Discuss the upcoming movie to be released in 2020 and directed by Jason Reitman.
#4947865
RichardLess wrote: April 8th, 2021, 7:22 am
Kingpin wrote: April 8th, 2021, 3:17 am

Blowing the big reveal by releasing a shot of the surviving actors would be a bigger act of desperation than the Mini-Puft clip.



This is a critique I'm not really understanding... How does it not feel like a movie? Sure, the trailer has lots of grand, sweeping shots... But no movie is 100% grand sweeping shots.

The cinematography may not be mind-blowing, but it is perfectly fine and competent... And if we go back to the first movie, remember the largely static, competent but unremarkable cinematography of the Lab scene in the Firehouse with Dana? Peter's first conversation with Janine? The back and forth between Peter and the students during the ESP experiment? There's no snap/snap/snap editing or artsy camera angles, there's just a relatively normal shot which could almost be aimed to make it look like you're sat there in the room with them.
I don’t think it would be a bigger desperation move at all. This is coming off as more a late “See! We have tiny cute things too!”. Almost everyone knows the original GBs are back. The mini pufts was something you’d only know about if you read this forum or others like it. I think seeing the original GBs would generate genuine excitement. This got reactions all over the place.

Cinematography isn’t just about camera moves & angles. It’s mostly about lighting & that’s what what sticks out to me. The trailer that we saw had beautiful imagery and some nice lighting. Again, I know this is just one little scene(and in a supermarket no less which tends to have harsh lighting). Someone mentioned up there it could be zoomed in to 16:9 & maybe that’s it. Could be.
But why spunk the good stuff like seeing the OGs suited up, on something like this. I'd imagine that will be left for the final trailer, or possibly the full release.

There will be any number of reasons that they have felt the need to get this out, appealing to the kids and pushing merchandise off the back of it being the main ones that jump out, but if nothing else, it's something to get people talking again about the movie. I'd be surprised if we don't get more little surprises here and there around a new trailer before November.
Kingpin liked this
#4947866
I think they edited together this clip because of all the leaked marketing of the mini-pufts, but mostly because of the cereal and snacks coming out soon. The cereal is already released at a handful of Krogers, when does a normal box of cereal expire? Wasn't this stuff supposed to come out last year? I wonder if GM already had a butt load of cereal made and they HAVE to release it.
deadderek liked this
#4947869
lozbloke wrote: April 8th, 2021, 8:31 am What do we think the next creature "reveal" will be? Muncher or Terror Dogs, or something else?
I don't think we'll be seeing any more "reveals" outside of the next trailer. Also while I love what we have so far, I'm really hoping they're saving some ghosts for us to see. I hate how trailers and tv spots often ruin everything.
lozbloke, Kingpin, Corey91 liked this
#4947870
RichardLess wrote: April 8th, 2021, 7:33 am
robbritton wrote: April 8th, 2021, 5:16 am

As one of the resident old guys in the room, they spoiled everything in the original apart from the taxi ghost! Stay Puft and Slimer and the Terror Dogs and the Ecto and the costumes were all over the marketing in the run up to release. We had cereal in the UK with pictures of them all on before the film had come out, and picture books with every character detailed. I'm pretty sure the lobby cards had at least Stay Puft and Slimer on them! Didn't matter a jot in those lovely old days - we were just excited to see them in action.

This kind of feels comparable to showing Slimer early in the run up to the first two to me - it's a hook that younger viewers will find funny and cute. The cat was already going to be out of the bag with the cereal, so why not? (Plus it's a hook that stokes nostalgia in older viewers without having to rely on solely 1:1 nostalgia to make the sale. It's not a giant Stay Puft stomping down the street, at least. Also, just for once it isn't Slimer! that's got to be worth something. ) It's just a shame that the delay put Baby Yoda ahead of this, so it looks like it's playing catch up. And it's likely meant to have been out almost a year ago, so we're likely looking at less polished CG.

I'm babbling. It's the slouchy everyday bumping into the fantastical. It's Ghostbusters!
Well the UK got it well after it had been released in North America I think. Things weren’t as co-ordinated as they sometimes are now. You do not see the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man in the original trailer or TV spots. It was held back for general audiences in North America. I think you see him in the re-release trailer but obviously that not what we are talking about here.
Fair comment on the UK/US thing - now I google it the US stuff was a lot less spoilery. Apologies!
#4947871
SpaceBallz wrote: April 8th, 2021, 8:18 am I think they edited together this clip because of all the leaked marketing of the mini-pufts, but mostly because of the cereal and snacks coming out soon. The cereal is already released at a handful of Krogers, when does a normal box of cereal expire? Wasn't this stuff supposed to come out last year? I wonder if GM already had a butt load of cereal made and they HAVE to release it.
19 February 2022 for the boxes I have.
#4947873
Bison256 wrote:
SpaceBallz wrote: April 8th, 2021, 8:18 am I think they edited together this clip because of all the leaked marketing of the mini-pufts, but mostly because of the cereal and snacks coming out soon. The cereal is already released at a handful of Krogers, when does a normal box of cereal expire? Wasn't this stuff supposed to come out last year? I wonder if GM already had a butt load of cereal made and they HAVE to release it.
19 February 2022 for the boxes I have.
I think it's more likely that General Mills didn't get the memo that the movie was pushed back from June to November.
#4947874
RichardLess wrote: April 8th, 2021, 7:22 am Cinematography isn’t just about camera moves & angles. It’s mostly about lighting & that’s what what sticks out to me. The trailer that we saw had beautiful imagery and some nice lighting. Again, I know this is just one little scene(and in a supermarket no less which tends to have harsh lighting). Someone mentioned up there it could be zoomed in to 16:9 & maybe that’s it. Could be.
Hang with me through the post. This is constructive criticism mixed with a realization, not "OMG THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER." These are notes, not gripes.

That commercial vibe comes from a few things:

  • The composition of the shot over Rudd's shoulder as we see the freezer case from a straight-on view, filling the screen with product (much different than having two loose Coke cans)
  • The setdec... an entire freezer might not be monopolized by one brand, planogrammed and "faced out" in that manner AND have a Baskin Robbins poster on the side the next freezer case over in a real retail environment
    [EDIT: apparently freezer cases might get face-outs like this -- my expertise is with non-grocery retail environments, so it seemed unrealistic to me until hearing feedback from people possessing more specified knowledge]]
  • Having Rudd examine Baskin Robbins branded toppings (which might not even exist?)
  • Having the character comment out loud on the flavor instead of irreverently saying something like "look at all the junk food"
But here's the thing... maybe that commercial vibe is deliberate.

Perhaps the audio we hear in the clip is not what we'll hear in the theatrical release. Reitman enjoyed skewering products and institutions in "Thank You For Smoking." All it would take to subvert all this product placement would be a music cue.

Consider what happens if instead of hearing Elmer Bernstein we hear cheesy muzak playing on the intercom.

Check out what happens when you combine that video with the elevator music from Blues Brothers:
https://tubedubber.com/?q=X9eh37VDAG0:F ... :100:0:1:1
[if the link doesn't automatically start, hit the play button]

Syncs up strangely well, doesn't it? I doubt we'd hear something as old as Girl From Ipanema, but a twenty-year old song played in this fashion could fit perfectly (Britney Spears Toxic in muzak form would be fun and sardonic). Or maybe even a retro cover of a certain franchise-famous song...

Using a different musical cue totally changes the mood, sends up the visuals of the marketing, and makes the marshmallow carnage that much more subversive.
Last edited by groschopf on April 8th, 2021, 10:53 am, edited 5 times in total.
RedSpecial, Sav C liked this
#4947875
The setdec... an entire freezer probably wouldn't be monopolized by one brand, planogrammed and "faced out" in that manner in a real retail environment
That's not necessarily true. I spent years working for Walmart and that honestly doesn't look out of place. Having 2-3 freezers full like you see for one brand isn't entirely out of question. My local Meijer actually does have multiple freezers of ice cream setup just like that grouped by brand.

Also in the clip you don't get to see the contents of the freezer doors on the other sides, so it's safe to assume it would be other brands.
#4947878
groschopf wrote: April 8th, 2021, 10:12 am Granted, I don't planogram or render in-store displays for ice cream specifically... but it's been pretty rare for me that a store just lets one brand take over a section AND place posters on the adjoining section.
Next time I go grocery shopping I'll snap a pic of the ice cream section. Also like I said you don't see (as least in the clip we're shown) what is in the doors next to the Nestle products.

Now if it was more than 3 I might raise an eyebrow, but 3 really doesn't seem that out of place.
groschopf liked this
#4947880
timeware wrote: April 8th, 2021, 10:14 am Very good points, but I absolutly couldn't resist.
https://tubedubber.com/?q=X9eh37VDAG0:b ... :100:0:0:1
Now that you mention it... the actual music from an ice cream truck could be haunting.

https://tubedubber.com/?q=X9eh37VDAG0:C ... :100:0:2:1
[hit play if it doesn't auto load]
Last edited by groschopf on April 8th, 2021, 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
#4947882
I’ll chime in as someone who worked in the grocery business for longer than I’d care to remember...
Watching that scene nothing jumped out at me as wrong. It was not at all uncommon to have multiple doors for one brand. Dreyers ice cream alone had 3 year round. If anything was off, I’d say it’s the bars on the top shelf not being faced up to the front and the mixing of bars and tubs. Usually the bars/sandwiches were all in their own section and pints/half gallons in their own, but that’s really getting into the weeds of shelf schematics :lol: Also, if an item was on ad that week it was normal for it to have an entire section of the freezer dedicated to it. Along with signage and other items tied in all around it.
I know it’s all semantics but just thought I’d throw my two cents in as someone who used to do that regularly.
deadderek liked this
#4947884
RichardLess wrote: April 8th, 2021, 7:22 am I think seeing the original GBs would generate genuine excitement.
It would, but it's obvious Sony is saving that card, and I think that's the right move. Barring a future trailer's clips, I think saving the reveal for people who go to see the movie serves as a nice little reward/incentive.

Revealing the Mini-Pufts might not have the same impact, but it gives something for the younger potential audience to focus on, I'd be curious to know what the reaction is/would be in the family market.

As far as the lighting of the clip goes, it feels in keeping with my own experiences of shopping in a super-market, which if anything helps to make the appearance of the Mini-Pufts even more effectively surreal because they've popped up in the somewhat mundane locale of a big box mart.

Which I feel rather ties it into part of the flavour of the original: the supernatural interacting with the mundane.
#4947886
Alphagaia wrote: April 7th, 2021, 11:38 pm
mrmichaelt wrote: April 7th, 2021, 10:48 pm
Where did you read that?
O god. I don't remember! I'm not sure it isn't my mind just connecting dots that shouldn't be connected or if it was Dan, Ramis or Reitman who said that they were also toying with that idea, but kept coming back to Puft.

I *think* it was either the book about the making of, something from the Fanfestday a few years ago or from the dvd with the commentary.
At a guess, you may have conflated these two things:
1) a bit in the book Making Ghostbusters where they wanted to have an animated commercial for Stay-Puft, a la Poppin' Fresh, but felt it would be overkill.
2) a comedy website's April Fool's joke about Speedy Alka-Seltzer being the original choice, which included a graphic so well-made that many people re-shared it on social media without any reference to it being from an April 1st post.

I covered both topics in this 2019 video, along with Bibendum, Angelus Marshmallows, and Sta-Puf laundry rinse.



Alex
Alphagaia, mrmichaelt liked this
#4947891
I NEED the Christmas lights one...it will be my tree topper for years to come. It will be my number 1 Christmas boutique gift item.
Kingpin liked this
#4947897
Kingpin wrote: April 8th, 2021, 11:02 am
RichardLess wrote: April 8th, 2021, 7:22 am I think seeing the original GBs would generate genuine excitement.
It would, but it's obvious Sony is saving that card, and I think that's the right move. Barring a future trailer's clips, I think saving the reveal for people who go to see the movie serves as a nice little reward/incentive.

Revealing the Mini-Pufts might not have the same impact, but it gives something for the younger potential audience to focus on, I'd be curious to know what the reaction is/would be in the family market.

As far as the lighting of the clip goes, it feels in keeping with my own experiences of shopping in a super-market, which if anything helps to make the appearance of the Mini-Pufts even more effectively surreal because they've popped up in the somewhat mundane locale of a big box mart.

Which I feel rather ties it into part of the flavour of the original: the supernatural interacting with the mundane.
Look, they didn’t have to release anything. Someone asked me what they should’ve done. Release a new trailer. I don’t know. But not this.
Sony saving that card for people in the theatre would be about the dumbest Sonyiest thing they could do. We want people to see this movie. And judging by the responses I’ve seen, I don’t think they have achieved that with this clip. Again, optics is the issue. It seems like they are just trying to get that Baby Yoda vibe.

As for the lighting of the clip. Mundane doesn’t mean “realistic”. You can have a stylized version of mundane, a bland version, an oppressive version and everything in between. If you think it works? Awesome. My point was it doesn’t jive from what else I’ve seen from the movie & when someone brought up it might not be I thought “hmm. Maybe?”. Again, it might look “off” if it is actual footage because it’s been zoomed in.

Honestly the more I think about it the more i dislike the entire concept of “mini pufts”. Terror dogs, Muncher aka Slimer 2.0 & now this? Shandor & Gozer. Maybe they’ll accidentally do something original. Ghostbusters Video Game “Hey Remember Mr. Stay Puft??” Ghostbusters 2016 “Hey Remember Mr. Stay Puft??” Ghostbusters Afterlife “Hey Remember Mr. Staypuft??”

Suddenly Ghostbusters 2 doesn’t seem so unoriginal. At least they didn’t have Mr. Stay Puft. Poor bastards been beaten to death like the dead horse it is.
#4947898
droidguy1119 wrote: April 8th, 2021, 1:27 pm Not necessarily a huge deal, because this is all post-theatrical, post-VOD, post 4K/BD, but Sony has just signed an agreement to make Netflix a new home for their movies after everything is said and done. Previously, their agreement was with Starz.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmende ... explained/
Good.
#4947900
Do alot of y'all just like to hear yourselves complain? This message board is the 1% in terms of Ghostbusters fandom. My two friends who are part of our costume group aren't members here, but they still love Ghostbusters. The point is, this movie has the unfortunate task of having to do alot at once. By my count it has to make up for the short comings of the 2016 reboot, set-up the franchise to continue in the 21st century with a new group of core characters, and continue the legacy and story set by the original two. It's spinning alot of plates, so of course there will be plot points and design choices that play it safe.

It's a sequel to a franchise, playing it safe is a requirement. It really bums me out that so many see to be waiting to put every frame under a microscope. We still know almost nothing about the plot and have ZERO idea how what we have seen factors into the overall story. If you wanna start feeling let down by a movie that's shown a single trailer and a heavily edited scene that's fine. But maybe take a step back. It wasn't made for us alone.
Kingpin, deadderek, Corey91 and 1 others liked this
  • 1
  • 481
  • 482
  • 483
  • 484
  • 485
  • 492

Me also .. I have an outstanding order. The perso[…]

That was crap. I think either Janine married Ego[…]

The Support Thread

You're entitled to feel frustrated at your plans b[…]

Some men just want to watch the world burn Ha[…]