re: Ghostbusters - 2016 Official Trailer

quote:

---

Shame.

---

quote:

---

Seth Rogan, James Franco, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson.

---

quote:

---

Ghostbusters was originally more serious than comedy. I don't know why anyone thought it was a comedy or that its supposed to be a comedy, its not, and it never was intended, it just happened the characters were able to bring that considering their backgrounds, AND it made for the perfect blend.

---

quote:

---

Here's what the movie industry doesn't get about Ghostbusters or other films where some characters improvised dialogue: those movies had extremely well written scripts, and only one (maybe two) characters were allowed to improv. In the original Ghostbusters, all the other characters had relatively unfunny (as in not jokes) parts, but the humor came from the absurdness of the dialogue, the set up of the scenes, and a few well-placed wise cracks by Venkman.

The movie had perfect scenes that moved the story along despite a pretty convoluted plot (see LINK:). For example, in one of the opening scenes Venkman (Bill Murray) is shown to be a paranormal researcher at a university. He's testing out whether or not negative reinforcement can increase telepathy. As soon as the guy student starts to get really irritated, he actually picks the right card (thus confirming Venkmans hypothesis)! That was a subtle way of setting up the movie to show that in this universe, weird things like ghosts are possible. And, it shows that Venkman, PhD scientist that he is, isn't above hitting on college girls.

Rick Moranis was also allowed to improvise because he's good at it and it fit with his character. He was mostly separate from the main characters, so it wasn't like too many people were improvising off each other, which often results in bad timing and scenes going on too long. The set design was grungy and dirty because these were ex-college professors who didn't have a lot of money.
The original also followed the "show don't tell rule," which was broken in the new trailer by telling the audience who was good at what, when it would've been a whole lot better to just convey that through character actions. Dan Akroyd's original script (his first) was like 500 pages long and went into excruciating detail about ghosts and paranormal shite, because his dad was an actual paranormal investigator.

Rob Ager also has a good video on some other aspects of the movie that make it so memorable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si-02lBpkxg

What Hollywood should do, since they don't have many new ideas left, is pick movies that came out in the 70s-80s that had an okay premise but were bogged down by time/money constraints, and remake those films with better resources.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Here's what the movie industry doesn't get about Ghostbusters or other films where some characters improvised dialogue: those movies had extremely well written scripts, and only one (maybe two) characters were allowed to improv. In the original Ghostbusters, all the other characters had relatively unfunny (as in not jokes) parts, but the humor came from the absurdness of the dialogue, the set up of the scenes, and a few well-placed wise cracks by Venkman.

The movie had perfect scenes that moved the story along despite a pretty convoluted plot (see LINK:). For example, in one of the opening scenes Venkman (Bill Murray) is shown to be a paranormal researcher at a university. He's testing out whether or not negative reinforcement can increase telepathy. As soon as the guy student starts to get really irritated, he actually picks the right card (thus confirming Venkmans hypothesis)! That was a subtle way of setting up the movie to show that in this universe, weird things like ghosts are possible. And, it shows that Venkman, PhD scientist that he is, isn't above hitting on college girls.

Rick Moranis was also allowed to improvise because he's good at it and it fit with his character. He was mostly separate from the main characters, so it wasn't like too many people were improvising off each other, which often results in bad timing and scenes going on too long. The set design was grungy and dirty because these were ex-college professors who didn't have a lot of money.
The original also followed the "show don't tell rule," which was broken in the new trailer by telling the audience who was good at what, when it would've been a whole lot better to just convey that through character actions. Dan Akroyd's original script (his first) was like 500 pages long and went into excruciating detail about ghosts and paranormal shite, because his dad was an actual paranormal investigator.

Rob Ager also has a good video on some other aspects of the movie that make it so memorable: LINK

What Hollywood should do, since they don't have many new ideas left, is pick movies that came out in the 70s-80s that had an okay premise but were bogged down by time/money constraints, and remake those films with better resources.

---

---