Ghostbusters the reboot (2015)

[Edward J Grug III]

I wonder if the sudden decision to re-release the original to theaters is a reaction to the bad test screenings the reboot is getting. Sony trying to make money on the franchise and keep some good will in case the new one tanks.

Link to the bad test screenings news?

Someone on this thread mentioned them, and I've heard it mentioned on Twitter. So for all I know it's not true at all. But it's the announcement of the re-release that made me think the studio might be getting worried about tarnishing the brand now that they are trying to do a whole series of movies.

Yeah, you might want to look back at this thread. A 'mens lifestyle' site that credited a deleted reddit thread.

Was that the one from a few days ago? Yikes.

Yep.

[Johnny Unusual]

Yeah, so basically it's pretty safe to say that showing the original film isn't some sort of "damage control" and more "let's get ready for the movie", which is pretty common (re: big marathons before Marvel movies, Jurassic Park in 3D, etc)

[Darth Geek]

I hope that the case then. I'm still cautiously optimistic on this reboot.

[Darth Geek]

So apparently James Rowlf (the Angry Video Game Nerd) has sparked a bit of controversy today:

I really don't blame him. He made a judgement based on the trailers, which is what they are for. It's just that this was so controversial already. And he knew he would be constantly be asked about it, that's the only reason he made the video.

[MightyBombJack]

I don't entirely agree with his basic philosophical problem with this new Ghostbusters (partially because I don't really think this new movie can do much more damage to the Ghostbusters franchise that Ghostbusters II didn't already do), but I do like that James is setting a good example for people upset about this movie existing and reminding them that nobody is forcing them to see it (and he thankfully avoids the misogynist man-baby stuff and mentions that Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts would be necessary as well for his ideal version of Ghostbuters III).

[Pak-Man]

My viewpoint is twofold.

Part 1: Nobody has to see it.
Part 2: Nobody's opinion can be fully supported by facts until they have seen it.

You're certainly free to say, "I have a bad feeling about it." or "I don't think I'd like this take on the films. I think I'll pass." But you can't actually call it a disaster until you have witnessed every minute of said disaster with your own two eyes. A trailer isn't enough.

Sometimes seeing people's reactions to an unreleased movie is like feeding my son Lasagna for the first time. "How do you know you won't like it if you don't try it?"

[ScottotD]

My viewpoint is twofold.

Part 1: Nobody has to see it.
Part 2: Nobody's opinion can be fully supported by facts until they have seen it.

BUT WHO WILL STOP PAUL FEIG FROM BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE AND REPLACING MY COPY OF THE ORIGINAL MOVIE WITH TAMPONS AND INCLUSIVE COMPUTER GAMES?!?!?

So apparently James Rowlf (the Angry Video Game Nerd) has sparked a bit of controversy today:

Sometimes you just gotta take a stand and his stand is preserving the sanctity of a movie where Dan Ackroyd gets a blowjob from a ghost ...what a fucking idiot

[Darth Geek]

Yeah, this still looks terrible.

[The Lurker]

Yeah, this still looks terrible.

Somewhat better than the last trailer though.

Nash raises a good point:

My only concern about the new Ghostbusters trailer is they're doing that thing where each trailer shows more and more of the movie.

If they keep doing that, by the time the movie's released you'll have seen most pivotal scenes already. :/

Remember when Spider-Man 2 released so many promos someone put together 2/3 of the movie before it came out?

Don't do that, Ghostbusters.

[JimJ]

So apparently James Rowlf (the Angry Video Game Nerd) has sparked a bit of controversy today:

I really don't blame him. He made a judgement based on the trailers, which is what they are for. It's just that this was so controversial already. And he knew he would be constantly be asked about it, that's the only reason he made the video.

[The Lurker]

My issue is that the AVGN didn't need to make it a full video.

[Darth Geek]

My issue is that the AVGN didn't need to make it a full video.

The only reason he did that was because he knew tons of his fans would keep asking him about it if he didn't review it.

[Darth Geek]

So apparently James Rowlf (the Angry Video Game Nerd) has sparked a bit of controversy today:

I really don't blame him. He made a judgement based on the trailers, which is what they are for. It's just that this was so controversial already. And he knew he would be constantly be asked about it, that's the only reason he made the video.

Yeah, I saw that. Brad Jones is always very funny. And now I just want him to Snob that movie (yes, I'm pretty sure that is a thing that exists).

[RoninFox]

Yeah, this still looks terrible.

Somewhat better than the last trailer though.

Nash raises a good point:

My only concern about the new Ghostbusters trailer is they're doing that thing where each trailer shows more and more of the movie.

If they keep doing that, by the time the movie's released you'll have seen most pivotal scenes already. :/

Remember when Spider-Man 2 released so many promos someone put together 2/3 of the movie before it came out?

Don't do that, Ghostbusters.

Agreed on both counts. I think I'm done watching the trailers, since I already decided to try it anyway.

[Darth Geek]

Well, I WAS cautiously optimistic about this, but now I think I'm going to wait to see what the reviews from people I trust are like.