slimer
bet the cultural mraists will be shitting a brick on the gender reversal here.
There isn't a clear line between these things. Re-boot is really a marketing term for "Same old thing, but all new !". Reboots can be a continuation, like for instance Star Trek. They had an all new cast as the old crew, but they also wheeled out the original Spock.Looks entertaining enough, but will probably hinge on the interplay between the characters, they struck gold the first time around with the chemistry between the leads, and it never felt like a straight out comedy in the way this appears to be going.
Kate McKinnon is great on SNL though and I'm looking forward to seeing her in a decent role.
I'm still trying to work out whether it's a reboot or continuation, the director has previously said reboot but that trailer is confusing as fuck in that regard.
I always liked it, was banned from seeing 1&2 as a kid but hit them pitch perfect time round a mates in early teens. Yes murray is funny but egon and the mentalness of it all were great. We'll see if this one delivers, It doesn't have the nostalgia chips to cash for me like Force Awakens did cos I found it great as comedy but never loved it more than buying a slimer sticker.Of course, that's been going on since it was announced over a year ago.
That said, I've never been a huge fan and thought the only thing which made all the silliness in the original work was the irreverent quality Bill Murray brought to it.
I was already in my 20s when it came out, so probably too old. I don't mind it, it just didn't make much of an impression.I always liked it, was banned from seeing 1&2 as a kid but hit them pitch perfect time round a mates in early teens. Yes murray is funny but egon and the mentalness of it all were great. We'll see if this one delivers, It doesn't have the nostalgia chips to cash for me like Force Awakens did cos I found it great as comedy but never loved it more than buying a slimer sticker.
There isn't a clear line between these things. Re-boot is really a marketing term for "Same old thing, but all new !". Reboots can be a continuation, like for instance Star Trek. They had an all new cast as the old crew, but they also wheeled out the original Spock.
I believe most of the surviving original cast make an appearance in this and it's the same fire station.Of course these things are fluid, but the director explicitly called it a 'hard reboot' in a completely new universe, while the trailer people clearly didn't get that message in favour of nostalgia ("30 years ago, Four scientists... etc").
Not a big thing and I'll reserve judgement, but seems a little broader and more slapstick than I would have hoped for.
I believe most of the surviving original cast make an appearance in this and it's the same fire station.
bet the cultural mraists will be shitting a brick on the gender reversal here.
Ooh I do hope so, it's so funny when they throw their toys out the pram.
My god that looks just awful!
The trailer is inaccurate as well, Four scientists didn't save the city. It was technically three scientists. Ernie Hudson wasn't a scientist.
In the original script for Ghostbusters, Winston Zeddemore was intended to be the smartest and most capable of the Ghostbusters, a former Marine with multiple degrees and a Ph.D., making him more suited for the job than the founding three Ghostbusters. However, in the final screenplay none of these qualifications were mentioned.
Common narrative method. Have one layman for the experts to explain things to. This provides a mechanism to pass info to the audience that in a normal situation wouldn't be vocalised.From Wiki :
Which is interesting! (And something I didn't know.)
From Wiki :
Which is interesting! (And something I didn't know.)
My god that looks just awful!
Can't help but notice from the trailer that the black ghostbuster in this new one also appears to be the only non-scientist
Attention Hollywood: black scientists do exist.