Not in my experience. Try it. Ask some 20-somethings who Annie Potts or Ernie Hudson is. Ask them if they'd be more likely to watch a movie that had cameos from them. Now if you say "the receptionist" or "the black guy" from Ghostbusters, some might go "oh, yeah, I know who you're talking about." But most young people WON'T be going to see Ghostbusters because it has cameos from either in it. I "came of age" movie-wise in the 1980s. When I think back to the big names from 30 years earlier (the 1950s), I'm pretty sure few of my peers would know them. I know them because I'm a film buff, but most people aren't. Ask someone in their 40s who isn't a film buff to name a movie with Burt Lancaster or Gary Cooper or Robert Mitchum made before 1970. These guys were HUGE in their day and were probably all but unknown to younger audiences 30 years later. Actors like Potts and Hudson? They weren't all that well-known in their heyday!
Why the offense?? That's what I don't get. I try to think of the worst remake of the best movie, and the best I can come up with is the Jason Mamoa "Conan The Barbarian", and that didn't bend my nose out of joint at all. I just never watched it.
I've pointed it out before, some of the best movies of all time are remakes. "Wizard Of Oz", "Alien", "Superman The Movie", "The Fly", "John Carpenter's The Thing", "American Werewolf In London", "Fright Night", "Little Shop Of Horrors", that's off the top of my head, but if I dug around, I could maybe find 100 more.
Let me provide a list of several good ones... http://news.moviefone.com/2010/04/15/best-movie-remakes/
OMFG!! They took "Ghostbusters", and slapped it on a completely different movie! They've raped my childhood! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072505/?ref_=fn_al_tt_10
I'd forgotten about the 'other' Ghostbusters (the Filmation shorts/animated shows). Filmation--which had used the name first--sued Columbia Pictures and their settlement prohibited Columbia from making an animated series called Ghostbusters. This explains why the animated series based on the movie was called The Real Ghostbusters, which is a mystery I had long pondered.
It had a double meaning that they worked into the canon of the show. They did an episode where the animated Ghostbusters ran around on the sets of the live-action movie being made about them. So, the film versions are actors playing the REAL Ghostbusters. Course they went double-meta when the spud ghost became Slimer in part 2, which is entirely an animated series invention.
Chup beat me to it, but yeah. The Internet was smaller, but there was legitimately far fewer remakes. That trend started trickling down in the 90s with relatively harmless stuff like the Addams Family, the Brady Bunch, and the Flintstones...and even then, there was at best maybe one such movie in theaters in any given calendar year, not the barrage of remakes and reboots that have taken off like the plague. It's a shame that even genuinely good remake films receive backlash because the market is saturated with them. But as much as people gripe, they keep shelling money out to watch them. America is part of the problem.
Feig might as well go as far as he can. When he didn't have the original cast on board, there were people saying it's because the original cast wouldn't touch the film, that it was that bad. Then, when all of the original cast is on board (save for one who has entirely separate-from-the-film reasons), suddenly they're desperate to get the original cast in order to bolster the film's popularity. So Feig won't win with some of the crowd either way. I say fuck them all, and go for broke.
Technically speaking, those were not remakes, but were derivative from non-film sources, much like Gone with the Wind or Romeo and Juliette (the first one).
Well, for me it's a mix of great and meh. What really stuck out to me was how elegantly they redid the iconic soundtrack, making it better and still very much the same. That took some genius. The basic plot seems fine; but that they had to get so deep into it in the trailer's second half usually isn't the sign of a great movie. The performances are hit and miss; McCarthy and Wiig are competent to good, McKinnon is mostly standing there looking pretty, Jones is an acquired taste. No laugh-out loud moments for me; no real drama moments either. The original had both, sometimes at the same time. It might be too much to ask to get that in the trailer, though.
Damn right.....and exactly for the reasons I have said. They started out with the gimmick and then just build around it, rather than vice versa. Otherwise all the ingredients I predicted are there. What this showed me is:- 1) Wiig and McCarthy doing their usual style comedy acting, and frankly I don't care for either of them so that was already a turn off for me. 2) Cartoon like effects that makes those from the original look vastly superior. 3) So much lazily recreated, from the library ghost to the proton streams to even re-using the old firehouse it seems (and that's in addition to those other reuses I've mentioned before). 4) Poor, basic slapstick humour of the kind Feig usually offers up. 5) Feig simply not being able to stay away from his scrass schoolboy humour with the "slime in the vagina/arse" comment. The movie is a lazy reboot that will be a poor shadow of the original - and it's all because it was built around a gimmick instead of someone having a great idea for a reboot, doing pre-production and then just letting a great movie grow organically (with four women or otherwise). I don't care for the director or two of the main cast. I don't for Feig....and the direction I knew this would go in when I heard he was involved is just what is reflected in that trailer. I think it speaks volumes that this trailer on YouTube currently has more dislikes than likes. You can't tel me every one of those dislikes simply comes from a sexist who otherwise would be lining up to see a lazy reboot. I just don't buy it. I won't be touching this crap with a barge pole, Oh, and marketing guys, please get the basics right. There weren't "four scientists" 30 years ago, there were three.
You called it when you knew my thoughts on the project already? You genius you! Go pat yourself on the back.
Pretty much what I expected and its pretty much what Space Jew said. The only thing I liked was the quick glimpse of slimer. It's yet annother unnecessary reboot of a beloved franchise that was created out of a gimmick. Hollywood should just come up with original ideas instead.
Agree 100 percent. Now you will see people claim that only sexists don't like it. What happens if the movie flops? I was willing to at least wait for a trailer. I had my opinion, but now my opinion is backed up by this lackluster trailer. Unless a better trailer comes out, I won't be seeing this in theaters.
*Goes back 5 minutes in time, and gives myself a whole back rub* Ohhh yeeeeaah, get that spot, yeeeaah.
I wasn't really a big fan of the original Ghostbusters (though I did enjoy it) so I'm not super-pumped about a sequel/reboot. But the film looks decent in the trailer, very reminiscent of the original with a good infusion of McCarthy/Wiig humor. I'm sure I'm going to see it.
