Ghostbusters was a slacker comedy that happened to feature ghosts.

I’m always a bit mystified that people rarely credit Sigourney Weaver’s performance in Ghostbusters. Her acting elevated the movie, and the chemistry between her and Bill Murray created the heart of the story. IMHO, that’s the missing piece of the sequels - someone outside the primary quartet you actually cared about.

I think Ghostbusters *could* have become a real franchise if they’d cranked out more sequels in the late 80s and early 90s. Like Jurassic Park and Jaws, this one has a structural problem in that it’s only possible to remake the original with minor variations on the formula — there’s a super-ghost from another…

Go see Love Lies Bleeding instead!

He did the same thing to Deadspin as far as closing down the entire comment section when they started smack talking him, which he just sold and is no longer part of G/O media.

The pre-teaser thing is because of social media, where someone’s scrolling through Instagram or Tiktok or whatever and is likely only going to look at something for 3-5 seconds before moving on. So they do a super-quick teaser. I suppose that there’s similar quick behavior on YouTube (via mobile) which is why they do…

agreed. super dumb reason to put a target on your movie’s back.

Too bad they used AI generated images for the on screen title cards instead of just paying an artist to make them.

These last two movies seem like the most egregious case of the nostalgia porn trend. Ghostbusters was not a touchy-feely family drama that should be bringing anyone to tears. It’s a pretty cynical comedy movie.

NO. THE OG TRAILER HAD PLENTY OF HUMOR IN IT.

That’s what’s so weird to me about this particular swath of reboots; it’s not necessarily weird that people have affection for Ghostbusters (fond memories here of running around the house with a canister vacuum, pretending it was a proton pack), but the straight-up reverence and nostalgia doesn’t seem to line up with…

right but marketing has changed in the last 40 years. 

Sounds like another installment in a franchise that really didn’t need to be a franchise.

The trailers for this all have this godawful reverential nostalgia-haze over everything, while the original was an irreverent comedy. This review makes me unclear of what the tone is. It mentions “the most Paul Rudd character ever” and refers to jokes a bunch. Are these treacly trailers all just bad marketing?

Could have saved yourself a lot of time by writing a one-word review:

The difference between George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry is that Roddenberry died relatively early in the lifetime of the franchise, and since he is no longer around to remind us all how terrible he is, then it’s easy to fill in the gaps and pretend like he was a saint who made no bad decisions whatsoever.

Maybe he didn’t know they were filming.

that includes crew members not making out with each other

Yeah, like...I’m all for felons being hireable once they serve terms (that’s kind of how serving a jail term is supposed to work), but FFS the crime and the context have to be considered. In the case of a sexual predator who victimized kids, YOU DON’T LET THEM WORK AROUND KIDS.

just... why?