Page 45 • Ghostbusters 3 • Non-Gaming • Film • Eurogamer.net

Deleted user 12 July 2016 09:12:12

I do think the trailers are off base. The second one is closer to the mark but I think the finished film is a lot more cohesive than the advertising suggests.

I'll probably go see it again next week, on Imax.

Note on the 3D - it was good but they've gone with that whole frame popping style. Know what I mean? Where visual elements extend outside the border. Which is either a cool effect or really naff, depending on your preference.

LittleSparra 12 Jul 2016 09:23:15 7,926 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 6 years ago

the_dudefather wrote:

Some slightly off scenes where they try to do too many 'jokes' at once which came across as a bit silly, an odd thing to complain about in a silly comedy but hard to explain.

This is something I find irritating too. It's not odd, I think, to me it's a different preference re: timing and pacing. The jokes should work with everything, not against it. Too many comedies with Stiller and co pile on jokes into one scene, and somehow the pace just seeps away.

Syrette 12 Jul 2016 09:32:07 51,181 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 19 years ago

beastmaster wrote:
Postponed viewing till tomorrow night.

How many viewings do you think this will get off you?

3+?

Ultrasoundwave 12 Jul 2016 10:01:11 6,440 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 11 years ago

I'm confused by the whole "cameo thing" in this movie.

The last trailer they released said something about "30 years ago, four scientists saved New York" or something to that effect, yet the original cast aren't playing their original characters in this movie?

Edited by Ultrasoundwave at 10:01:43 12-07-2016

itsoldsquarejaw 12 Jul 2016 10:02:43 280 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 9 years ago

Well, I started this thread back in 2008 so might as well chime in now I've seen it.

Great fun from beginning to end. Thoroughly enjoyed it, as did most of the IMAX I saw it in given the constant chuckling. Some nice background gags too. Dippold's comedy writing is always good fun, and it's interesting that the comedy beats that failed in the trailers - and moments like the ghost vomit - actually work and have payoffs in the film. Just goes to show you can't edit out timing and expect something to land.

Negatives were I thought Leslie Jones' character deserved a hero moment where she out-scienced the other girls (would've put to bed its bit iffy 80s feel on that front) and Feig's direction can be a bit scrappy. The cameo's didn't bother me but I can see it annoying others. One particularly SFX returnee gets a sight gag that will either make you curl your toes or laugh out loud, depending on your humour.

Oh, and stay for after the credits.

itsoldsquarejaw 12 Jul 2016 10:03:14 280 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 9 years ago

And I find it hard to hate a movie with Charles Dance in.

itsoldsquarejaw 12 Jul 2016 10:05:12 280 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 9 years ago

Oh and a spoiler with regards to RichieTenenbaum's post from earlier -

"There's a scene in Freaks and Geeks where a character is having a shit day. Bullied at school and ignored. He sits down in front of the TV and starts to smile. Starts to imitate the characters. This was Ghost Busters for me."

Being bullied and the different paths it can lead to are direct themes in this film. I thought that was an interesting bit of added depth. So it's very much Ghostbusters.

And @ultrasoundwave -

This is a reboot, but given how the comics GB universe has a multiverse I wouldn't be surprised if there's different plane of existence in a later move that harks back to it. Also, the cameo's are all original cast members playing new characters, so nothing to do with the old film at all.

Edited by itsoldsquarejaw at 10:06:54 12-07-2016

M83J01P97 12 Jul 2016 10:11:56 7,607 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 14 years ago

Ultrasoundwave wrote:
I'm confused by the whole "cameo thing" in this movie.

The last trailer they released said something about "30 years ago, four scientists saved New York" or something to that effect, yet the original cast aren't playing their original characters in this movie?

That's a reference to the original movies coming out 30 years ago, not the narrative of the new film.

Ultrasoundwave 12 Jul 2016 10:22:56 6,440 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 11 years ago

Ah right, that makes more sense I guess. The trailer gave me the impression that this movie was set in the same universe as the original.

CosmicFuzz 12 Jul 2016 10:29:02 32,632 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 15 years ago

Yeah from the trailer I thought it was set in the same universe, just 30 years later. Really confusing.

Derblington 12 Jul 2016 10:31:46 35,161 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

It was a daft bit of marketing that has been criticised by McCarthy and other cast/crew members.

DFawkes 12 Jul 2016 10:33:09 32,791 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago

Reboot tends to be a bit of a bad word in marketing, so they try and avoid it. Don't mention it being a reboot! I did once, and I think I got away with it!

Deleted user 12 July 2016 10:34:30

They even had to quickly change it from 'four scientists...' to 'four friends...' when people pointed out that Winston wasn't a scientist

itsoldsquarejaw 12 Jul 2016 10:50:37 280 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 9 years ago

The marketing has been awful. Terrible. Completely off. Another good reason why directors themselves should handle marketing if they get the opportunity. They're a complete misrepresentation of the film. As I say, it removes timing and context to many of the scenes - it takes skill to edit comedy. It's why Spy's trailer was equally terrible to the point of editing IN a fat joke.

btw on the hate campaign, John Campea has a reasonably good podcast about how his mildly positive (not even raving) review attracted a huge amount of new Youtube comments raging against him - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF0X81G8J7Q&t=20m20s

He's equally guilty of using black/white language and being overly emotive in studying it. Typical Youtube stuff. But his research into the negative comments is interesting.

DFawkes 12 Jul 2016 11:19:52 32,791 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago

That's a good point on the Spy trailer. I just watched it for the first time, having only seen the film without having seen the trailer, and it's every bit as terrible as I felt the Ghostbusters one is. It paints McCarthy's Spy as rather silly and incompetent, where the joke is she's actually really capable but doesn't look like your typical spy, whilst the spies that do look more typically spyish are actually the silly, incompetent ones. I really enjoyed Spy but if I'd seen that trailer first I probably wouldn't have bothered.

I assume it's probably the same marketing department, as it feels like they've largely made the same missteps. The trailer gave me the impression that all 4 Ghostbusters seemed like the zany, silly one, which is too many zany characters. I strongly suspect that isn't the case at all for the film itself.

Edited by DFawkes at 11:23:50 12-07-2016

itsoldsquarejaw 12 Jul 2016 11:26:02 280 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 9 years ago

Strangely (spoilers) the zany, silly one is actually pretty subdued and bizarre. I guess the marketers didn't really know what to do with Kate McKinnon's character as she's barely in the trailers. Her tics and nervy performance is simply suited to context.

Wiig actually has the most freak-outs and McCarthy's possessed turn is really completely offbeat compared to her warm character throughout the film. Leslie Jones is Leslie Jones, and I think she's great, but I can't say they really bypassed the racial issue there. It's the one true fudge for me.

Edited by itsoldsquarejaw at 11:26:22 12-07-2016

Dr.Haggard 12 Jul 2016 12:17:03 4,641 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years ago

For those that have seen it, is the film as a whole better and funnier than this clip?

Because this is not funny. The writing is terrible, it's badly performed, it's delivered without any sense of timing or rhythm and there's no evidence of chemistry, and the jokes still wouldn't be funny even if it was all of the above.

Hopefully this is just a bad example.

itsoldsquarejaw 12 Jul 2016 12:37:45 280 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 9 years ago

It's funnier, but that particular clip is only really mildly amusing, not laugh-out-loud. It exists entirely out of context or run-up to boot. Ghostbusters equally had moments that taken out of context - say, one speech I love is Ray and Peter drinking on the steps of Columbia - will just make the comedy aspect of the film uncertain to the viewer. Some of the humour is basic, some of it is wry. Some of it works on some, some of it works for others. As with any comedic film.

Look, if you go into this trying to not like it, then you will probably not like it. It's telling that a lot of people who weren't sure were converted. It's not a classic by any stretch (someone expecting that probably needs adjusted expectations going into any franchise movie follow-up), but it's definitely a fun film. It's got its downs and ups.

As a note, I saw Independence Day;Resurgence last week, and this is by no means on that level of awfulness. There's still some amusement in ID:R's stupidity, but it's objectively, to me, a bad film. An enjoyable bad film (sans some boring sections) but a bad film nonetheless. It's no Terminator: Genisys either, which was entertaining in its own way, but a terrible follow up which made some poor decisions and was horribly miscast. It's not Total Recall or Godzilla, either, both films being utterly, utterly boring to my mind, which is the worst sin a film can commit.

If you're unsure and want to give it a punt, best I can say right now is god for a cheap Monday/Tuesday screening. You'll get something out of it. Or you'll laugh as much as the majority in my cinema and realise it's not a terrible movie.

Again, opinions will vary as with ANY movie. But I'm willing to bet more will like it than not.

Edited by itsoldsquarejaw at 12:44:55 12-07-2016

Dr.Haggard 12 Jul 2016 13:15:49 4,641 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years ago

@itsoldsquarejaw Good stuff, thanks. Just to be clear, I'm sceptical but I'm not predisposed to hating it.

I do happen to think the original is as near to perfect as films get, for a number of reasons (not all of them genre specific, and that's not the same as saying it's the best film ever made).

However I certainly don't want or expect this film to be bad, I really hope it's not. Neither do I think its being bad would sully the legacy of the original or take anything away from it, that'd be silly. I will of course be disappointed if they haven't made the most of the opportunity, but I don't have any expectations of it being as good as the original, or that it needs to be.

itsoldsquarejaw 12 Jul 2016 13:21:39 280 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 9 years ago

@Dr.Haggard I am a massive Ghostbusters fan. I remember being a kid in London when the mysterious posters arrived. I watched the VHS copy we had to bits.

But I don't share this odd entitlement that people have for things they love. I'm more than willing for other creators to have a go at franchises and leave their mark. At least there's SOMETHING behind Ghostbusters outside of a money-grab, that they tried to do something with it. Gives it more heart than most and I agree with Feig that it was the best way to tackle it rather than reliving past glories (the cameos are arguably the weakest bits of the film, fan nods as they are).

It's just a funny, entertaining film. Which is what I expected, given Feig's previous movies.

MrSensible 12 Jul 2016 13:26:20 26,517 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 16 years ago

So are we talking more Jurassic World and less Terminator Genysis here then? Good.

Dr.Haggard 12 Jul 2016 13:41:20 4,641 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years ago

Sounds like it, and that's fine.

JW was shit, but it was shit that I actually quite enjoyed.

M83J01P97 12 Jul 2016 13:43:57 7,607 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 14 years ago

Everything I've been reading and have heard from a friend or two seems to suggest that the marketing people behind this really have dropped the ball and the trailers and clips released so far don't really do the final film justice.

itsoldsquarejaw 12 Jul 2016 14:28:32 280 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 9 years ago

Deffo more Jurassic World than Terminator Genisys.

Better than Jurassic World for me, and I enjoyed that despite some massively daft plot contrivances!

MrTomFTW Moderator 12 Jul 2016 15:55:14 47,501 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

b0rk wrote:
Ehh, I enjoyed both Jurassic World and that new Terminator movie.

Jesus Christ man, some things... Some things you just don't admit to!

Deleted user 12 July 2016 16:01:03

Hi, subject matter expert here (I've seen both previous Ghostbusters films).

This new one is better than the second, and didn't wipe my memory of the first.

Recomeded

Decks 12 Jul 2016 16:08:39 31,014 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 6 years ago

I;m pretty sure he's described the Phantom Menace as "awesome" in the past as well.

itsoldsquarejaw 12 Jul 2016 16:24:40 280 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 9 years ago

Largely fun review from an English duo referencing "piss babies", which automatically makes me like them - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pz691GOBf4

Ghostbusters 3 • Page 45