ghostbusters The Ghostbusters Reboot Cast Revealed

[HawkMan]

what's the point of the re-edit ? it's not making the movie look any better...

[Kravex]

The ghosts look like rejects from the Scobby Doo movies.

[heslo]

This looks like utter ######

[Yogurth]

This looks even worse than i imagined it will. 
 

[trag3dy]

It's already started. If you don't like the trailer you're sexist.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/03/04/people-are-hating-the-ghostbusters-trailer-guess-why/

 

Everyone who dislikes it should now be ashamed of themselves because it's not possible it just looks bad. Nope, you're all sexist pigs.

[webeagle12]

On 3/3/2016 at 9:00 AM, Razorwing said:

 

 

 

[+Tyranade Subscriber²]

Not going to lie but I found that trailer highly entertaining actually XD. Maybe it appeals to my very silly sense of humor XD!

[+Raphaël G. MVC]

On ‎3‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 3:00 PM, Razorwing said:

 

 

No. Just no. Please no. NOOOOOOOOOOOO 

[webeagle12]

 

 

[HawkMan]

37 minutes ago, Tyranade said:

Not going to lie but I found that trailer highly entertaining actually XD. Maybe it appeals to my very silly sense of humor XD!

May I recommend you watch this old 80's movie called Ghostbusters, it's exactly like this, even the same story, only with better humor, better actors and even better effects. 

[+Tyranade Subscriber²]

7 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

May I recommend you watch this old 80's movie called Ghostbusters, it's exactly like this, even the same story, only with better humor, better actors and even better effects. 

I've seen it. More times than I can count. I just have a thing for goofy looking movies because I find them oddly funny so yeah. I'm looking forward to this movie.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

1 hour ago, trag3dy said:

It's already started. If you don't like the trailer you're sexist.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/03/04/people-are-hating-the-ghostbusters-trailer-guess-why/

 

Everyone who dislikes it should now be ashamed of themselves because it's not possible it just looks bad. Nope, you're all sexist pigs.

haha...not surprised.  It can't be that the trailer "lied" during the first 30 seconds (hinting that it was a sequel...but from what I'm understanding it is a hard reboot) ... or that the ending of the trailer with McCarthy getting slapped ... /sigh ... it was just a terrible trailer all around.  Doesn't matter who was playing the roles ... it was just bad.  

 

Anyway, not surprised someone would write a piece blaming sexism for the dislikes.  Of course, I'm sure there are people that wouldn't like it just because of the female leads ... but in this case the movie (based on the trailer) just looks terrible.

 

I really think they missed a chance if they don't tie it into the original Ghostbusters.  It could have simply been one of the girls was the daughter of the original Ghostbusters and work build from there.  But no, let's do a hard reboot and make it terrible at the same time.

 

Kids and your teens will probably enjoy it...and the "Spy" style jokes.

[trag3dy]

5 hours ago, Tyranade said:

I've seen it. More times than I can count. I just have a thing for goofy looking movies because I find them oddly funny so yeah. I'm looking forward to this movie.

There is goofy comedy movies and then there is this. This is so forced it can't possibly have been written with the same people in mind who grew up and loved the original(s).

[Torolol]

2 hours ago, trag3dy said:

This is so bad that it can't possibly have been written with the same people in mind who grew up and loved the original(s).

yeah, Angry Joe sums it as its a perfect blend of those who do not knew about  the originals (the cast) and Elite (scriptwriter / producer / etc) Hollywood fat ass who want make a quick buck out of the Ghostbuster IP/license that they just acquires.

[Hurmoth]

Just as I thought, this movie looks like garbage. Actually, that's an insult to garbage. The trailer was unfunny, looks like horrible CG (the ghosts in the original two films look way better than this crap), the acting looks subpar and the story rubbish. I'll not only pass on this film in theaters, but it wouldn't even be worth the bandwidth to watch on Netflix.

[notuptome2004]

On 3/3/2016 at 1:06 PM, HawkMan said:

The trailer gives me me very mixed feelings.

 

one one hand, the ghosts look great, BUT that's also the problem.  They look too good, in a very uncharacteristic statement from me, There's too much CGI and the CGI is too good. it doesn't look like ghostbusters. 

 

The old classic animatronic and film trick ghosts had a feel to them that made them seem "realistic" in their way. these just look like really awesome CGI. and not the nice gritty real ghosts of ghostbusters. 

 

on top of that. the trailer gives the whole story away, and the whole story is basically a line by line retelling of the original movie. down to the token black "guy" and "his" role. 

 

They simply replaced the characters with women and placed it 30 years in the future and apparently everyone forgot that ghosts even existed in those 30 years... smh.... why... 

 

I'll watch, it. but it's definitely not going to be a classic. 

 

 

Not really  line for line of the movie at all  if you listen and watch the trialer it is not  .  the plot of this movie based on the trialer is  someone  is  using a machine or something to amplify  paranormal activity   now course in the original yes we had  Dana barrets apartment Evo shandor       that was  a conductive antenna  for  the same thing but   that is about it. it will still be a good flick to me despite  what haters  think about the casting  but  as a Fan of the original films   i am just  excited to see something  Ghostbusters  

[notuptome2004]

3 hours ago, Hurmoth said:

Just as I thought, this movie looks like garbage. Actually, that's an insult to garbage. The trailer was unfunny, looks like horrible CG (the ghosts in the original two films look way better than this crap), the acting looks subpar and the story rubbish. I'll not only pass on this film in theaters, but it wouldn't even be worth the bandwidth to watch on Netflix.

 

 

All the uman ghost in the film including the  first one in the trialer are All done by real actors with LED suits on so the CGI stuff is kept as minimum as  possible in this flick on that area of things  but you know if  they had all this back in the 80s they use the heck out of CGI in some scenes  of the original film  

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, notuptome2004 said:

 

 

Not really  line for line of the movie at all  if you listen and watch the trialer it is not  .  the plot of this movie based on the trialer is  someone  is  using a machine or something to amplify  paranormal activity   now course in the original yes we had  Dana barrets apartment Evo shandor       that was  a conductive antenna  for  the same thing but   that is about it. it will still be a good flick to me despite  what haters  think about the casting  but  as a Fan of the original films   i am just  excited to see something  Ghostbusters  

Just because the main antagonist is a human with a machine, doesn't make the story any less identical to the original movie, 

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, notuptome2004 said:

 

 

All the uman ghost in the film including the  first one in the trialer are All done by real actors with LED suits on so the CGI stuff is kept as minimum as  possible in this flick on that area of things  but you know if  they had all this back in the 80s they use the heck out of CGI in some scenes  of the original film  

Ghostbusters didn't have the budget for that, it was not a high budget movie by any stretch. and just because you can do super crystal clear CGI and layered effects doesn't mean you should and that the effects look better for it.

 

The traditional effects work on the ghosts in the original movie look way more believable as ghosts than this super sharp neon CGI crap. 

[notuptome2004]

9 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Ghostbusters didn't have the budget for that, it was not a high budget movie by any stretch. and just because you can do super crystal clear CGI and layered effects doesn't mean you should and that the effects look better for it.

 

The traditional effects work on the ghosts in the original movie look way more believable as ghosts than this super sharp neon CGI crap. 

 

. for example The last starfighter   of the same year   had visual effects beyond  what  

well i am just saying if they had the use of CGI back then who knows they would have made the movie using  CGI back then and ther  budget for the film back then was $30million   and that was a huge for the time  the  Last starfighter that used alot of CGI at the time  cost only $15million    and star trek 3 search for spock at the time had a $16million budget  and  way fx work then ghostbusters  

[trag3dy]

 

 

Still looks bad and they continue to ###### on the originals even more. The whole bit with the logo..

 

Gotta love the feminist agenda being pushed, too. They couldn't make it any more blatant. The women are the heroes and the big strong man (who they are portraying as an idiot, too, looks like) is the helpless secretary.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

7 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

 

 

Still looks bad and they continue to ###### on the originals even more. The whole bit with the logo..

 

Gotta love the feminist agenda being pushed, too. They couldn't make it any more blatant. The women are the heroes and the big strong man (who they are portraying as an idiot, too, looks like) is the helpless secretary.

uh...even the "newer" stuff in this trailer is terrible.

[Hurmoth]

The problem is this film doesn't a bit of seriousness at all to it. The original film took itself seriously, even with the comedy. The ghosts in the original (except for Slimmer) were actually scary and came off realistic. The ghosts in this film are brightly colored and look cartoonish, simply not scary in the least bit.

 

The jokes in the trailer felt like the lowest common denominator type of comedy. And the worst part, they weren't even funny. I'd rather watch Sharknado because at least it is suppose to be bad on purpose. This film, it isn't Ghostbusters, but a straight to DVD rip off of the original film. The script was originally titled Supernaturalbusters, but Sony wanted something cheap and crappy to air on SyFy one day.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

For me, there's no issue with the fact it's an all-female cast, it's the butchering of the roles. The jokes are predictable and base. 

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

Fantastic Four suddenly looks like a masterpiece.