Recommended Posts

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.

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. 

  • Like 5
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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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  

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  

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, 

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. 

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  

 

 

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.

  • Like 1
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.

  • Like 2

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.

  • Like 6

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. 

  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      455
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!