddemore. (Quibble with the trailer’s caption: of the quadrumvirate, only three of them were scientists – but I guess that “Three scientists and a guy who needed a job” wouldn’t read as well.)
    I can guess how the pitch for this movie went: “It’s Ghostbusters! With women!! And CGI!!! The script’s already written!!!!”
    That said, I think Melissa McCarthy is funny and talented. Whether that’s enough to save the movie remains to be seen…

    1. Yeah, if Melissa McCarthy is in it, I’ll end up breaking down and seeing it at some point. It can’t be all bad if she’s in it.

  3. 1) Ripped off Marty Feldman’s shelf gag in “Young Frankenstein”.
    2) I could hear the SJW cultural appropriation/stereotyping engines whining up their turbos at 1:10.
    3) CGI ghosts — not a fan. Go back to stop-motion models.
    4) SJW alert at 2:10 as well.

    1. Not to mention the whole “Girls need women in STEM to look up to, and the original Ghostbusters had scientist types, right?” I’m sure quantum physics has lots to do with 100 ft ghosts.

      1. Not to “well, actually” you, but that was sort of the idea with the pseudoscience in the original too. That’s how the proton packs were effective — ghosts were semi-corporeal intrusions into the physical world by spiritual forces. They couldn’t be directly physically affected, but they could be disrupted/trapped by streams of protons, as ectoplasm is inherently negatively-charged.

  4. 4 scientists, lol.
    I guess “I’ve seen **** that’ll turn you white” is sciency enough.

  5. Well, wasn’t as awful as I’ve feared, but it really makes me just want to go watch the original instead.

  6. This looks like a parody of the original. I’ve seen better looking fan films on youtube.

    1. Indeed, by remaking one of the best comedy films of the 80’s…then twatifying it to be Politically Correct, Hollywood has proven yet again that it is finished in the imagination department. After all, half of the “blockbusters” today are comics…

  7. The only thing that bugs me about the casting is that it appears to be the most interesting idea in the film.

    I’ve already got a copy of the original. I think I’ll pass on this.

  8. It looks pretty meh to me.

    Which in its defense makes it orders of magnitude better than “Ghostbusters II”.

  9. “In the first Ghostbusters movies, proton packs and guns, despite the name, were fundamentally imagined as tools; they had a tool-like appearance, and were clearly designed with an industrial aesthetic.”

    Good point, remember the quote:

    “We have the TOOLS, and we have the TALENT.”

  10. It looks fun to me, but then I was well into adulthood when the original came out, so I imagine it’s a different perspective than for most.

Comments are closed.