# Ghostbusters Reboot (its, like, mad confirmed)



## Furious George (Jan 28, 2015)

So, no topics on this.... here goes:

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/...ot-sets-all-female-cast-release-date-20150128

*- Its happening guys its happening. 

- Its going to have an all female cast 

- Its not a sequel, but a reboot.... cuz the one guy died and it'd be weird. 

- The director is Paul Feig who did Bridemaids. 

- Dan Aykryod is on board as one of the writers. 

- Melissa McCartney who is Fatty McBridesmaid is one of the Ghostbusters. 

- Kristen Wiig, Skinny McBridesmaid, is also one of the Ghostbusters. 

- Nooooo. *

---------- 

Honestly, I'm not too upset about this. 

On one hand, this will suck. 

On the other hand, the all-female cast is actually a really smart move. They knew they could never replicate the chemistry of the real Ghostbusters, whether they had all new male cast or even managed to get Murry and Aykroyd's geriatric asses off of their for the reboot.... so, why even try? 

With female leads, it will be easy for me to trick myself into believing that this is not Ghostbusters at all.... and Bridesmaids was a funny movie, so.... let's do this?


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jan 28, 2015)

Furious George said:


> So, no topics on this....





And I didn't find Bridesmaids all that funny...


----------



## Rukia (Jan 28, 2015)

I never even saw Bridesmaids.  And I won't see this either.  McCarthy is a no-go for me.


----------



## Furious George (Jan 28, 2015)

Eh, not my fault, I google searched it.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jan 28, 2015)

And why couldn't they replicate the chemistry of the old Ghostbusters?

Chemistry today just isn't what it used to be?


----------



## asdfa (Jan 28, 2015)

I'll post here too.

Fuck this. Fuck this to hell


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 28, 2015)

McCarthy so let me guess 2 hours of her acting like a hard ass with every other word out her mouth is stupid or Fuck


----------



## asdfa (Jan 28, 2015)

That's the worst thing. I can literally already imagine the entire movie in my head, and it's probably 80% accurate


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 28, 2015)

But is anyone surprised that the male fanbase of an 80s franchise isn't totally onboard with a contemporary reboot starring an all female cast that doesn't even have the audacity to sex it up? I mean, I saw some guys from that quadrant feigning interest and suggesting their era's cultural playboy (Gillian Anderson from x-files, various dr. who ladies) or contemporary actresses they've masturbated to that are sort of nerd catnip (anna kendrick), but that's sort of the investment level this quadrant of the internet was always working with. All according to keikaku.

That said, I am also disappointed the cast isn't made up of 20/30 somethings I've been masturbating to. But I also have questionable comedy taste, because I like McCarthy a lot. I even liked Tammy. I'm also a fan of Adam Sandler. Hardcore comedy fans spray people like me with Raid cans.

Lowest common denominator 4 life, bitches.

/possibly a line shouted by McCarthy in the ghostbusters remake right before she stumbles into something


----------



## asdfa (Jan 28, 2015)

Somebody seriously pulled the "it's all because they are women" card?


----------



## Stunna (Jan 28, 2015)

I'm not hot on rebooting Ghostbusters; the original was perfect and no attempt will ever be on par. However, the all-female angle interested me, so I've held an open mind...however, the confirmed cast doesn't inspire confidence, so morale has taken a dip.


----------



## Succubus (Jan 29, 2015)




----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jan 30, 2015)

Speaking of reboots, Indiana Jones is getting one.


----------



## asdfa (Jan 30, 2015)

After _*this*_, it doesn't matter anymore


----------



## kire (Jan 30, 2015)

~Gesy~ said:


> Speaking of reboots, Indiana Jones is getting one.



Goddamit, what in the fucking hell!!  Reboots are everywhere!!
What did they run out of ideas and books that they have to remake things that DONT NEED TO FUCKING BE REMADE because they were great the first time!

I'M watching the Ghostbusters now..

"Its right here Ray.  It's looking at me."


----------



## Harbour (Jan 31, 2015)

Piece of horrible shit. Wont see it.


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jan 31, 2015)

I really don't see a female Ghostbusters working out. I'm surprised that the director is actually straight, with all the female comedies he directed.


----------



## Stunna (Feb 1, 2015)

**


----------



## Palm Siberia (Feb 3, 2015)

Stunna said:


> **



 

[youtube]0248pUAteWk[/youtube]


----------



## tari101190 (Feb 3, 2015)

I don't mind a mostly/all female cast, but I don't like any of the four chosen. And I don't like the extreme comedy route.

It's a science fiction thing that doesn't take itself too seriously and is comedic. But this is taking it too far. I don't want an extended improv comedy sketch.

And these guys are really funny mostly when doing improv or their own material. In a scripted film their talents are wasted. So what is the point? Just get good actors and make the script funny.

Hopefully these guys are good actors, and not just good comedians.

Sony really do seem like a desperate mess right now.


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (Feb 3, 2015)

^ The problem reboots and most unnecessary sequels have, the people working on it simply don't understand what made the originals good.


----------



## Federer (Feb 3, 2015)

Can someone name a great comedy with a female lead?

Can't think of any atm.


----------



## Stunna (Feb 3, 2015)

Mean   Girls


----------



## Federer (Feb 3, 2015)

Mwah...Mean Girls was pretty good. 

Haven't watched it in ages though, might better rewatch it and see whether it was great or not.


----------



## tari101190 (Feb 3, 2015)

Federer said:


> Can someone name a great comedy with a female lead?
> 
> Can't think of any atm.


Bridesmaids, Mean Girls, Pitch Perfect, Heathers, Bend it Like Beckham, Clueless. I dunno. They exist go look them up, jeez.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 11, 2015)

Chris Hemsworth is the new receptionist


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jun 11, 2015)

ayyyy


----------



## Stunna (Jun 11, 2015)

right? just the visual of that is a nice gag


----------



## tari101190 (Jul 10, 2015)




----------



## tari101190 (Jul 10, 2015)




----------



## Stunna (Jul 10, 2015)

who you gon' call


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 10, 2015)

I'm not so sold those on the left but I'm completely sold to those on the right.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 10, 2015)

I thought McCarthy was fine in Spy, so I'm more hopeful about her turnout in this movie


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 10, 2015)

1 movie out of how many though, Stunna.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 10, 2015)

that was 1 movie out of maybe 3 I've seen her in; plus it was her latest role

that's enough to show potential


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 10, 2015)

Doesn't matter she's there to do what she always done-- try to be funny.



tari101190 said:


>



loooooooooool


----------



## Stunna (Jul 10, 2015)

...yes? comic actors tend to do that

she more or less succeeded at that in Spy

hence my post


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 10, 2015)

I was referring to huey


----------



## Lucaniel (Jul 10, 2015)

i also liked mccarthy in spy

but she had a great script


----------



## TetraVaal (Jul 12, 2015)

tari101190 said:


>



Left no stereotype unturned.

This movie is going to be an immense piece of shit.


----------



## Aeternus (Jul 12, 2015)

The fact that McCurthy is in it, doesn't really make me want to see it really. Not a big fan of hers in movies. Haven't seen Spy though yet.


----------



## Atlas (Jul 12, 2015)

Ughh, disgusting.


----------



## Robin (Jul 15, 2015)

wait, its set in the 80's? why... 



Federer said:


> Can someone name a great comedy with a female lead?
> 
> Can't think of any atm.



I liked Heat.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 15, 2015)

since when is it set in the 80's?


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 15, 2015)

if it's not set in that period, then their choice in style is quite outdated.


----------



## Robin (Jul 15, 2015)

dunno, the car? it's lame


----------



## Stunna (Jul 15, 2015)

can't say I've gotten that impression, but


----------



## Stunna (Jul 15, 2015)

because of the _car?_

lol


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Aug 2, 2015)




----------



## Huey Freeman (Aug 2, 2015)

They are doing snother ghostbusters reboot, with a multi gender cast and then they are going to team up with this team in another movie. ghostbusters multiverse !


----------



## Aeternus (Aug 3, 2015)

Nico Robin said:


> I liked Heat.



Heat was actually rather meh. Had its moments but other than that, it wasn't that good. 
Does Miss Congeniality count? The first one was good.


----------



## tari101190 (Aug 3, 2015)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


>


I bet all thought they were posing with the janitors. Would they even know who they are?


----------



## BlazingInferno (Aug 3, 2015)

I just can't approve this movie


----------



## tari101190 (Aug 17, 2015)




----------



## tari101190 (Dec 16, 2015)




----------



## ~Gesy~ (Dec 16, 2015)




----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 16, 2015)

tari101190 said:


>












​


----------



## Seraphiel (Dec 16, 2015)

not one but two fats TWO

will they ever be stopped?


----------



## Atlas (Dec 16, 2015)




----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 16, 2015)

This is a parody film right?


----------



## Harbour (Dec 16, 2015)

Do they really think housewifes will go to watch that shit in the theaters? Cause i see no other focus audience besides them.


----------



## Detective (Dec 16, 2015)

The only hilarious thing about this weird reboot is Thor being their secretary.


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 16, 2015)

You're all going to hell.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 16, 2015)

I don't know how to describe it...It just gives the impression of a childish "take that MEN!" vibe, you know what I mean?


----------



## RAGING BONER (Dec 16, 2015)

man, this shit doesnt even warrant the bumps you guys are giving it


----------



## Detective (Dec 16, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I don't know how to describe it...It just gives the impression of a childish "take that MEN!" vibe, you know what I mean?



Exactly. If this was done with any purpose other than making a feminist type film for feminists, and especially taking a shit on a storied franchise while at it, it would have no issues from me and others.

But we all know why this is being made this way.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Dec 16, 2015)

Even if they didn't reverse the genders..the chances of a Ghostbusters film having a successful reboot in this era was always slim.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 16, 2015)

aww jesus christ


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 16, 2015)

This might be a successful reboot.

I mean, it's a gimmick, but that's what gets these things greenlit sometimes. Maybe it comes down to an executive that doesn't get excited until somebody says james bond is black now, or the ghostbusters are all women now, and that's what finally gets the gears turning. And if you have to deal with the hollywood system, as long as the ingredients are good, whatever gimmick slicked the wheels isn't so important. There are plenty of substantial black actors to jump into bond even if the idea is a gimmick, and there are plenty of funny women to jump into this even if the female cast is a gimmick, and then the product is solid and it's just a matter of whether you can let go of the behind the scenes insight into how hollywood is run.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 16, 2015)

Post your face when "Ghosts" is a subtle metaphor for "The Old Fashioned Patriarchy"


----------



## Jake CENA (Dec 16, 2015)

Is this some kind of troll?


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 18, 2015)




----------



## Shiba D. Inu (Dec 24, 2015)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 24, 2015)

This is going to be terrible.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 24, 2015)

Weiss said:


>


Just terrible.


----------



## NostalgiaFan (Dec 24, 2015)

That kid looks like he is annoyed and wants them to go away and leave him be. Would not blame him, if I was stuck in the same room with Melissa McCarthy, I would be hoping she would leave.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Dec 24, 2015)

It's possible that the kid knows nothing about Ghostbusters.

Since you know..he looks to be around 6 years old..


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 24, 2015)

> That kid looks like he is annoyed and wants them to go away and leave him be. Would not blame him, if I was stuck in the same room with Melissa McCarthy, I would be hoping she would leave.



I think it's because he's sick in the hospital or something.


----------



## NostalgiaFan (Dec 24, 2015)

reiatsuflow said:


> I think it's because he's sick in the hospital or something.


Considering who he is next to, now we know why.


----------



## Atlas (Dec 25, 2015)

Contact cancer.


----------



## Violence (Dec 27, 2015)

So much reboots for the next year...


----------



## Nemesis (Dec 27, 2015)

NostalgiaFan said:


> Considering who he is next to, now we know why.



More like he was hoping for She-ra (We are allowed to admit Ghostbusters 2 exists and isn't as bad as people make it out to be right?)

Honestly I generally don't get the hate with it being an all female cast though, is there something inherently wrong with women having a ghostbusters roll?  This film could be good or bad with it being all female, all male, mix of both *shrug*


----------



## Gunners (Dec 27, 2015)

I think the issue is that it comes across as forced. I mean, Thor is the secretary. Film could be good but I think people have been around the block enough times to realise where this going.


----------



## Atlas (Dec 27, 2015)

Gunners said:


> I think the issue is that it comes across as forced. I mean, Thor is the secretary. Film could be good but I think people have been around the block enough times to realise where this going.



Also, McCarthy.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 27, 2015)

Melissa McCarthey can't give other people cancer, because that implies she'd lose weight



Because she's cancer. That's the joke


----------



## Mider T (Dec 28, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Melissa McCarthey can't give other people cancer, because that implies she'd lose weight
> 
> 
> 
> Because she's cancer. That's the joke


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 28, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> More like he was hoping for She-ra (We are allowed to admit Ghostbusters 2 exists and isn't as bad as people make it out to be right?)
> 
> Honestly I generally don't get the hate with it being an all female cast though, is there something inherently wrong with women having a ghostbusters roll?  This film could be good or bad with it being all female, all male, mix of both *shrug*



Sorry, but I find this observation to be completely lazy. Have you at all been paying attention to what people were saying? First and foremost, no one really desires a reboot, period. They do not have a great track record. Second, it's the way the film is being pushed the emphasis of that it is a female cast than a good one that makes people realize where this is going.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 28, 2015)

Ghostbusters II isn't as bad as people say it is as long as you don't mind when sequels completely ape their predecessors' stories, but with weaker material (which, judging by the acclaim of TFA, a lot of people don't.)

The promotion of this movie having female Ghostbusters is transparent, but I still personally couldn't care less. I object more to a remake existing in general 100x more than whoever they cast or the politics behind it.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 29, 2015)

> *The GHOSTBUSTERS Are Ready For Action In New Image; First Details On The Movie's Villains*
> 
> A trailer for Paul Feig's Ghostbusters reboot can't be too far away, but in the meantime here's a brand new image from the movie featuring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones marching into battle as our new team of phantom-wranglers. EW also have details on the specific type of spooks the gals will be taking on.
> 
> _"Dead criminals from all eras of New York’s under☻belly past have returned to roost among the living in Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters reboot,"_ claims the site. _"Pilgrims, old-☻timey sailors, Revolutionary War spirits, and even a couple of zoot☻-suited gangsters are ready to take on four formidable female busters looking to rid the city of its phantasmic filth." _


----------



## kluang (Dec 29, 2015)

No Zuul friend Zuul?


----------



## tari101190 (Jan 8, 2016)

> Kristen Wiig plays Erin Gilbert, a particle physicist, academic firebrand, spectral warrior.
> 
> Melissa McCarthy is Abby Yates, a paranormal researcher, supernatural scientist, and entity trapper.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 8, 2016)

They look pretty cool.


----------



## Mael (Jan 8, 2016)

They look like they came from the 80s.

Seriously, this looks awful every which way.


----------



## Atlas (Jan 8, 2016)

Those toys look like they came from an old Burger King ad.


----------



## D4nc3Style (Jan 9, 2016)

tari101190 said:


>




How about no....


----------



## Stunna (Jan 9, 2016)

to be fair, people are complaining about them looking like schlubs

but is that not the point


----------



## tari101190 (Feb 3, 2016)




----------



## The Soldier (Feb 4, 2016)

D4nc3Style said:


> How about no....



Who are you gonna call ?


Someone else


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> They look like they came from the 80s.



Which is kind of the point, I think.


----------



## tari101190 (Feb 14, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]jBxhNktUCLc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## RAGING BONER (Feb 14, 2016)

did you just post the trailer for the trailer?


truly tarrible


----------



## Rukia (Feb 14, 2016)

I'm out  .


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Feb 14, 2016)

Why were you in?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Feb 14, 2016)

Rukia always goes in deep and then pulls out at the last second


----------



## Rukia (Feb 14, 2016)

Rukia said:


> I never even saw Bridesmaids.  And I won't see this either.  McCarthy is a no-go for me.


Page 1.  Over a year ago.  It is just a good idea to occasionally remind people where you stand.


----------



## BlazingInferno (Feb 14, 2016)

Oh yeah, this exists...


----------



## tari101190 (Feb 15, 2016)




----------



## Stunna (Feb 15, 2016)

Thanks for sharing, Tari.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Feb 15, 2016)

This is going to suck major dicks....


----------



## Mider T (Feb 15, 2016)

Rukia has to constantly remind himself he's scum for being so attracted to Melissa McCarthy's fat ass.:ho


----------



## Atlas (Feb 15, 2016)

"Girl Power"


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Feb 15, 2016)

Atlas said:


> "Girl Power"



I cringed so hard..

I wish there was an ignore list for threads


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Feb 15, 2016)




----------



## The Soldier (Feb 15, 2016)

lmao


----------



## Rukia (Feb 15, 2016)

I think the black member of the Ghostbusters should disappear halfway through the movie.  That would be a nice way to pay tribute to Ernie Hudson.


----------



## The Soldier (Feb 16, 2016)

I love how people on facebook are calling this crapfest Orange is the new black halloween special


----------



## The Soldier (Feb 21, 2016)

took some digging around on my phone, finally found it


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Mar 3, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]w3ugHP-yZXw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## RAGING BONER (Mar 3, 2016)

i feel bad for giving that clip an extra view


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 3, 2016)

Reminds me of Bay's TMNT films..


----------



## GRIMMM (Mar 3, 2016)

The comments on YouTube are my favourite thing about that trailer.


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 3, 2016)

Looks like the response has been overwhelmingly negative. Ironically, the same people would bitch about a straight remake with the same characters.


----------



## Atlas (Mar 3, 2016)

Kill it with fire.


----------



## Matariki (Mar 3, 2016)

that trailer gave me cancer


----------



## Huey Freeman (Mar 3, 2016)

This is one time I wish Hollywood didn't need to enact affirmative action


----------



## Rukia (Mar 3, 2016)

I didn't like the trailer.  I don't know how fair that opinion is though since I definitely want the movie to flop.


----------



## Disquiet (Mar 3, 2016)

Looks alright.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Mar 3, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]U9NdSGka9EM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Jake CENA (Mar 4, 2016)

Whoever green lit this shit is insane


----------



## Zaru (Mar 4, 2016)

RAGING BONER said:


> i feel bad for giving that clip an extra view



You can still contribute to the 2:1 dislike:like ratio


----------



## The Soldier (Mar 4, 2016)

I hope everyone in this piece of crap film gets typecasted


----------



## Jake CENA (Mar 4, 2016)

"neon colored fucking ghosts"  loljoe


----------



## Zeta42 (Mar 4, 2016)

Looks funny as shit, will watch.


----------



## Matariki (Mar 4, 2016)

> At least they've got some testosterone in there with that black man.



lol


----------



## BlazingInferno (Mar 4, 2016)

I look forward to another Feig rant


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 4, 2016)

I've never seen a major studio release with so many thumbs down on youtube.

I think Wiig is one of the funniest comedic performers out there, and I like McCarthy too. Spy was fun, The Heat was fun, and Tammy was no worse than some of the stinkers both Aykroyd and Murray were in during their heyday. I like most of the cast.

But that was not... That didn't look good. Ay ay ay.


----------



## Zaru (Mar 4, 2016)

I don't have any particular attachment to Ghostbusters, since I don't remember even watching the movie and only saw a couple of episodes from the cartoon back in the day, but... that was just NOT good. Not even a remote hint of a smile while watching the trailer.


----------



## Banhammer (Mar 4, 2016)

"AH AM A FUNNY INDEPENDENT WOMAN WHO DON'T NEED NO CHRIS TUCKER TO SEE HER THROUGH!"


----------



## Banhammer (Mar 4, 2016)

The trailer seems to miss the point of the "mundanity of the amazing" in order to build in a "you're so special" narrative


Target audiences I guess


----------



## Gunners (Mar 4, 2016)

I laughed when I saw the Balck woman being her knowledge of New York to the table. I knew where things would go and chuckled.

It's funny, more often than not,  I would shrug it off but the film has placed itself on a pedestal for being progressive. To that end, I can help but view it as supporting claims that feminism is more concerned with the elevation of middle class white women.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 4, 2016)




----------



## RAGING BONER (Mar 4, 2016)

Zaru said:


> I don't have any particular attachment to Ghostbusters, since I don't remember even watching the movie and only saw a couple of episodes from the cartoon back in the day, but... that was just NOT good. Not even a remote hint of a smile while watching the trailer.



i mean, i _guess_ if the green stuff were white it _may_ have elicited a bit of a meta chuckle...

but nope


----------



## ghstwrld (Mar 4, 2016)

winston had a phd in the 80s, mind


----------



## Lance (Mar 4, 2016)

Fuck this film and everyone associated with it.


----------



## kire (Mar 4, 2016)

I was so against this film..but, what the hell..I'll watch it.  Doubt I'll like it, but oh well.  I hate most movies these days anyways.


----------



## The Soldier (Mar 4, 2016)

you couldn't pay me to watch this crap fest


----------



## Rukia (Mar 4, 2016)

I agree Soldier.  I'm already rich, money won't work on me!


----------



## Jon Moxley (Mar 4, 2016)

ANYONE WHO LIKED THAT PIECE OF SHIT OFFENSIVE TRAILER OUGHT TO BE SLAPPED ! 

NOT JUST THEM BUT THEIR MOMMAS , THEIR DADDIES, THEIR PETS , THEIR VERY SOULS OUTTA BE SLAPPED!


----------



## Jake CENA (Mar 5, 2016)

These corporate nutjobs should burn in hell. This is not the way to make a movie. Fuck your opinion about the demographic you guys know shit.


----------



## Furious George (Mar 5, 2016)

Not a single laugh in that trailer... And I fucking looked.


----------



## LordPerucho (Mar 5, 2016)

reiatsuflow said:


> *I've never seen a major studio release with so many thumbs down on youtube.*
> 
> I think Wiig is one of the funniest comedic performers out there, and I like McCarthy too. Spy was fun, The Heat was fun, and Tammy was no worse than some of the stinkers both Aykroyd and Murray were in during their heyday. I like most of the cast.
> 
> But that was not... That didn't look good. Ay ay ay.



Dragon Ball Evolution?


----------



## BlazingInferno (Mar 5, 2016)

This movie looks sooooooo turrible. Thankfully this thread lacks users accusing you of being sexist for not liking this movie. The movie looks turrible because of how it's executed, not because the team is all female. This fucking world today man...


----------



## kluang (Mar 5, 2016)

Freaking watch and listen Ray Parker ghostbusters video while lying to myself what I just watch is a bad parody


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 5, 2016)

That trailer was terrible, what I saw didn't impress. 

Apparently this makes me a sexist, patriarchal shitlord now.

Yet if I liked it I would be a racist?

So confusing, and exactly why this movie is set up for failure. Not only is it yet another tired remake/reboot of a beloved series no one wanted, it tried to needlessly tack on some social justice message to score brownie points and in doing so only drew in..._those people_...whom are not going to spend a dime on the movie, and have only just alienated everyone else.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Mar 5, 2016)

An all female cast is fine but it really looks bad, sadly this has already lead to comments of people being sexist for not liking it. 

On the plus side? some comments are hilarious


> If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now..





> It's not all women, there's that black one, that's a man right?





> I can't wait for the Charlie's angels reboot with all black males.





> We came, we saw it, we clicked dislike !!!



This last one though:


> Even know this movie is going to be shitty as all hell, everyone hating is going to see it anyways and they will still make bank



Plz, don't happen.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't see this making bank due to  backlash and also because there are some big films coming out in July.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Mar 5, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> I don't see this making bank due to  backlash and also because there are some big films coming out in July.



Backlash generates buzz, people will see it just to hate binge it. People don't understand or care, that by bashing something yet reading/watching it legally means giving money regardless. Entertainment industry courts controversy as well.

The Prequels of Star Wars still made money for example despite the hate they get. Not saying it necessarily will, just don't have faith in the public to let this bomb. Plus trying to blackmail the public by saying they are misogynists and racist for not watching this may happen.

This movie deserves to bomb, I hope it does. Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon had a diverse cast and that was better than this crappy movie will ever be.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 5, 2016)

I doubt it'll be good, but I'm probably gonna see it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 5, 2016)

Traitor...


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 5, 2016)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Backlash generates buzz, people will see it just to hate binge it. People don't understand or care, that by bashing something yet reading/watching it legally means giving money regardless. Entertainment industry courts controversy as well.
> 
> The Prequels of Star Wars still made money for example despite the hate they get. Not saying it necessarily will, just don't have faith in the public to let this bomb. Plus trying to blackmail the public by saying they are misogynists and racist for not watching this may happen.
> 
> This movie deserves to bomb, I hope it does. Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon had a diverse cast and that was better than this crappy movie will ever be.



lol this is no Star Wars buddy, I dont think this film has a fanbase remotely like that. This isn't banking on the typical Blockbuster tropes either.


I'm predicting 150-250 mil


----------



## Stunna (Mar 5, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Traitor...


The way I see it, whether it makes its money back or not, it won't be because of me.  I'm curious about just how big of a train wreck it'll be.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 5, 2016)

Stunna said:


> I doubt it'll be good, but I'm probably gonna see it.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 5, 2016)

Gesy             pls


----------



## Pocalypse (Mar 5, 2016)

Gesy they spent $154 million on this piece of crap, I don't believe it 

Shouldn't be surprised the writer of this film, Katie Dippold, is a feminist. 


> Is Dippold a feminist?
> 
> "Yeah. I guess I can't imagine not being a feminist. I just believe everyone's equal. I think women are strong and should be able to achieve everything they want. If that's labelled feminism? isn't it just the norm?"



http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/21/katie-dippold-the-heat-comedy-interview


----------



## Stunna (Mar 5, 2016)

I mean, no shit?

not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 5, 2016)

They tend to have a warped idea on what constitutes as 'equality'.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 5, 2016)

well, not like there's anything _inherently_ wrong with being a feminist

I'm giving Dippold the benefit of the doubt


----------



## Raidoton (Mar 5, 2016)

If he goes by the definition that feminism simply means equal rights for women, then I see no problem.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 5, 2016)

Nothing's wrong with Feminism, it's the methods some use to raise awareness that gives them a bad rep.

Basically what Seto said


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 6, 2016)

Gotta say something about the new cast.  I understand that the new black lady is supposed to be their version of Winston, but Winston never talked about "DA STREETZ" in that over the top way. Winston was pretty chill. That's why Winston was funny. He was the "straight man" to foil all the weirdo academics around him.


----------



## The Soldier (Mar 6, 2016)

Pocalypse said:


> Gesy they spent $154 million on this piece of crap, I don't believe it
> 
> Shouldn't be surprised the writer of this film, Katie Dippold, is a feminist.
> 
> ...



does anyone know Dipploids mailing address, I wanna send her a bag of dicks


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 6, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> I don't see this making bank due to  backlash and also because there are some big films coming out in July.



Sorry but no, if "Jack and Jill" (Adam Sandler trash) was a huge box office success with $40,000,000 in its opening weekend alone, despite producing a trailer that was so bad that many thought it was a hoax, then "Ghostbusters" will do fine. The only question is how good the marketing campaign is and how well they can keep it up. 

To be honest though, I think people are prematurely judging a bit too much. I didn't like the trailer, but I've seen good trailers for bad movies and bad trailers for good movies. It's the first one, children.

Edit: To be honest, I'm not expecting a train wreck. My biggest concern is that it's a safe, mediocre actioner.


----------



## Freechoice (Mar 6, 2016)

Good lord this shit looks so bad

The only thought I had at the end of the trailer was
_
Why?_


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 6, 2016)

MartialHorror said:


> Sorry but no, if "Jack and Jill" (Adam Sandler trash) was a huge box office success with $40,000,000 in its opening weekend alone, despite producing a trailer that was so bad that many thought it was a hoax, then "Ghostbusters" will do fine. The only question is how good the marketing campaign is and how well they can keep it up.



Jack and Jill left the box office with only 149 mil. this film has a higher budget. Gotta give a better example than that.

I will applaud this film if it makes over 200 million despite the negative feedback _and_ having to be released around the same time of  "Secret Life of Pets", "Star Trek" "Ice Age", "Jason Bourne" and "Suicide Squad".


----------



## Huey Freeman (Mar 6, 2016)

Watch this movie be the JW of 2016. Just you watch


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 6, 2016)

> "When I was growing up, one of my pet peeves was that women often felt like the fun thing would be doing what the guys were doing? I never liked that. I remember being out with my group of female friends and I was like, 'Why don't we do our fun thing and people can come to us?'"



So get a movie franchise made by guys with guys, and have women do it?



> I'm giving Dippold the benefit of the doubt



But, yeah. I'm just being a dick. She sounds fine. And she worked on Parks and Rec and The Heat, which were both good times for me when I watched them. 

Nobody here is the antichrist. I like most of the actors in the movie, and nobody seems to be pushing this as an agenda. It just seems like the same sort of hipster reframing studios like to do to reenergize old franchises. It's from the same grab bag where they make the lead character younger, or ethnic, or cast a new actor in the same role, or whatever.

I saw the cast picture everybody did with a bunch of kids and a sign that says Girl Power, but come on.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 6, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> Jack and Jill left the box office with only 149 mil. this film has a higher budget. Gotta give a better example than that.
> 
> I will applaud this film if it makes over 200 million despite the negative feedback _and_ having to be released around the same time of  "Secret Life of Pets", "Star Trek" "Ice Age", "Jason Bourne" and "Suicide Squad".



Yeah but Jack and Jill was a much smaller scale movie with nowhere near the marketing budget. Sometimes things catch fire for absolutely no reason.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 7, 2016)




----------



## Stunna (Mar 7, 2016)

Whose quote is that?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 7, 2016)

Tell me if you think it's real or fake.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 7, 2016)

Please be real


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Mar 7, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Tell me if you think it's real or fake.



I want to believe fake or parody or trolling but I know better.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 7, 2016)

> It’s now clear to me that the new, no-penis-having Ghostbusters is here to redress the gender crimes of the originals. The old ones will be forgotten, and the new one will take its place in our cultural memory. Think of it as gender reparations. That’s what I call social justice.
> 
> Read more:



ayyyyyyy


----------



## Stunna (Mar 7, 2016)

I strongly suspect that's an ironic piece.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 7, 2016)

I think so as well, it's just too perfect.

Seems like a lot of unnecessary effort though


----------



## The Soldier (Mar 8, 2016)

too bad there isn't a button we can push to make this train wreck vanish


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 8, 2016)

Stunna said:


> I strongly suspect that's an ironic piece.



For when the movie crashes and burns for doing the exact same things in reverse, or as a subtle mockery of the film itself?

Frankly, I don't care about the Ghostbusters reboot, and I only ever watched the first one in the days of ye old VHS.

But with all due respect, making a new Ghostbusters with the intent of "smashing" a perceived patriarchy is not a good foundation on which to build a reboot franchise.  You're just hopping from one extreme to the other one *without any consideration of balance.* 
'
Moreover, it is completely misplaced.  Extreme Ghostbusters and the IDW comics *both had female members of the Ghostbusters.*  Translation: the franchise has grown to include female Ghostbusters naturally over its long history.  

So that "patriarchy" doesn't actually exist.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 8, 2016)

> Please be real



Somebody has to get on this.

It's a guy, for one. A guy called Jim. And his twitter has pictures of a trollish looking Trump everywhere. And he has 34,000 followers. Somebody must know if it's a gag. I'm almost positive it is. The handle on twitter is @jtLOL, which doesn't sound super serious,


----------



## Raidoton (Mar 9, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]Z6jiDdRqeI0[/YOUTUBE]

A few more bad jokes.


----------



## Zeta42 (Mar 9, 2016)

The dude better be gay and/or a transwoman, or else the movie isn't progressive enough.


----------



## James Bond (Mar 9, 2016)

This looks better than Civil War.


----------



## Raidoton (Mar 9, 2016)

James Bond said:


> This looks better than Civil War.


I predict 6 Oscars!


----------



## The Soldier (Mar 9, 2016)

Raidoton said:


> I predict 6 Oscars!



more like 6 raspberries


----------



## The Runner (Mar 9, 2016)

Or, realistically, it's going to win nothing and shall be remembered like how a fart in an elevator full of people is remembered.


----------



## James Bond (Mar 9, 2016)

Sir Jogga said:


> Or, realistically, it's going to win nothing and shall be remembered like how a fart in an elevator full of people is remembered.



Depending on the fart it could be a pretty memorable moment.


----------



## Banhammer (Mar 9, 2016)

I think a fart in an elevator has a much higher possibility to produce something funny


----------



## Banhammer (Mar 9, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0[/YOUTUBE]


Fans fix the ghostbusters trailer


----------



## Jessica (Mar 9, 2016)

The trailer was so bad. Like, *SO BAD.* I wanted to at least smile, but I didn't even do that.


----------



## The Soldier (Mar 10, 2016)

heres the theme song for this crapfest

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHVL82RBG6w[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Raidoton (Mar 13, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]QFcNhrNf6hQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 27, 2016)

Why did they make them female again?

To make it so they you can't say it looks terrible without looking sexist or something?

The whole movie trailer looks like an SNL skit if the GB were women....not even a good skit like one of those skits you're kind of waiting o be over.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 1, 2016)




----------



## Atlas (Apr 1, 2016)

"A message from Anita"


----------



## Zaru (Apr 1, 2016)

5 days to go and her kickstarter isn't close to reaching its goal.

Inb4 "death threats" of some sort


----------



## Gunners (Apr 1, 2016)

Zaru said:


> 5 days to go and her kickstarter isn't close to reaching its goal.
> 
> Inb4 "death threats" of some sort



She'll reach the target easily. Some people with deep pockets will throw their support on the last day.

That being said, I do think it is a sign that her actual popularity is dying out.


----------



## Stringer (Apr 1, 2016)

the amount of money she raises to make those cheap asf videos is just baffling 

the nerves on that woman, she's cancer


----------



## The Soldier (Apr 3, 2016)

states he tries to not screw up, sadly he did it was called ghostbuster or more like feministbusters


----------



## Robin (Apr 3, 2016)

They managed to make a black woman unfunny? that's a genius of its own kind.


----------



## The Soldier (Apr 4, 2016)

why don't they call it by it's original title, Orange is the new Black Halloween Special


----------



## reiatsuflow (Apr 4, 2016)

> why don't they call it by it's original title, Orange is the new Black Halloween Special



Hey now. Orange is good television. 

...Okay, so every time a new male character comes onto the show you can practically flip a coin about whether he's going to be a rapist or not, but we should still be pleasantly surprised if anything in this movie is as quality as orange.

Unless you're suggesting these four characters are obviously jumpsuited prisoners who escaped their women's prison after being arrested for cutting off their husbands' penises, grew obsessed with ghostbusters during their years long lockup because the prison kept replaying the movie on Monday Movie Nights, stopped taking their pills, began to think they were ghostbusters themselves, broke out after murdering their block guard (and cutting off his penis, which they turned into a finger puppet named Jambo) and are now trying to act out their fantasies, and that's why they all look like they're wearing prisoner jumpsuits... Hmm.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Apr 4, 2016)

I would watch your version as a dark comedy for sure.


----------



## Rukia (Apr 4, 2016)

It is extremely unlikely.  But I am now rooting for this to make more money than BvS.


----------



## Jessica (Apr 7, 2016)

The Soldier said:


> why don't they call it by it's original title, Orange is the new Black Halloween Special



You take that back! Orange is the New Black is actually funny.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 7, 2016)

Gunners said:


> She'll reach the target easily. Some people with deep pockets will throw their support on the last day.
> 
> That being said, I do think it is a sign that her actual popularity is dying out.



Look at that, 6 hours to go and it reached exactly 200k dollars


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Apr 7, 2016)

Oh lord


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Apr 17, 2016)

Is this film a complete reboot or a sequel? I was hoping that it would be a reboot, but the trailer seemed to imply that it is a sequel, which makes less sense, to me.

Also, given that there are rumors of both Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd making brief cameo appearances in this film, would it not be awesome if Harold Ramis appeared as a ghost in it, as well?


----------



## Stunna (Apr 17, 2016)

what indicated that this was a sequel? I felt it clearly looks like a reboot


----------



## Raidoton (Apr 17, 2016)

Stunna said:


> what indicated that this was a sequel? I felt it clearly looks like a reboot


The beginning of the Trailer. "30 years ago. Four scientists saved New York. This summer. A new team will answer the call".


----------



## Rukia (Apr 17, 2016)

I think they were just breaking the 4th wall with that comment.


----------



## Raidoton (Apr 17, 2016)

Could be. But I saw a lot of people getting confused by it. And I guess the rumored cameo of Bill Murray also makes people believe this is a sequel.


----------



## Lucaniel (Apr 17, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]0tdyU_gW6WE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Stunna (Apr 17, 2016)

Get it, Lando


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Apr 17, 2016)

Raidoton said:


> The beginning of the Trailer. "30 years ago. Four scientists saved New York. This summer. A new team will answer the call".



I thought so...

But, I didn't want to go through rewatching the trailer.


----------



## Lance (Apr 17, 2016)

Its confusing. Its apparently not a follow up. 

It will replace the film and time-line(I suppose).....


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 17, 2016)

it's a reboot


----------



## Stunna (Apr 17, 2016)

yeah, the intro was obviously fourth wall breaking; nothing after that remotely indicated that there were Ghostbusters who'd saved the world a couple times before in the 80's.


----------



## MartialHorror (Apr 17, 2016)

At first, I thought it was an indication that it was a sequel, but then during re-watches and I realized that the Ghostbusters Vehicle is supposed to be a dolled up hearse, so it wasn't like they had inherited it from their predecessors. Sigh. 

I like the original idea, where it was a sequel with only one Ghostbuster remaining and serving as a mentor for the new cast.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Apr 18, 2016)

just how badly will this flop and get mauled by fans?


----------



## Lance (Apr 18, 2016)

Very. It should be cancelled and not even released if they have even a shred of dignity for the original film, actors and their fans.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Apr 18, 2016)

MartialHorror said:


> At first, I thought it was an indication that it was a sequel, but then during re-watches and I realized that the Ghostbusters Vehicle is supposed to be a dolled up hearse, so it wasn't like they had inherited it from their predecessors. Sigh.
> 
> I like the original idea, where it was a sequel with only one Ghostbuster remaining and serving as a mentor for the new cast.



Strong independent women do not need male mentors who are experienced in dealing with ghosts and helped co create the tech they will use to beat cet ghosts.


----------



## The Soldier (Apr 18, 2016)

get your epic fail shirts here


----------



## MartialHorror (Apr 18, 2016)

I think its box office success depends on a handful of things

- Does the distributor push it hard enough? 
- Is it bad? I know the trailer failed and most are skeptical, but to be fair, it might've just been a bad trailer and the movie itself might've been OK.
- Negative word of mouth. Not every panned movie is a bomb (Transformers 2..and 3...and 4...), but it depends on how toxic the movies' reputation is by the time it is released. "Fantastic Four" and to a much lesser extent "Batman Vs Superman" bombed/struggles because everyone became hostile before the actual release.

I mean, they still have time to put together a much better trailer. It is still too early to pass judgement.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Apr 18, 2016)

You forgot the tough competition it's going to face.


----------



## Detective (May 5, 2016)

Rukia said:


> It is extremely unlikely.  But I am now rooting for this to make more money than BvS.



  

Seriously though, I hope this new Ghostbusters shitty remake bombs. They just tossed together this cast gender bender for the sake of being edgy

BTW, this film now has the title of being the most disliked movie trailer on Youtube


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 5, 2016)

Don't forget to congratulate the SJWs that completely fucked any hope of salvaging good PR for this movie. Especially those white males that are so plagued by white male guilt they have to prostrate themselves and show how progressive they are to anyone that would listen. Going out their way to jump to the defense of this movie, and calling those that disliked it sexists. pretty much running the movie.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (May 8, 2016)

Why is everyone being so negative about this film, before it is even released? I believe that we should at least give it a chance before we condemn it, as I doubt that it could possibly be as bad as were _Dragon Ball: Evolution_ or M. Night Shyamalan's _The Last Airbender._

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Lance (May 8, 2016)

I can't believe this is actually going to happen. Actually release. Oh dear god.


----------



## Catalyst75 (May 10, 2016)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Why is everyone being so negative about this film, before it is even released? I believe that we should at least give it a chance before we condemn it, as I doubt that it could possibly be as bad as were _Dragon Ball: Evolution_ or M. Night Shyamalan's _The Last Airbender._



Those were bad adaptions that kept the original characters but screwed things up with the actors that they chose to play them and the script that was written for them.

The Ghostbusters reboot?  They wiped out the original slate with bleach, and tried to fill in the original roles with an all-female cast of actors who, from all the negative feedback the trailer and premise appear to be receiving, *CANNOT* carry the same level of acting as the original actor.  Gender roles, political correctness, and racial diversity mean jack in the movie industry *if the actors are bad at acting the roles they are in.
*
More than that, if the script is terrible and the director is no good, all the more cause for a movie to fail.  That happened with DB: Evolution, and The Last Airbender.  It seems Ghostbuster might be on a crash course along the same lines and Fantastic Four, only even worse than that if the actors themselves are no good despite the attempt at gender diversity.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2016)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Why is everyone being so negative about this film, before it is even released?


Because of bad marketing.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 11, 2016)

> More than that, if the script is terrible and the director is no good, all the more cause for a movie to fail. That happened with DB: Evolution, and The Last Airbender. It seems Ghostbuster might be on a crash course along the same lines and Fantastic Four, only even worse than that if the actors themselves are no good despite the attempt at gender diversity.



To be fair, how do we know that the script is bad? Has it been leaked? Has anyone read it and simply blasted it? Judging the entire script based on a shitty trailer isn't really fair, as for all you know, they're using discarded ab-libbing material for the previews (which oddly, isn't uncommon in comedy). Furthermore, saying "the director is no good" is a very flawed statement because he actually has garnered some acclaim. "Spy", "Bridesmaids" and even "The Heat" were well liked, even if you or I didn't care for most of them. It should be noted that the only good movie Ivan Reitman (director of the original) made prior to "Ghostbusters" was "Stripes" and Maybe "Meatballs" (which is generally agreed to have aged poorly). His first 2 flicks were actually considered pretty bad.

So you might want to look these things up before making too many claims, lol.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 11, 2016)

Well, the movie is fucked either way because the director had to be an emotional dumbass and accuse critics of the trailer of being white, misogynist nerds.


----------



## NO (May 11, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, the movie is fucked either way because the director had to be an emotional dumbass and accuse critics of the trailer of being white, misogynist nerds.


I was surprised to see that the director has over 1 mill. followers on twitter. Seems to be a pretty well known guy.


----------



## Stunna (May 11, 2016)

jayjay³² said:


> I was surprised to see that the director has over 1 mill. followers on twitter. Seems to be a pretty well known guy.


I mean, it's Paul Feig. Of _Bridesmaids_, _The Heat_, and _Freaks and Geeks _fame.


----------



## Gilgamesh (May 11, 2016)

that guy made Freaks and Geeks? How do you go from that to this shit?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reiatsuflow (May 12, 2016)

> To be fair, how do we know that the script is bad? Has it been leaked? Has anyone read it and simply blasted it? Judging the entire script based on a shitty trailer isn't really fair, as for all you know, they're using discarded ab-libbing material for the previews (which oddly, isn't uncommon in comedy). Furthermore, saying "the director is no good" is a very flawed statement because he actually has garnered some acclaim. "Spy", "Bridesmaids" and even "The Heat" were well liked, even if you or I didn't care for most of them. It should be noted that the only good movie Ivan Reitman (director of the original) made prior to "Ghostbusters" was "Stripes" and Maybe "Meatballs" (which is generally agreed to have aged poorly). His first 2 flicks were actually considered pretty bad.
> 
> So you might want to look these things up before making too many claims, lol.



To add to your list, modern generations looks back at a lot of the ghostbusters cast list as comedy legends with irreplaceable prestige or talent. But we were all kids when we were exposed to ghostbusters. We weren't adults. Most of us weren't even born when ghostbusters 2 was released in theaters. At the time, the performers seemed about on par in popularity, profitability and acclaim as the current ghostbusters cast. Aykryod had starred in movies arguably as bad as the worst of mccarthy's. Even murray, a comedy legend, had starred in a lot of poorly received properties (and has been in plenty of sketchy comedies that we only liked because we were little kids). I also think wiig is as talented a comedic performer as anyone in the original cast, with mccarthy not too far behind. Freaks and geeks, the heat, bridesmaids and spy were all funny movies, so the director's talented too. Reitman's resume wasn't measurably better at the time.

Movie doesn't look funny, but whatever.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (May 12, 2016)

reiatsuflow said:


> To add to your list, modern generations looks back at a lot of the ghostbusters cast list as comedy legends with irreplaceable prestige or talent. But we were all kids when we were exposed to ghostbusters. We weren't adults.



As someone who didn't watch the first Ghostbusters until I was 20(two years ago), I can tell you without green-tinted nostalgia goggles it's just a decent movie.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 12, 2016)

Kind of dumb logic to present. I mean, it's not like we are deprived of the original movie in the modern day, and it's not like opinions are immutable. If a person enjoys a movie in adulthood like they did when they first saw it, that does not necessarily indicate any tinting of nostalgia. As there are plenty of movies one enjoyed as a child they can admit were not as good as they thought then now that they are adults. Ghostbusters is one of those movies that seems to stand up to the increasing standards and changing opinions of viewers. Both of whom did watch it as teens and adults in its original release, and those that did not. It's about as absurd as saying something like BTTF or Terminator because they were released in 1985 were just nostalgia from childhood, when they took seem to stand the test of increasing scrutiny by young audiences and still have the original, adult audience that can remember their theatrical releases enjoy them just as much.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2016)

It could be worse? I think that's about the most positive thing I can say about it. There's nothing wrong with it being all female, but the writing looks like shit. I guess the effects are fine, too. They look like an attempt to recreate the style of the old effects. I will see it (on video) because I'm just getting too old for this shit where I got to a theater to sit down for just any old thing. 

There's also the weird racial notes in this movie, it's like is it the 80s - 90s again? Do we need the black street smart character to lead our white protagonists around? Don't these women have phones with Google in them?


----------



## reiatsuflow (May 13, 2016)

> As someone who didn't watch the first Ghostbusters until I was 20(two years ago), I can tell you without green-tinted nostalgia goggles it's just a decent movie.





> Kind of dumb logic to present. I mean, it's not like we are deprived of the original movie in the modern day, and it's not like opinions are immutable. If a person enjoys a movie in adulthood like they did when they first saw it, that does not necessarily indicate any tinting of nostalgia.



You guys had to have had those comments ready and holstered. You were just itching to shoot. Because I wasn't talking about what you're replying to. I didn't even reference what you're replying to. I said something like, _We all saw ghostbusters when we were young..._ and then bam, quick draw. 

You saw the comment about us being exposed to ghostbusters as kids (or post theatrical release) because I was replying to a point about the status of the original cast and crew during the time of ghostbuster's release, when most of us weren't around, and some of us weren't even born. You know, like how today aykroyd and murray and reitman are sort of comedy legends, but at the time of the original movies being released aykroyd and murray occupied a similar cultural popularity as mccarthy or wiig. Reitman's resume was arguably worse than this director's at the time of ghostbuster's release, at least comparing popularity, box office and professional accolades. So on. 

Doesn't mean anything about this movie being good, but I was agreeing with horror's post.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 13, 2016)

Nostalgia usually does play a certain role. I've always felt that "Star Wars" was built into a classic by those who grew up with it and our tastes are often determined by what we watched as a kid. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But most are wary of remakes and this remake is both

- Playing by its own rules, which people don't like. I find this kind of funny because if anything, you'd think that a female cast would be more interesting as it would ideally provide a new dynamic. 

- Had one of the worst trailers ever. I haven't seen so much hate since "Jack and Jill" (which I actually thought looked worse), but the trailer was pretty horrendous. 

I don't think the movie will be good, but I do sometimes think that fans take their hatred a bit too far and start spouting nonsense in the process.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 14, 2016)

I don't see how this movie being bad ruins the old movie. Just don't go see it.


----------



## Banhammer (May 14, 2016)

the movie could be fine. Didn't the director make a peanuts movie recently that everybody enjoyed?

So clearly he knows his nostalgia comedy



The trailer is utter garbage though


----------



## Krory (May 14, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> the movie could be fine. Didn't the director make a peanuts movie recently that everybody enjoyed?
> 
> So clearly he knows his nostalgia comedy
> 
> ...



No. The director (and lead writer) is the guy who wrote and directed pretty much every Melissa McCarthy movie.


----------



## Banhammer (May 14, 2016)

ugh. Fat lady comedy


----------



## reiatsuflow (May 14, 2016)

I can't believe the director has been married to a woman since 1991. The guy's as flamboyantly gay as, I don't know, everyone in the birdcage.


----------



## Kuromaku (May 14, 2016)

Flamboyance doesn't necessarily mean he's gay. Fabulous perhaps, but even some of the most fabulous men enjoy the company of women.

On the other hand, this is Hollywood, where beards are a very real thing and sleeping around is pretty much a competitive sport. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, check the Blind Items.


----------



## Banhammer (May 15, 2016)

we still haven't seen much promotional shirtless chris hemsworth, so I'm guessing he's straight pretending to be a gay pretending to be straight


----------



## Linkdarkside (May 19, 2016)




----------



## Stunna (May 19, 2016)

James Rolfe is good people.


----------



## mali (May 19, 2016)

lmao whats the big deal. they are both equally bad films (if the trailers a good indicator of new one).


----------



## Krory (May 19, 2016)

When the MAN wants to be a Ghostbuster, he's possessed by a ghost and turns evil and that is the perfect metaphor for the patriarchy.


----------



## Stunna (May 19, 2016)

Mali said:


> lmao whats the big deal. they are both equally bad films (if the trailers a good indicator of new one).


lol wut


----------



## Banhammer (May 19, 2016)

like double toasted said, an equivalent modern day ghostbusters would require channing tatum, Jonah Hill, maybe Ben Stiller, maybe joseph gordon levit, and then Kevin Hart, or michal b jordan


----------



## Knight (May 20, 2016)

Reminder that remaining the original cast Ghostbuster was forced by Sony to do a cameo in this movie or get sued.


----------



## Stunna (May 20, 2016)

lol wut

source


----------



## Knight (May 20, 2016)

Stunna said:


> lol wut
> 
> source


----------



## Zeta42 (May 20, 2016)

I don't get it. Did they sign a contract prior to this?


----------



## Krory (May 20, 2016)

I think that's what the article asks - if they even COULD sue.


----------



## Krory (May 20, 2016)

Holy shit, Paul Feig's original pitch for this. 



> _Our villain ghost is an executed murderer, a Ted Kazinski type (think Peter Dinklage) who has left behind a manifesto of how he wants to change and destroy the world. When *his execution is hit by a supercharged electrical storm, he is turned into a powerful ghost* able to rouse other villainous spirits from the ghost world to carry out the ever-expanding plans of his manifesto. _





> _I want in the third act to have the entire police force and army accompany the Ghostbusters to the final battle but since our villain only wants to deal with the Ghostbusters and wants to make the government look ridiculous, *he possesses the entire police and army forces and makes them do a big ridiculous dance number in the middle of Fifth Avenue, thus neutralizing them (and delighting himself)*._





> _...as well as have fun with the ghosts he picks to carry out various tasks (could be all dead villains and famous criminals he recruits from the ghost world and – *in what I think could be a billion dollar idea – recruits the ghosts of evil beings from other parts of the universe – yes, ghost aliens!* “Our world isn’t the only place in the universe with bad and dangerous beings that have died, you know. There’s a lot of bored dead monsters out there who are just looking for something to do.”)_


----------



## Stunna (May 20, 2016)

> _I want in the third act to have the entire police force and army accompany the Ghostbusters to the final battle but since our villain only wants to deal with the Ghostbusters and wants to make the government look ridiculous, *he possesses the entire police and army forces and makes them do a big ridiculous dance number in the middle of Fifth Avenue, thus neutralizing them (and delighting himself)*._


would watch


----------



## Gunners (May 20, 2016)

They're really going after people who aren't interested in this film.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (May 21, 2016)

So dancing ghosts and alien ghosts?That would probably make this shitty movie somewhat entertaining.


----------



## reiatsuflow (May 21, 2016)

_



“Our world isn’t the only place in the universe with bad and dangerous beings that have died, you know. There’s a lot of bored dead monsters out there who are just looking for something to do.”

Click to expand...


Hate to say it. But that's clever and original.

Might be a joke post. But the idea of having ghosts of more than just humans and worldly things is interesting._


----------



## Blitzomaru (May 21, 2016)

The movie just looks bad. Not cause they are women. It just looks bad. Unfunny. It looks like a Nickelodeon movie.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jun 2, 2016)

he also talked a little with CinemaBlend

I think this article misinterprets what "unfazed" means, because McCarthy seems to have made some pretty mean-spirited comments, such as back-handedly accusing the people making criticism as "not having friends".


----------



## Enclave (Jun 12, 2016)

On Jimmy Kimmel she's accused critics of the movie of being 45 year old men still living in their parents garage.

Yeah, the way they push this "if you don't like the movie you're a misogynist" angle makes me all the more certain that the movie is shit and they feel the only way they stand a chance at it not bombing is by getting people to go see it purely for the novelty of seeing what all the fuss is about.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stunna (Jun 13, 2016)

the Kimmel shit is really sad when you know that Murray was legit strong-armed into hyping the movie up


----------



## Swarmy (Jun 13, 2016)

Can't they just release the original in 3D like they did with Jurassic Park


----------



## Krory (Jul 10, 2016)

W-why is no one psyched for this?!


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jul 10, 2016)

Because they don't want their nuts roasted.


----------



## Swarmy (Jul 10, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> W-why is no one psyched for this?!



Can't wait


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 10, 2016)

Heard critics are tearing it up


----------



## Vermilion Kn (Jul 10, 2016)

The final villain goes down by being shot in the balls. Really ? This wasn't political ?


----------



## Krory (Jul 10, 2016)

IGN rewrote their review to give it a higher score.  Even named the URL "Review-2".

There's some poor reviews but all of them are still claiming Paul Feig is usually a genius and the cast are still the funniest people alive and praising the "progressive agenda" of the film.


----------



## Vermilion Kn (Jul 10, 2016)

It's sad how everything is political now. This wasn't a movie as much as a left vs right, women vs men thing. The Guardian review is particularly ridiculous. Basically anyone who didn't like the movie, enough or not at all, is a baby man virgin who lives in hi parents basement. 

Their Tarzan review was pretty bad as well. Colonialism, white people are bad etc.


----------



## PlacidSanity (Jul 10, 2016)

Hmm, might check this one out but what does it mean when it's toy line is already on the clearance shelves?


----------



## Gunners (Jul 10, 2016)

That the toys are taking up space on the shelves because people aren't buying them.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 10, 2016)

> The unfunny mess that hits theaters Friday, like a big goopy splat of ectoplasm, will no doubt make those naysayers feel vindicated. But the fact is that an estrogen-infused makeover, particularly one with such a comedically gifted cast, was a promising idea. Sadly, that's where the inventiveness ended.



Pretty much what I expected. What else are they offering besides the gender bending gimmick ? And this manipulation campaign to cause people to feel progressive for buying a ticket is just.....


----------



## Rukia (Jul 10, 2016)

I want you to see it gesy, so I don't have to.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RAGING BONER (Jul 10, 2016)

nothing surprising about this pos failing to meet even the lowest of cinematic standards

when your project hinges entirely on gender bending a property no one wanted to see rebooted...well, you know you done fucked up.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 10, 2016)

MISOGYNISTS ALL OF YOU!

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 10, 2016)

Was the villain Chris Hemsworth and was he written as a misogynist CIS gendered scum!?


----------



## Zeta42 (Jul 11, 2016)

Hahahaha did you see that? She shot him in the crotch, that's like where the balls and benis are! Hahaha lol so funny lol.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 11, 2016)

Should have done the mix races reboot at least they could have played it off as a Extreme Ghostbusters adaptation


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 11, 2016)

That will be the sequel, so they can finish destroying my childhood of Ghostbusters. I don't mind an all women ghostbusters but this whole thing seems conceived on some stupid men vs women comedy that feels more at home in grade school, this could have been done better and  without some comedian who plays herself in every role. Extreme ghostbusters did have a disabled jock, a goth girl, latino, black dude and kept some of the original cast in mentor Egon, Janine and Slimer plus a 2/3 parter with the old cast briefly returning. It was a good show written around character drama like their family lives and such(The Boogeyman episode can be legit creepy at times). I would prefer they not destroy Extreme ghostbusters too.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 11, 2016)

Tranquil Fury said:


> That will be the sequel, so they can finish destroying my childhood of Ghostbusters.


----------



## Pocalypse (Jul 11, 2016)

I'm shocked this film opened to positive reviews wow.

Even BBC News wrote a friggin article about it


----------



## Stunna (Jul 11, 2016)

The real question is, how many of them were paid off? Or refrained from expressing their real opinions for the sake of PC points.


----------



## tari101190 (Jul 11, 2016)

Just saw it.

It's no Pixels, but it's pretty okay.


----------



## Pocalypse (Jul 11, 2016)

Stunna said:


> The real question is, how many of them were paid off?

Reactions: Agree 1 | Winner 1 | Creative 1


----------



## Jake CENA (Jul 11, 2016)

If i was a ghost i would be ashamed to be even a ghost when faced by this four


----------



## The Runner (Jul 11, 2016)

tari101190 said:


> Just saw it.
> 
> *It's no Pixels, *but it's pretty okay.


----------



## Zhariel (Jul 11, 2016)

I'm kinda bummed that I hate women now. Cause the previews were bland, and what I heard from people that saw it early is worse. But that doesn't mean I have an opinion, apparently I just hate women.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 11, 2016)

The Mad King said:


> Should have done the mix races reboot at least they could have played it off as a Extreme Ghostbusters adaptation



Well, they want memories to be self-serving, and Extreme Ghostbusters may have ended up destroying the notion of the new "Ghostbusters" going against the "misogynistic testosterone brigade" of the first film, because the original franchise actually went into the idea of true diversity with Extreme Ghostbusters.

I mean seriously, if they wanted to promote diversity and equality, *have the cast be mixed gender, mixed race, and/or differing social categories.
*
Don't make the cast all female, have all the white members be PhD professors (with one of them having a gun-licking fetish), while having the black woman be a stereotype who works on the streets.

You are just making the mistake you claim that the first movie made.  You don't "fix" that mistake or "be better" by reversing all the character genders.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 11, 2016)

>Sony already caught planting positive reviews



These fuckers just don't learn.


----------



## Krory (Jul 11, 2016)

I also like that half the reviews equate Hemsworth's character to Janine in the way of saying that he was only hired by the female characters for objectification of how "sexy" he was in the same was Janine was hired.

Uhhhhmmmmmmmm..........


----------



## Krory (Jul 11, 2016)

Gunners said:


> That the toys are taking up space on the shelves because people aren't buying them.




The toys were already marked on Clearance since the end of June.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 11, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> I also like that half the reviews equate Hemsworth's character to Janine in the way of saying that he was only hired by the female characters for objectification of how "sexy" he was in the same was Janine was hired.
> 
> Uhhhhmmmmmmmm..........



Janine was nowhere near as hot as Hemsworth, compare him to Sigourney's character in terms of hot but she was not a secretary.

ETA Not saying you are, agreeing with you.


----------



## Krory (Jul 11, 2016)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Janine was nowhere near as hot as Hemsworth, compare him to Sigourney's character in terms of hot but she was not a secretary.



I'd take Janine over Dana personally, but beside the point - nor did they indicate Janine was hired just for physical attraction - especially considering Egon seems ignorant of such things, Venkman didn't seem to like her, and she was the one that interviewed Winston.


----------



## Hack Snyder (Jul 11, 2016)

How bad is it?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 11, 2016)

To be fair I'm surprise action figures are still a hing


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jul 11, 2016)

Is Sony really paying people to write positive reviews? 



tari101190 said:


> Just saw it.
> 
> It's no Pixels, but it's pretty okay.



Someone's back for more humiliation


----------



## Rukia (Jul 11, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> >Sony already caught planting positive reviews
> 
> 
> 
> These fuckers just don't learn.


Prove it.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 11, 2016)

Yeah, prove it.


----------



## The Runner (Jul 11, 2016)

A common complaint I keep seeing is that the Third Act is shit.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 11, 2016)

> Today the review embargo is lifting for the disastrous Ghostbusters remake as the movie releases in the UK tomorrow (July 11th), and reviews will need to be available prior to that. If the UK release was later, closer to the US release, we likely wouldn’t be seeing any reviews for the movie just yet.
> 
> The actual embargo lifts at 10am Pacific (1pm Eastern), but some have already posted their reviews such as this savaging from . Yesterday  to warn everyone how bad the movie is, but now Sony may have returned to the “David Manning” school of film reviewing…although updated for the YouTube generation.
> 
> ...



>YouTube Channel less then a year old
>Less than 400 subscribers
>Somehow invited to a Sony premiere party
>Seen and tweeting about hanging out with Paul Feig
>Has never reviewed movies before
>Has never tweeted about the movie until his sudden involvement with both Feig and Sony
>Suddenly releases a positive review for this being counted by aggregates
>Actual profession is a marketing "professional" specializing in social media and public relations
>_Sony has done similar to this in the past_

Reactions: Informative 5


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jul 11, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> >YouTube Channel less then a year old
> >Less than 400 subscribers
> >Somehow invited to a Sony premiere party
> >Seen and tweeting about hanging out with Paul Feig
> ...



SPREAD THE WORD.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 11, 2016)

I liked it. One of the better films to come out this year.


----------



## Rukia (Jul 11, 2016)

I'm definitely out now.  I can't support foul play.


----------



## Zeta42 (Jul 12, 2016)

Seriously, how bad/good is it? Should I just pirate the movie and delete it unwatched?


----------



## Rythik78 (Jul 12, 2016)

Zeta42 said:


> Seriously, how bad/good is it? Should I just pirate the movie and delete it unwatched?



It is a meh. It is not 'so bad, it is good' where you can make fun of it or it is genuinely good that many were wrong.

It is an average run of the mill shit summer blockbuster, which will fade in oblivion.

In all honesty, i say this film is not even worth all the shit & the controversy it created and surrounded for this film was more interesting than the actual film.

I sincerely hope this one does not make bank, and the there is a huge shuffle up and firing in the Sony film division.


----------



## Swarmy (Jul 12, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> The toys were already marked on Clearance since the end of June.



Wait this movie got toys but Mad Max Fury Road didn't?


----------



## Stunna (Jul 12, 2016)

tbf, I don't think R-rated movies get toy lines like they used to


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 12, 2016)

tbf Mad Max isn't nearly as popular of a cultural icon.


----------



## Rukia (Jul 12, 2016)

I would buy the toys for the breeders.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 12, 2016)

Is that what we're now calling them?


----------



## Swarmy (Jul 12, 2016)

Stunna said:


> tbf, I don't think R-rated movies get toy lines like they used to



Like Robocop and Starship Troopers


----------



## Krory (Jul 12, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> Is that what we're now calling them?


----------



## Krory (Jul 12, 2016)

Swarmy said:


> Like Robocop and Starship Troopers



Or (although more popular) Alien(s), Predator, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, even Childs Play.


----------



## Swarmy (Jul 12, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> Or (although more popular) Alien(s), Predator, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, even Childs Play.



Aliens is a kids move

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Gabe (Jul 12, 2016)

I'll as it this weekend to see if it will be bad.


----------



## The Runner (Jul 12, 2016)

Zeta42 said:


> Seriously, how bad/good is it? Should I just pirate the movie and delete it unwatched?


Pirating it and then sleeping through out is like the ultimate fuck you one can make towards a movie imo.

But pirating it and just deleting it immediately after is like calling every person involved a cunt to their face  

Do either. It'd be justified.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Rukia (Jul 12, 2016)

Immortan Joe!


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 12, 2016)



Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 12, 2016)

It's really difficult to tell between trolls and white knights sometimes.


----------



## LesExit (Jul 12, 2016)

My little sister just saw this, she really liked it. I'm hearing good things about it. I probably won't ever go out of my way to watch it however. I didn't really like the original ghostbusters. I enjoyed Casper though ^___^! There's so much drama surrounding the movie though, which is sad. Well the adults can go at it as usual , hope the kids are liking it.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 12, 2016)

So I read an article a while ago making fun of the internet for overreacting to trailers, and this was the main example.

In other words, it apparently isn't nearly as bad as initial impressions said it would be?

c/d?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 12, 2016)

I'd say trying to condemn anyone skeptical as being sexist is an overreaction, but that's just me.


----------



## LesExit (Jul 12, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'd say trying to condemn anyone skeptical as being sexist is an overreaction, but that's just me.


I'm inclined to agree. I thought the trailer looked pretty bad XD
...I also thought Frozen looked bad and refused to watch it for months...but then I watched it. Loved every second...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 12, 2016)

I don't care for a lot of remakes.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 12, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'd say trying to condemn anyone skeptical as being sexist is an overreaction, but that's just me.



Nah it was referring to people to overreacted about the film being bad. I don't talk about this stuff outside the Café.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 12, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'd say trying to condemn anyone skeptical as being sexist is an overreaction, but that's just me.


As is making a fuss whenever someone even brings up the sexism as an example of the overreaction to the film.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 12, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> As is making a fuss whenever someone even brings up the sexism as an example of the overreaction to the film.



Because it's not a valid or relevant example. It's so minute that it is negligible.


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2016)

LesExit said:


> My little sister just saw this, she really liked it. I'm hearing good things about it. I probably won't ever go out of my way to watch it however. I didn't really like the original ghostbusters. I enjoyed Casper though ^___^! There's so much drama surrounding the movie though, which is sad. Well the adults can go at it as usual , hope the kids are liking it.



Definitely not a kids movie (Paul Feig even said he wanted to make it R-rated).

Neither was the original with a ghost blow-job scene. 




Gaiash said:


> As is making a fuss whenever someone even brings up the sexism as an example of the overreaction to the film.



Okay, Max Landis.


----------



## LesExit (Jul 13, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> Definitely not a kids movie (Paul Feig even said he wanted to make it R-rated).
> 
> Neither was the original with a ghost blow-job scene.


Damn. My little sister 6  

I always thought ghostbusters was a kiddish movie :0!! When I was in elementary school, pretty much all the kids had seen it. Maybe we were too stupid to get what we were seeing (゜-゜).


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Because it's not a valid or relevant example. It's so minute that it is negligible.


It's a large percentage of the hate comments, it's a clear example of the petty reasons people have for hating this.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> It's a large percentage of the hate comments, it's a clear example of the petty reasons people have for hating this.



No it isn't, and the comments that weren't were intentionally deleted. Numerous comments were intentionally deleted as a matter of fact. It's stupidly naive to think the hate was due to misogyny, particularly when it became obvious after a while that is the angle the movie was getting marketed as. There is over 100 years of cinema that have seen women lead or be the dominant cast in movies of all decades of that timespan, that have done well and been critically-acclaimed. Yet suddenly it's misogyny for Ghostbusters? Get real.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No it isn't, and the comments that weren't were intentionally deleted. Numerous comments were intentionally deleted as a matter of fact. It's stupidly naive to think the hate was due to misogyny, particularly when it became obvious after a while that is the angle the movie was getting marketed as. There is over 100 years of cinema that have seen women lead or be the dominant cast in movies of all decades of that timespan, that have done well and been critically-acclaimed. Yet suddenly it's misogyny for Ghostbusters? Get real.


No it's naive to dismiss it. I never said the hate was due to misogyny, I said it was a big part of the hate. See this is what I'm talking about, even acknowledging the fact there is a lot of sexism in the hate directed at this movie causes people like you to argue about how "it's not about sexism". Yes of course there are other reasons people hate this movie but don't deny that there are a lot of people who are just being sexist. I said it's an example of the petty reasons people have for hating this film, I didn't say it was the only one.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> No it's naive to dismiss it. I never said the hate was due to misogyny, I said it was a big part of the hate. See this is what I'm talking about, even acknowledging the fact there is a lot of sexism in the hate directed at this movie causes people like you to argue about how "it's not about sexism". Yes of course there are other reasons people hate this movie but don't deny that there are a lot of people who are just being sexist. I said it's an example of the petty reasons people have for hating this film, I didn't say it was the only one.



I'm saying it's not a big part, and it's stupid to think it is. Especially since again, numerous movies over a century see female leads and female-dominated casts and have done well financially and critically. It's just a crutch to lean on to account for the poor reception and less than impressive projected returns. Accusing people of 'isms' is all the rage these days, most of the time such being unsubstantiated and overblown. Particularly by projecting the extreme, negligble minority as the voice of the majority.

I'm telling you it's a minute and negligible one, to the point where indeed, it is NOT about sexism. Nobody gives a shit about it having females in the cast or not, nor have they cared for the past decades. What they care about is yet another tired remake, that is the dominant reason here. It's why so many before it are met with poor reception and dismal returns. You'd probably scoff at the idea that Pixels was hated due to misandry, because it'd make no fucking sense.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm saying it's not a big part, and it's stupid to think it is.


Sorry but it is a big part. Maybe it's not the biggest part or the largest percentage of the overall hate but the amount of sexism directed at this movie is a large amount. That's what I mean by a big part, I mean that a lot of people are hating this movie for sexist reasons. I'm not saying it's the main reason, I'm not saying it's the most common reason. I'm saying it's a reason that a lot of people have.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Especially since again, numerous movies over a century see female leads and female-dominated casts and have done well financially and critically. It's just a crutch to lean on to account for the poor reception and less than impressive projected returns. Accusing people of 'isms' is all the rage these days, most of the time such being unsubstantiated and overblown. Particularly by projecting the extreme, negligble minority as the voice of the majority.


Except most of those movies started with female leads. Add a female lead to a franchise that previously had a male lead and you get a backlash. The Force Awakens also had a lot of sexism directed at it because of Rey being the lead character as did the reveal of the female Thor.



Seto Kaiba said:


> What they care about is yet another tired remake, that is the dominant reason here.


Which is also a petty reason by the way. Remember how I said the sexism was an example of the petty reasons people have? This would be another.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Sorry but it is a big part. Maybe it's not the biggest part or the largest percentage of the overall hate but the amount of sexism directed at this movie is a large amount. That's what I mean by a big part, I mean that a lot of people are hating this movie for sexist reasons. I'm not saying it's the main reason, I'm not saying it's the most common reason. I'm saying it's a reason that a lot of people have.



It's not a big part at all, it was overblown simply to market it from some angle of pseudo-activism.

There are over 2 billion people in this world, and 300M in the United States alone. "A lot of people" is vague. A few thousand is a lot, but still miniscule in respect to the overall population. Of the millions of dislikes and the numerous criticisms, none of the major ones were sexist but that is what defenders and even production itself chose to zero in on.



> Except most of those movies started with female leads. Add a female lead to a franchise that previously had a male lead and you get a backlash. The Force Awakens also had a lot of sexism directed at it because of Rey being the lead character as did the reveal of the female Thor.



Incorrect. The Force Awakens trailer was well-received and the movie was critically praised. The sexism is evidently negligible. Additionally, this is also a lie as again, Star Wars itself having previously male leads saw its first female lead and was a box-office hit. I think you're just shifting the goalpost a bit here anyway, if the movie started with a female lead or not is irrelevant. If you are claiming sexism, then those movies would not have done well from the start. Clearly numerous have done well.



> Which is also a petty reason by the way. Remember how I said the sexism was an example of the petty reasons people have? This would be another.



That's not a petty reason, you're just trying to widen the net on what constitutes as such. Being sick of remakes and reboots is a perfectly valid reason to lose interest. Hollywood, particularly these days, are inundated with such.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's not a big part at all, it was overblown simply to market it from some angle of pseudo-activism.


The sexist reaction was around before they even started filming never mind marketing.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Of the millions of dislikes and the numerous criticisms, none of the major ones were sexist but that is what defenders and even production itself chose to zero in on.


It gets zeroed in on because it's what sets it apart from other petty hate for reboots. Reboots get a lot of hate regardless but there's always a specific complaint that others don't get. With the Robocop remake it was the fact it didn't have an R rating and for the new Ghostbusters it was the female cast.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Incorrect. The Force Awakens trailer was well-received and the movie was critically praised. The sexism is evidently negligible. Additionally, this is also a lie as again, Star Wars itself having previously male leads saw its first female lead and was a box-office hit. I think you're just shifting the goalpost a bit here anyway, if the movie started with a female lead or not is irrelevant. If you are claiming sexism, then those movies would not have done well from the start. Clearly numerous have done well.


The Force Awakens was well received as was the trailer but there was still a backlash to Rey as the main character. It's just dismissed because the majority opinion is that it's a good movie and there are more people praising Rey as a main character. But the hate for her is still there, you can find people calling her a Mary Sue for being strong with the force despite not having any issues with Luke and Anakin being the same.



Seto Kaiba said:


> That's not a petty reason, you're just trying to widen the net on what constitutes as such. Being sick of remakes and reboots is a perfectly valid reason to lose interest. Hollywood, particularly these days, are inundated with such.


Of course the person who has that petty reason doesn't see it as petty. But it is petty, you're criticizing a reboot because other reboots exist.


----------



## Roman (Jul 13, 2016)

Regarding sexism, most complaints (afaik anyways) come from the fact that the makers of this reebot seemingly chose this cast purely to have female leads and for no other reason. The evidence for this is the fact that the movie, based on early reviews and trailers, is absolutely disgusting. No effort was put into the story or the casting (because let's be honest, how many movies were legit good with these actresses, if there were any memorable ones at all). It might come off as sexist to some people because it expresses resentment at the female leads, but that's not the point at all. The point is that if you're going to make a reboot, make it good and not specifically to put female characters in place of the established male ones purely for its own sake.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> The sexist reaction was around before they even started filming never mind marketing.



A negligible fringe they tried to have to represent the majority.



> It gets zeroed in on because it's what sets it apart from other petty hate for reboots. Reboots get a lot of hate regardless but there's always a specific complaint that others don't get. With the Robocop remake it was the fact it didn't have an R rating and for the new Ghostbusters it was the female cast.



Wrong. Everything receives some form of sexism or racism, it was that just as this, is so minute no one pays any mind to it. Except in the latter case here of course that kind of twisting the narrative is used to market the movie.



> The Force Awakens was well received as was the trailer but there was still a backlash to Rey as the main character. It's just dismissed because the majority opinion is that it's a good movie and there are more people praising Rey as a main character. But the hate for her is still there, you can find people calling her a Mary Sue for being strong with the force despite not having any issues with Luke and Anakin being the same.



But miniscule, and that is my point. Calling her a Mary Sue is not sexist though.



> Of course the person who has that petty reason doesn't see it as petty. But it is petty, you're criticizing a reboot because other reboots exist.



That's just ignorance as to why people are tired of reboots. People criticize reboots because they tend to be lazy, uninspired cash grabs that rely on nostalgia but fail to capture the spirit of the original films. Like I said, you were just trying to widen the net on what constitutes as 'pettty'. I mean it's such a stupid argument anyway. That is one of the least petty reasons to refuse to watch a movie, as the whole point of a movie's advertisements is to get you interested enough to pay money for it. The failure is on the studios for not appealing to the audience, not on the audience for not finding it appealing.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 13, 2016)

No Seto, all those times we had women leads and even all women cast where people liked or were indiferent do not exist, it's the ebul patriarchy, the tumblr landwhales who'd sooner die of being obese food consumption or the submissive beta males who hope they'll get into the pants of women by white knighting them only to be treated by dirt anyway say so!

People have hated female leads without being sexist and loved them as well. Ghostbusters is not the first all female lead movie over the decades, it's hated because it's shit and tries to exploit people with hopes they'll watch a shitty movie because feminism or in worst case tries to blackmail them into feeling bigotted so they have to watch and like it. IGN having to rewrite a whole review to appear progressive is silly, if a movie sucks it sucks stop sugarcoating it.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 13, 2016)

> The Force Awakens was well received as was the trailer but there was still a backlash to Rey as the main character. It's just dismissed because the majority opinion is that it's a good movie and there are more people praising Rey as a main character. But the hate for her is still there, you can find people calling her a Mary Sue for being strong with the force despite not having any issues with Luke and Anakin being the same


.

Difference though is that say Luke needed to be saved constantly by Kenobi or Han or even Vader. He also lost his first fight and got amputated then got curbstomped by Sidious after beating Vader. People also called him out on his hot headed nature and lack of discipline, you may have missed Yoda saying he was filled with anger. Luke also had Kenobi as a pseudo teacher for a while, 3+ years of training and experience overall plus brief stint with Yoda. Rey mastered lightsaber combat instantly. Luke struggled to do a mind trick untill he could in ROTJ, Rey does reverses a telepathic assault from Kylo instantly.

Anakin?12 year old Anakin as per canon comics with 3 years under Kenobi is shown struggling to control beats with mind trick, Rey has outdone him in instantly reversing stuff on Kylo. Anakin lost his first fight with Dooku to get amputated. He got dismembered, burnt and stuffed into a machine for his arrogance and was played by Sidious since day 1. He murdered some innocent Tusken women and kids in episode II, chokes his wife in ep 3 and if we bring in TCW?He lost his fair share, was written as an interesting character fighting an outdated Order and dealing with war amongst others. He's potrayed as insecure and overly jealous. Anakin was 19 by ep 2 so he had 10 years upto episode 2 and 3 years upto episode III including a major war.

You only get episode 1 Anakin whom people complaint about. Rey is a vapid and poorly conceived female character in contrast with well written female characters from the EU like Mara Jade Skywalker. People like Rey?You mean those who are not scared to be accused of sexist for hating her spoke up?You can like Rey if you want but no one is obligated to like her simply because she's a woman. Boring Invincible heroes are boring.


----------



## Roman (Jul 13, 2016)

Tranquil Fury said:


> He also lost his first fight and got amputated then got curbstomped by Sidious after beating Vader.



> Comparing Kylo to Sidious. Or Vader for that matter.



Tranquil Fury said:


> People also called him out on his hot headed nature and lack of discipline, you may have missed Yoda saying he was filled with anger.



Only in TESB. Rey may get called out on her recklessness in the next movie too when she actually gets training, like Luke did from Yoda.



Tranquil Fury said:


> Rey mastered lightsaber combat instantly.



Both Kylo and Rey looked very clumsy even compared to Luke in TESB. Both of them aren't even close to a level that could be considered "masterful."



Tranquil Fury said:


> Luke struggled to do a mind trick untill he could in ROTJ



Luke didn't even try to do a mind trick before ROTJ. The first time we see him do it, he did so with great success.



Tranquil Fury said:


> Rey does reverses a telepathic assault from Kylo instantly



Because she has a strong mind. It's been established in-verse that only the weak-minded fall prey to mind tricks. Qui Gon couldn't trick Watto and the latter isn't even a Force sensitive. Kylo's goes a step beyond that but Rey is not just strong willed, but strong in the Force. Resisting a mind probe isn't unrealistic.



Tranquil Fury said:


> 12 year old Anakin as per canon comics with 3 years under Kenobi is shown struggling to control beats with mind trick, Rey has outdone him in instantly reversing stuff on Kylo.



It just means beast control isn't his strong suit. Compare that to Ezra who was able to manipulate bloodlusted beasts after only weeks of training (by someone who wasn't even a knight). Some people are more talented in different aspects of the Force than others. It just means Rey has a talent for mind probing and possibly beast control too. Anakin was always established to be more of a warrior, so his talents would be more focused on physical enhancements.

Everything can be explained in-verse. There's nothing to suggest she was poorly written or that everything happening around her was convenient.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## John Wick (Jul 13, 2016)

back to ghostbusters I'm going to see it tonight, I've not seen the originals because they never really appealed to me since film wise my choices were influenced by my older cousin who was massively into Star Wars and when you're young everyone that's older is automatically cooler. I've decided to watch the originals after so if this film sucks as most reboots tend to with mad max and dredd being the only good ones that spring to mind. I won't be going in expecting it suck as most fans of any original series tend to do.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 13, 2016)

So I hear the males in this movie is either an idiot, coward or asshole.  Hemsworth character especially is a fool who's hired because he's hot.

Frankly --i'm offended


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 13, 2016)

Roman said:


> > Comparing Kylo to Sidious. Or Vader for that matter



Never compared their power levels, it's a nice straw argument Reypologists make. I compared with respect to their value as villains, quite frankly if Kylo sucks like we believe then Rey has less training than Luke and Anakin so the gap between Rey vs Kylo is about even respectively between Luke vs Vader ESB and Anakin vs Dooku in AOTC.





> Only in TESB. Rey may get called out on her recklessness in the next movie too when she actually gets training, like Luke did from Yoda



You mean what is potrayed as endearing and not a flaw?Luke was also an angry person like Anakin, you ignored that but then you cherry pick .



> Both Kylo and Rey looked very clumsy even compared to Luke in TESB. Both of them aren't even close to a level that could be considered "masterful."



Look is irrelevant else episode III Anakin and Kenobi are better than Episode III Mace and Windu. She picked up a saber and beat down a guy who was also a prodigy with decades of training under Luke and Snoke who killed Jedi Knights in his early day and was using dark side to feed off his wounds yet as per novel got overpowered.



> Luke didn't even try to do a mind trick before ROTJ. The first time we see him do it, he did so with great success



He never did it all period prior because he could not. Even Anakin could not despite 3 years of training in Jedi temple as per Marvel comics, nevermind that neither Anakin nor Luke with barely any training doing a mind trick let alone reversing it against Kylo.



> Because she has a strong mind. It's been established in-verse that only the weak-minded fall prey to mind tricks. Qui Gon couldn't trick Watto and the latter isn't even a Force sensitive. Kylo's goes a step beyond that but Rey is not just strong willed, but strong in the Force. Resisting a mind probe isn't unrealistic


.

Strong mind does not let you reverse a telepathic assault like she did, Luke had Vader probe his mind in ROTJ and he did not do anything similar to Vader. 



> It just means beast control isn't his strong suit. Compare that to Ezra who was able to manipulate bloodlusted beasts after only weeks of training (by someone who wasn't even a knight). Some people are more talented in different aspects of the Force than others. It just means Rey has a talent for mind probing and possibly beast control too. Anakin was always established to be more of a warrior, so his talents would be more focused on physical enhancement



No it means that he still had to struggle despite being the son of The Force and years of training. Anakin and Luke's growth rate do not come near Rey's. You dodged the point though, Rey learning things faster than Luke and Anakin mean they are not comparable.



> Everything can be explained in-verse. There's nothing to suggest she was poorly written or that everything happening around her was convenient.



By honeypotting from apologists and not actual source materials, she is a bad character and even Anakin thanks to TCW is actually interesting. Being strong and talented is fine, it's when Kathleen tried too hard with Jar Jar Abrahams to force it. Rey's very existence and even Kylo's is bad writing if Luke is her father and Kylo his student but the movie was built around trying to redo OT like Prequels tried while giving no damn about logic or missing the point of the OT.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 13, 2016)

Honestly, this has nothing to do with Rey or TFA so I'm going to avoid dragging out that shitstorm, some asshole wanted to play the misogynist card to handwave this movie being a turd stain like many suspected from the trailors and now reviewers are trying to avoid being too harsh to avoid fear of being called bigots. How silly.

There will be other female lead movies, ones that will be good I'm sure, no need to defend this.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 13, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> So I hear the males in this movie is either an idiot, coward or asshole.


Well to be exact that applies to pretty much all the characters that aren't Ghostbusters rather than just the male characters.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 13, 2016)

Don't give me that, where's my representation ?! Where's my Sigourney Weaver? Are we just pieces of meat to you women ?


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2016)

THE POWER OF PATTY COMPELS YOU.


----------



## Pocalypse (Jul 13, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> So I hear the males in this movie is either an idiot, coward or asshole.  Hemsworth character especially is a fool who's hired because he's hot.
> 
> Frankly --i'm offended



Jesus Christ Gesy...get over it OKAY! 

Girls rule and they're funny! You understand!? Gawd...



GET OVER IT!

Reactions: Winner 2 | Dislike 1


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 13, 2016)

ugh, so close !  I was expecting "GIRLS RULE WHILE BOYS DROOL " to eventually be uttered

but I find it  funny how the female cast are so well respected in their comedic field -- hell, they're probably the _most _respected . And going by how actresses are commonly showcasing their own films nowadays (McCarthy for example; who leads a film in what feels like  every three months or so)-- i'm not sure where this is coming from

People are throwing a lot of money at these "unfunny " women .


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> ugh, so close !  I was expecting "GIRLS RULE WHILE BOYS DROOL " to eventually be uttered
> 
> but I find it  funny how the female cast are so well respected in their comedic field -- hell, they're probably the _most _respected . And going by how actresses are commonly showcasing their own films nowadays (McCarthy for example; *who's leads a film in what feels like  every three months or so*)-- i'm not sure where this is coming from
> 
> People are throwing a lot of money at these "unfunny " women .



Could have something to do with the fact that half of them are made by her husband, and the other half are made by a close personal friend.


----------



## Rukia (Jul 13, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> So I hear the males in this movie is either an idiot, coward or asshole.  Hemsworth character especially is a fool who's hired because he's hot.
> 
> Frankly --i'm offended


I heard the same.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2016)

Pocalypse said:


> Jesus Christ Gesy...get over it OKAY!
> 
> Girls rule and they're funny! You understand!? Gawd...
> 
> ...



And this is exactly my point. It seems they were planning on advertising from this "mommy wow I'm a big kid now!" style of feminist "activism" from the start.

I mean, hey it's not like there was ever successful female comedians recognized by society at large before, right? That was all just a figment of our imagination...THIS movie is going to be the groundbreaking lynchpin in the comedy genre and female comedians! Regardless of what you think of them, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Joan Rivers, Mary Tyler Moore, Sarah Silverman, and yes even...Amy Schumer...CLEARLY never existed, and were not popularly considered funny.



*THIS *is the guy directing the movie. The cheap, virtue signaling pandering can be detected a mile away.


----------



## Rukia (Jul 13, 2016)

I'm okay with them all being women. But I wanted at least one attractive female.  Isn't that the formula?  Where is the attractive female?


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> And this is exactly my point. It seems they were planning on advertising from this "mommy wow I'm a big kid now!" style of feminist "activism" from the start.
> 
> I mean, hey it's not like there was ever successful female comedians recognized by society at large before, right? That was all just a figment of our imagination...THIS movie is going to be the groundbreaking lynchpin in the comedy genre and female comedians! Regardless of what you think of them, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Joan Rivers, Mary Tyler Moore, Sarah Silverman, and yes even...Amy Schumer...CLEARLY never existed, and were not popularly considered funny.
> 
> ...



> Looks down on jokes involving genitalia
>" Hey, can you make her shoot him in the genital area?"


Jubilee said:


> Could have something to do with the fact that half of them are made by her husband, and the other half are made by a close personal friend.



Surely you jest

A strong beautiful woman like McCarthy  ( Who's very vocal about her feminism I might add!) fought for and deserved every role that came her way. Last warning , the next sexist comment will get you  reported.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2016)

For the patriarchy!!!


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2016)

_Ghostbusters_
Written by Katie Dippold and Paul Feig, directed by Paul Feig

_The Boss_
Written and directed by Ben Falcone

_Spy_
Written and directed by Paul Feig

_St. Vincent_
Written and directed by Theodore Melfi

_Tammy_
Written by Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcone, directed by Ben Falcone

_The Heat_
Written by Katie Dippold, directed by Paul Feig

_Identity Thief_
Written by Craig Mazin, directed by Seth Gordon

_Bridesmaids_
Written by Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumulo, directed by Paul Feig

Well not really half and half but holy shit, I was pretty damn close...  Out of her eight biggest movies, only two didn't have anything to do with Paul Feig or Ben Falcone (her husband).

And St. Vincent must explain why Bill Murray wanted nothing to do with this reboot in actuality - he had enough of her.


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2016)

> In an effort to appease censors in China, Sony Pictures has renamed  to Super Power Dare Die Team to help win their film a release in the world's second-largest movie market.
> 
> According to 's sources, however, it's unlikely that Ghostbusters -- er, Super Power Dare Die Team -- will even get a release in China after all.
> 
> ...


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 13, 2016)

While hearing about this film's lack of success would bring a smile to my face; isn't that kinda.hypocritical ?


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2016)

Nothing about Super Power Dare Die Team is hypocritical!


----------



## Krory (Jul 14, 2016)

>Less than a week
>Already down to two showings a day


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 14, 2016)

In your cinema maybe, mine still has the same amount of screenings going into next week.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 14, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> It's a large percentage of the hate comments, it's a clear example of the petty reasons people have for hating this.



>delete every comment except for that one
>"muh troubling percentage"

Well, duh


----------



## Pocalypse (Jul 14, 2016)

I don't believe it. Are my eyes deceiving me or someone has a Ghostbusters signature?


----------



## Easley (Jul 14, 2016)

I lost interest in Ghostbusters after watching the desperately unfunny trailers. Isn't a trailer supposed to sell the movie? What I saw was embarrassing. The new cast and director obviously think being loud and obnoxious is great comedy. They need to watch the original again. Most of the cast was deadpan, their line delivery was understated, not in-your-face stuff. Characters like Egon were completely straight (and I don't mean 'not gay'). It's this laid back semi-serious attitude and interaction that sold the movie. You know, chasing ghosts is dangerous work but also great fun with the right team.

I must admit that men are a lot better at most types of comedy. Both sexes can act like a buffoon and get a few laughs but dry sarcastic humor is more subtle and harder to pull off. Men use skillful inflection. Maybe a deep voice helps? haha.

An all-female reboot was always going to bring out the sexist trolls, but honestly I don't care. I can't change the way some men think. It's not my job to police the internet. Calling them assholes or misogynists is a waste of time. Trolls crave attention. What I care about is if I should see this movie, and on present evidence I'd say no. The general consensus is that it's crap. I don't like to watch crap. Hmm yeah, my movie viewing rules are very simple.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 14, 2016)

Pocalypse said:


> I don't believe it. Are my eyes deceiving me or someone has a Ghostbusters signature?


Yep. I'd been meaning to update my signature and I liked the movie so it made sense.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 14, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> And this is exactly my point. It seems they were planning on advertising from this "mommy wow I'm a big kid now!" style of feminist "activism" from the start.
> 
> I mean, hey it's not like there was ever successful female comedians recognized by society at large before, right? That was all just a figment of our imagination...THIS movie is going to be the groundbreaking lynchpin in the comedy genre and female comedians! Regardless of what you think of them, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Joan Rivers, Mary Tyler Moore, Sarah Silverman, and yes even...Amy Schumer...CLEARLY never existed, and were not popularly considered funny.
> 
> ...



Give a warning before you post shit like that. My back wasn't prepared for the cringe.


----------



## Krory (Jul 14, 2016)

Pocalypse said:


> I don't believe it. Are my eyes deceiving me or someone has a Ghostbusters signature?



I'm still not convinced Gaiash just isn't a troll.

If he was a REAL fan he'd have the cock-blasting scene or the unabashed "TAKE THAT!" phallic imagery.




Easley said:


> I lost interest in Ghostbusters after watching the desperately unfunny trailers. Isn't a trailer supposed to sell the movie? What I saw was embarrassing. The new cast and director obviously think being loud and obnoxious is great comedy. They need to watch the original again. Most of the cast was deadpan, their line delivery was understated, not in-your-face stuff. Characters like Egon were completely straight (and I don't mean 'not gay'). It's this laid back semi-serious attitude and interaction that sold the movie. You know, chasing ghosts is dangerous work but also great fun with the right team.
> 
> I must admit that men are a lot better at most types of comedy. Both sexes can act like a buffoon and get a few laughs but dry sarcastic humor is more subtle and harder to pull off. Men use skillful inflection. Maybe a deep voice helps? haha.
> 
> An all-female reboot was always going to bring out the sexist trolls, but honestly I don't care. I can't change the way some men think. It's not my job to police the internet. Calling them assholes or misogynists is a waste of time. Trolls crave attention. What I care about is if I should see this movie, and on present evidence I'd say no. The general consensus is that it's crap. I don't like to watch crap. Hmm yeah, my movie viewing rules are very simple.



The problem isn't even "Men funny, women not" - the jokes themselves, written partly by a _man_ - aren't funny. It focuses on a type of humor that is the polar opposite of what Ghostbusters was and why so many people liked it. It was a focus of science with dry wit and sarcasm (going well into the concept of sardonicism in some cases) and a ton of self-deprecation. Not, "HAHAHA! THAT BLACK WOMAN LIKES JESUS!" or "Hahaha, the tumblr-dyke with an undercut is licking guns like they're cocks!" or "lololol fat person fell down!!!" or "roflmaobtisff they just shot that ghost in the dick for the finale." Unlike the original, which had most of its basis around the idea that everyone thought this guys looked ridiculous and were fucking nuts, this focuses on "GIRL POWER." The people that made it sexist and gender-focused were the writers themselves - they knew what they were doing, made evident by fictitious accounts like how the ghost blowjob scene was a "misogynistic attack" when really it was designed to show much how of a lonely nerd Stantz was, or this imaginary concept that Janine was hired because she was "sexy" so they mirrored it with Chris Hemsworth.

And of course Feig, Dippold, and all their legion of mindless fans all dive on this "sexism" concept they started probably to try and hide the inherent racism in their own film, treating the Zeddemore character as if he was "the token black" when in reality he was the "everyday man" who just so happened to be cast using a black actor... resulting in a stereotypical trope in the reboot, because they again didn't understand a single thing about the film other then, "hey, there's GHOSTS!"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 14, 2016)




----------



## Gaiash (Jul 14, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> I'm still not convinced Gaiash just isn't a troll.


Is it that hard for you to accept that there are people who like the movie?


----------



## Swarmy (Jul 14, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Is it that hard for you to accept that there are people who like the movie?



Every movie has fans, few deserve them.


----------



## Krory (Jul 14, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Is it that hard for you to accept that there are people who like the movie?




When even a cuck like Max Landis thinks this shit is stupid? Yes. Yes it is.


----------



## Krory (Jul 14, 2016)

Ghostbusters officially banned in China.

Communism _is_ good for something.



> The original Bill Murray-starring 1984 classic, which never screened theatrically in China, was translated as "捉鬼敢死队," five characters literally meaning "Ghost Catcher Dare Die Team." The sequels followed suit. The reboot, however, has been reworked as "超能敢死队," meaning "Super Power Dare Die Team."


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 14, 2016)

I've seen other positive reviews and even the negative reviews I've seen mostly just found it to be of average quality.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jul 14, 2016)

Lol people defending Rey. She's fucking hot alright, and she's a Disney princess too and we all know what happens to those girls after a few years time 

Rey is a joke character like that black Storm Trooper 
Rey never wielded a lightsaber all her life and she suddenly becomes a master at swordfighting and the force. I dont give a darn about your excuses that shit was written really bad. 

That Max Landis comment was on point too. Pussies that are scared being called a sexist will defend this movie. Its not about that basically, this shit is just too stupid and will question your intellect.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 15, 2016)

here we go again


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 15, 2016)



Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Rukia (Jul 15, 2016)

Why are you guys talking about Rey in here?


----------



## Jake CENA (Jul 15, 2016)

Lmao so to sup it up it will give you mental retardation 

inb4 sexist defense bots


----------



## Rukia (Jul 15, 2016)

Angry Joe is rarely wrong.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 15, 2016)

lol didn't Angry Joe give _BvS _a p good review?


----------



## Rukia (Jul 16, 2016)

I doubt it.  I know he hated the trailers.

Tbh, I still haven't seen BvS.  So I can't criticize it either way.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 16, 2016)

This movie is unlikely to make its returns...145 million into production? Just about as much into adverts and promotions. It needs a return of 300 million just to break even. Apparently Feig needs it to make 500 million for it to be successful, and it's barred in China...this is just not happening. A projected 45 million opening weekend is paltry. Opening weekend is usually the peak of sales, so it's likely downhill from here.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 16, 2016)

Stunna said:


> lol didn't Angry Joe give _BvS _a p good review?



Uh, no?


----------



## Stunna (Jul 16, 2016)

must have been a different bad movie I'm thinking of


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 16, 2016)

It was Man of Steel.


----------



## Krory (Jul 16, 2016)

Still waiting for Armoured Skeptic to put his review up.


----------



## Rukia (Jul 16, 2016)

I see that Ghostbusters is on track for a 45m opening.  That is a disappointing number.

I just looked at box office mojo the other day.  Ghostbusters is like #32 all time adjusted for inflation.  A remake should be able to do better.


----------



## Kuromaku (Jul 16, 2016)

The movie's financial success or failure going forward depends in part on the movie's legs both in the US and overseas. While there is some notoriety attached, reviews seem to lean from mixed toward positive, meaning that if competition is week, it could have staying power. We'd have to check just what movies are coming up soon, as well as just what kind of audiences are seeing the movie (the proportion of women, the proportion of viewers in each age bracket, etc.), to see how much this one's audience is going to be cannibalized.


----------



## Rukia (Jul 16, 2016)

It faces real competition the next few weeks.  Star Trek, Jason Bourne, and Suicide Squad.  Could be tough.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 16, 2016)

It's not showing in China, Kuromaku. It has a projected 45 million opening this weekend. Could be 50, but I haven't seen higher estimates. It needs 300 million to break even, and more to be profitable.


----------



## Kuromaku (Jul 16, 2016)

Rukia said:


> It faces real competition the next few weeks.  Star Trek, Jason Bourne, and Suicide Squad.  Could be tough.



Maybe, but it's a good thing for this movie that none of those are comedies (although each of them has a varying degree of humor present) centered around a mostly female leading cast. SS is the big one though given the amount of buzz it has and the impressions (accurate or not) of it being a frothier film than the grim epic that was BvS (the latter means that those looking for humor might think SS can serve them well).

@seto: While the lack of play in China is going to hurt, that's also why I brought up the matter of how much legs the movie has. If competition is weaker than expected (and that's not out of the question given the various surprises studios, positive and negative, have had this summer) and audiences keep flocking to see it, and it does have success in other foreign markets (and maybe in its post-theatrical release), then there could be a sense that this is a cult movie (regardless of how accurate such a sentiment might be) even if it doesn't become a mega-hit at the first-run box office.


----------



## Krory (Jul 16, 2016)

Even if the movie "has legs," it would need to not dip in its earnings _*at all*_ for six solid weeks just to break even.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Gunners (Jul 16, 2016)

Yeah it is fucked and I'm not saddened. Sometimes you just have to sit back and let people fuck up. They played their hand too strongly and now people are wise to their game. 

Hopefully it sends a message to those lookimg to cash in on social justice.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 16, 2016)

"Fight the patriarchy by seeing this movie and laughing about two people that died."


----------



## Rukia (Jul 16, 2016)

Damn, Weaver looks good in the original.


----------



## Krory (Jul 16, 2016)




----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

Want a laugh? Check out the Twitter hashtag #GhostbustersEmpty

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 17, 2016)



Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Rukia (Jul 17, 2016)

I thought for sure that Ghostbusters would be a big hit in Malaysia.


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jul 17, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> Want a laugh? Check out the Twitter hashtag #GhostbustersEmpty



Ouch


----------



## Rythik78 (Jul 17, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> "Fight the patriarchy by seeing this movie and laughing about two people that died."




That is messed up, but it is the femnazis. Can't expect any decency from them. 

Sauce? So that I see the original abomination where it came from?


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

Rythik78 said:


> That is messed up, but it is the femnazis. Can't expect any decency from them.
> 
> Sauce? So that I see the original abomination where it came from?




Link in her tweet. I ain't clicking that shit, lol.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

Also, my local theater is going from 7 2D screenings and 5 3D screenings this weekend to 3 2D screenings and 5 3D screenings on Monday.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 17, 2016)

My cinema still has the average amount of screenings so it might differ from area to area.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

I'm being blinded by your white knight armor.


----------



## Swarmy (Jul 17, 2016)

It isn't even out here yet  Star Trek is coming out this friday so this precious gem will have to wait for 29th


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 17, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> I'm being blinded by your white knight armor.


So liking a movie makes me a white knight?


----------



## Jake CENA (Jul 17, 2016)

Gaiash goes on every day here in the Konoha Theatre subforums and post in every shitty movie thread and says he has a different opinion so that he would show us his trolling prowess


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 17, 2016)

If I wanted to annoy people with a controversial opinion it wouldn't be this one. I have opinions that people will find much more annoying than liking a movie most reviewers think is just ok.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

TerminaTHOR said:


> Gaiash goes on every day here in the Konoha Theatre subforums and post in every shitty movie thread and says he has a different opinion so that he would show us his trolling prowess



When a troll calls out a troll, shit is getting real.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

> As of July 17, 2016, _Ghostbusters_ has grossed $46 million in North America and $19.1 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $65.1 million, against a budget of $144 million.




 C... c'mon guys, let's just have fun.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 17, 2016)

From what I can tell, it seems to be doing well enough. It earned $46 million its first weekend.



So does this make it a success, or average or what?

I do hope that this won't lead to more insulting SJW advertising campaigns though.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

hcheng02 said:


> From what I can tell, it seems to be doing well enough. It earned $46 million its first weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It had a budget of $144 million, with an advertising budget of _over_ $100 million. That means it needs $244 million, at the very least (actually more), just to break even - no profit. The movie is already being lowered to half-screenings in some theaters across the US and the UK. It is also not opening in China, the second largest movie audience in the world - China has literally saved potential failing movies like Warcraft. But let's just take the base budget of $144 million, they brought in around $50 million.

Compare this to a movie like _Captain America: Civil War_ - It made around $180 million domestically (just in the US) with a $250 million budget. This movie also dropped to only gross in around $80 million domestically on its second weekend, and this wasn't even considered bad.

The _Secret Life of Pets_ opened to over $100 million domestically (US only) with a budget of $75 million.

Even the latest _The Purge_ film, which only had a $10 million budget, brought in $31.4 million - and this was a niche R-rated "horror" film. it was also competing with the opening of _The BFG_ and _Legend of Tarzan_ - Ghosbusters' only competition was the second weekend of _Secret Life of Pets_ (which it lost to).


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 17, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> It had a budget of $144 million, with an advertising budget of _over_ $100 million. That means it needs $244 million, at the very least (actually more), just to break even - no profit. The movie is already being lowered to half-screenings in some theaters across the US and the UK. It is also not opening in China, the second largest movie audience in the world - China has literally saved potential failing movies like Warcraft. But let's just take the base budget of $144 million, they brought in around $50 million.
> 
> Compare this to a movie like _Captain America: Civil War_ - It made around $180 million domestically (just in the US) with a $250 million budget. This movie also dropped to only gross in around $80 million domestically on its second weekend, and this wasn't even considered bad.
> 
> ...



Wow, interesting. So basically Ghostbusters is underperforming and with new competition coming in its unlikely to improve its earnings? But didn't it already earn like $65 million overseas? That should be its advertising budget already.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

More stats:

_Central Intelligence_, which opened alongside _Finding Dory_, opened to only $30 million and had a budget of $50 million - still considered a disappointment even after it went on to gross $180 million worldwide to date. 

Anyone who tells you Ghostbusters is doing "pretty well" is deluded as fuck, or Paul Feig.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

hcheng02 said:


> Wow, interesting. So basically Ghostbusters is underperforming and with new competition coming in its unlikely to improve its earnings? But didn't it already earn like $65 million overseas? That should be its advertising budget already.



The $65 million you cite is its earnings INCLUDING overseas. $46 million in the US, and $19.1 million overseas.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

People keep throwing around the term "legs," saying that a movie may have "legs" for its income. Even movies that have legs still see declines in both showing numbers and actual earnings, but for Ghostbusters to even break even, this means it'd have to perform exactly the same for four consecutive weeks now - Civil War was considered a film that had "legs" and still had steady declines because it's _normal_.

And people also think "legs" refers to its earning capacity - it means its length of time in theaters.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 17, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> The $65 million you cite is its earnings INCLUDING overseas. $46 million in the US, and $19.1 million overseas.



Oops my bad. 



Jubilee said:


> More stats:
> 
> _Central Intelligence_, which opened alongside _Finding Dory_, opened to only $30 million and had a budget of $50 million - still considered a disappointment even after it went on to gross $180 million worldwide to date.
> 
> Anyone who tells you Ghostbusters is doing "pretty well" is deluded as fuck, or Paul Feig.



I don't know anything about movie budgets and profits, but why would Central Intelligence ultimately earning $180 million be considered a disappointment when that more than its budget of $50 million?


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

hcheng02 said:


> Oops my bad.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about movie budgets and profits, but why would Central Intelligence ultimately earning $180 million be considered a disappointment when that more than its budget of $50 million?



Because movie publishers are dumb, they expect more out of things than they rightfully deserve.

(There's also things to take into account like advertising budget but I doubt for a movie like that it was that high)


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

Richard Roeper replies to the trolls that ranged from calling him sexist, telling him to retire, or telling him to go kill/harm himself because of his negative Ghostbusters review.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 17, 2016)

Not rooting for this film but if you nerds would have the amount of determination for women as you do for seeing films fail, you might have gotten laid by now with out opening your checkbook.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

The Mad King said:


> Not rooting for this film but if you nerds would have to amount of determination for women as you do for seeing films fail, you might have gotten laid by now with out opening your checkbook.



I'm curious how you know a prostitute that takes checks.

And you don't need to actually _do_ anything to see a film fail. You just watch the garbage fire.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 17, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> I'm curious how you know a prostitute that takes checks.


Because your mom couldnt break a $100


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 17, 2016)

There's annoying trolls on both sides of this discussion and I'm finding both get on my nerves. I mean I had a whole debate earlier about how we shouldn't pretend the sexist reaction isn't a thing but when I hear about people getting called sexist for simply not liking the film I get annoyed because it's that behaviour that leads people to assume the actual sexism directed at this movie isn't a thing.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

The Mad King said:


> Because your mom couldnt break a $100



Well yeah, it's difficult for corpses to do most things.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)




----------



## Jake CENA (Jul 17, 2016)

That picture basically buried our childhood.

Im not sure which is worse, this Ghostbusters movie or watching Roman Reigns do a promo


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jul 17, 2016)

Ok, I'm gonna be real here. No one else here would no doubt not consider it but I would tap Melissa. Yeah, I said it. I would tap each of them expect that big black guy there.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

And now Gaiash's sig isn't the most disgusting thing in this thread anymore.


----------



## Krory (Jul 17, 2016)

> The comedy starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones with director Paul Feig (“Spy”) at the helm, took in an estimated $46 million at the domestic box office this weekend, according to .
> 
> *That’s the biggest opening for a live-action comedy this year* and the biggest opening for a McCarthy/Feig movie (besting their 2013 movie “The Heat,” which opened at ).



Are these fuckers kidding? Deadpool topped that in _*one day*_. 

They also conveniently forget to mention that this movie had over three times the budget of The Heat ($144 million to $43 million).

But then again, facts hold back agendas.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 18, 2016)



Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 18, 2016)

That video was really stupid. So apparently because the person making the video didn't like the movie that means people who have said they do like the movie aren't being honest. Newsflash; people have different opinions from you.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 18, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> That video was really stupid. So apparently because the person making the video didn't like the movie that means people who have said they do like the movie aren't being honest. Newsflash; people have different opinions from you.



No, the video was actually really good, and if you had actually watched it, you'd know what point she was making.


----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> That video was really stupid. So apparently because the person making the video didn't like the movie that means people who have said they do like the movie aren't being honest. Newsflash; people have different opinions from you.





Gaiash said:


> That video was really stupid. So apparently because the person making the video didn't like the movie that means people who have said they do like the movie aren't being honest. Newsflash; people have different opinions from you.



The first half of the video wasn't even close to anything about that, so thanks for making it abundantly clear you just scrubbed through. It was about Sony's dishonesty regarding its marketing ploys, the act of deleting comments, and trying to drive all the focus on the concept of "misogyny" while trying to brush legitimate complaints under the rug.

After that she cites specific references (ie James Rolfe and Richard Roeper) where people who _did_ say bad things about Ghostbusters - nothing having to do with it being an all female leading cast - were demonized not only by angry fans but the media as well, and then goes on to talk about specific reviews that state, "This movie was only okay but I'm going to give it a higher score because it was all women and we need more of that" - this is hugely dishonest. The dedicated two whole sentences to the idea that some (again, read:_* some*_) reviewers were afraid to give it a lower score because of the potential backlash... like what happened to Rolfe and Roeper (but hey nobody cares when it's white men getting threats). It's not even stated as a fact, it's an opinion summation theory. She then goes on to decry further the Sony agenda that the only negativity around this film is misogyny, backing it up with support from _Ghostbusters_ director Ivan Reitman.

So either you literally only watched a ten second segment right in the middle, or you pulled this response out of your ass. I'm leaning towards the latter.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 18, 2016)

Video was on point. Never paid much attention to her content before now.


----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)

Stunna said:


> Video was on point. Never paid much attention to her content before now.



Same... I guess because she looks like a Ghostbusters (2016) character...


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 18, 2016)

tbh, I'd oppress that

Reactions: Agree 3 | Friendly 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> tbh, I'd oppress that

Reactions: Funny 1 | Useful 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)

Oh lawd, Feig might want to do Zuul for the sequel he thinks he's still getting.


----------



## Pocalypse (Jul 18, 2016)

Sony aren't gonna touch Back to the Future and the Goonies, are they?


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 18, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, the video was actually really good, and if you had actually watched it, you'd know what point she was making.


I watched the whole video actually.



Jubilee said:


> The first half of the video wasn't even close to anything about that, so thanks for making it abundantly clear you just scrubbed through. It was about Sony's dishonesty regarding its marketing ploys, the act of deleting comments, and trying to drive all the focus on the concept of "misogyny" while trying to brush legitimate complaints under the rug.


Those were things I've already talked about and aren't specific to this video. The later half however where she claims the positive reviews were people not being honest is the part I took issue with.



Jubilee said:


> After that she cites specific references (ie James Rolfe and Richard Roeper) where people who _did_ say bad things about Ghostbusters - nothing having to do with it being an all female leading cast - were demonized not only by angry fans but the media as well


I already expressed my thoughts on that topic.



Jubilee said:


> So either you literally only watched a ten second segment right in the middle, or you pulled this response out of your ass. I'm leaning towards the latter.


I only took issue with a specific part of the review.


----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> I watched the whole video actually.



I'm going to store this nugget away for later.




> Those were things I've already talked about and aren't specific to this video. The later half however where she claims the positive reviews were people not being honest is the part I took issue with.



Then stop pretending they weren't part of this video.




> I already expressed my thoughts on that topic.



I don't care.




> I only took issue with a *specific part of the review*.





Gaiash said:


> I watched the whole video actually.



The video wasn't even a review. The video was about the reception and treatment of reviewers by... well, people like _you_. Had very little to do with the movie itself, exception being one aside where she spent ten seconds just to say she saw it and didn't like it and explained why. It was less than a twentieth of the video content.

You did not watch it.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 18, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> Then stop pretending they weren't part of this video.


Never said they weren't part of the video. So because I reacted to a specific part of it I only watched that part? That makes no sense. It's not a long video, it's only 14 minutes.



Jubilee said:


> I don't care.


Except that's the entire reason I didn't bring up the other points. I didn't need to address the discussion about the backlash because I already talked about it. I didn't need to comment on the ridiculous reactions to people who didn't like the movie because I already talked about it. The thing specific to that video was her comments about the positive reviews so that's what I reacted to.



Jubilee said:


> The video wasn't even a review. The video was about the reception and treatment of reviewers by... well, people like _you_. Had very little to do with the movie itself, exception being one aside where she spent ten seconds just to say she saw it and didn't like it and explained why. It was less than a twentieth of the video content.


So I mistyped. It happens, doesn't mean I didn't watch the video. It means I neglected to check my own post for mistakes which is something I'll admit I do. But lets address the other part of this part of your comment shall we?

By people like me? I'm sorry but how am I like the idiots who cry wolf in reaction to every negative view on the film? I acknowledge the sexism directed at the film is a thing and was a big problem long before the trailer came out but I also acknowledged people have other reasons for not liking the film. The most critical thing I said about people who have other reasons for disliking the film is that the people who didn't even see it had petty reasons.


----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Never said they weren't part of the video. So because I reacted to a specific part of it I only watched that part? That makes no sense. It's not a long video, it's only 14 minutes.



Because you based the entire video on one part you didn't agree with - you specifically said it was "really stupid" with that stated reason. Do you just... not even pay attention to what you post?




> Except that's the entire reason I didn't bring up the other points. I didn't need to address the discussion about the backlash because I already talked about it. I didn't need to comment on the ridiculous reactions to people who didn't like the movie because I already talked about it. The thing specific to that video was her comments about the positive reviews so that's what I reacted to.



And yet you still called the _entire_ video "really stupid." You, again, base the entire video on one ten second segment that you completely misinterpreted and partly fabricated.




> So I mistyped. It happens, doesn't mean I didn't watch the video. It means I neglected to check my own post for mistakes which is something I'll admit I do. But lets address the other part of this part of your comment shall we?



Or it means you're really stupid - not the video.




> By people like me? I'm sorry but how am I like the idiots who cry wolf in reaction to every negative view on the film? I acknowledge the sexism directed at the film is a thing and was a big problem long before the trailer came out but I also acknowledged people have other reasons for not liking the film. The most critical thing I said about people who have other reasons for disliking the film is that the people who didn't even see it had petty reasons.



Yes, people who are flippant and dismissive of valid claims "just because you talked about it already." People who take a 14 minute video and throw away all of its merits based on a tiny fraction of it that you didn't even apparently actually listen to. You claim the most "critical thing" you said is that people had petty reasons yet again you called this video _*really stupid*_... again, based on something that wasn't even a focal point of the video and that you completely blew out of proportion... kind of like the rest of the movie's supporters!



Gaiash said:


> _*That video was really stupid.*_ So apparently because the person making the video didn't like the movie that means people who have said they do like the movie aren't being honest. Newsflash; people have different opinions from you.



Funny, you call a video really stupid that consists 98% of stuff you just said you agreed with. Huh.

This was really fun and all, and I appreciate you trying _this_ hard to prove how right I am - I mean literally everything you've said about the video (on your own volition, not replying to other talking points) contradicts the actual content of the video. So thank you.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 18, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> Because you based the entire video on one part you didn't agree with - you specifically said it was "really stupid" with that stated reason. Do you just... not even pay attention to what you post?


The video's title is "Why Being Honest about Ghostbusters is Important" and the thing I took issue was the point where she claimed the positive reaction to the film was people not being honest. So that's why I found the video stupid.

And look I phrase things poorly a lot. I admit it. But I get annoyed when people make these kind of assumptions about my point of view. Maybe I overreacted to the video, I will accept that, but I did watch it.


----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)




----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)

Skip to the 3:00 mark to skip past the intro bullshit.

EDIT: The comparison between McKinnon's character and Fire Marshall Bill.  Holy shit.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 18, 2016)

Why would I wanna do that?


----------



## Rukia (Jul 18, 2016)

Oh wow.  The honest about Ghostbusters girl does look like she should be a character in the movie.


----------



## Pocalypse (Jul 18, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> Skip to the 3:00 mark to skip past the intro bullshit.
> 
> EDIT: The comparison between McKinnon's character and Fire Marshall Bill.  Holy shit.



Mike:

"I loved it. No I'm just fucking with you. It was the biggest piece of shit I have ever seen"

Fucking Mike, my sides are already ruined


----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)

I'm so fucking glad Jay brought up the absolute bullshit Paul Feig pulled about Chris Hemsworth's character meant to be a "mirror" to the Janine character. The biggest load of misinformed, dishonest shit ever.


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jul 18, 2016)

Pocalypse said:


> Sony aren't gonna touch Back to the Future and the Goonies, are they?



Prepare yourself, they're going to get reboots eventually. Btw, is The Goonies sequel scrapped or are they still working on it?


----------



## Stunna (Jul 18, 2016)

Pretty sure there's a contractual prevention against a _Back to the Future _remake; at least until Zemeckis dies.

And _The Goonies _is lowkey lame when you take off your nostalgia goggles, so I don't care what they do with that property lol

Reactions: Funny 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Pocalypse (Jul 18, 2016)

BlazingInferno said:


> Prepare yourself, they're going to get reboots eventually. Btw, is The Goonies sequel scrapped or are they still working on it?



Hopefully scrapped because I fucking love The Goonies, they better not touch that shit. I know it was in the works but hopefully this Ghostbusters film changed their perception lol


----------



## Krory (Jul 18, 2016)

Don't worry, Warner Bros. is ahead of Sony - there's an Ocean's Eleven remake in the works with an all-female cast being led by Sandra Bullock, directed by Gary Ross. And due to Ross' tie to Hunger Games, there were very prominent rumors of Jennifer Lawrence being made second to Bullock.


----------



## Robin (Jul 18, 2016)

Seen the movie, and I was entertained. It was a solid 5/10, Kevin was the best 
The black lady wasn't funny at all, nor did she add any warmth/heart that black ladies sometimes add to the mix. I had the biggest issue with her. A horror comedy is just asking for a funny black lady dropping some hilarious one liners.

If you go into the theater expecting a masterpiece, of course you wouldn't like it. I went in not expecting much, and it was pretty good for what it was worth. It's a light family comedy about girls having fun chasing ghosts. And Kevin spitting coffee. I don't know why people want it to be something more, to educate them, to enlighten them, to change their lives, and then they attack the movie because it didn't deliver. I thought it was better than the Transformers movies. Heck even some Batman movies are terrible compared to this. Why the undue bashing?


Is the bashing only because the reboot is worse than the original movies? Isn't that kinda critique dishonest because it's not taking the movie on its own merit?


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 18, 2016)

> *Box-Office Analysis: Why the 'Ghostbusters' Reboot May Haunt Sony*
> 6:45 AM PDT 7/18/2016 by Pamela McClintock
> 
> 558
> ...


----------



## Krory (Jul 19, 2016)

Yet they totally doing a sequel.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 19, 2016)

I love how they did the MCU-like post-credits scene. Yet Super Mario Bros. the Movie did that way before MCU...


----------



## The Runner (Jul 19, 2016)

BTW, Hollywood has remade Psycho with Vince FUCKING Vaughn as Norman Bates.

So I'm pretty sure Back to the Future isn't as safe as people want it to be


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 19, 2016)

hcheng02 said:


> From what I can tell, it seems to be doing well enough. It earned $46 million its first weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Star Trek Beyond and Ice Age Collision Course are coming out this week.  Even with the questionable premise of the latter (seriously, the fifth film in its franchise), they're likely gonna bury Ghostbusters.

If you want a Ghostbusters fix, buy the comics by IDW.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 19, 2016)

Sir Jogga said:


> So I'm pretty sure Back to the Future isn't as safe as people want it to be


The thing that makes Back to the Future unlikely to get a reboot is pretty specific to it. The things that are marketable about the franchise are dated. Most notably the Delorean, an actual failed car brand that ties it specifically to the 80s. You can make a new Ecto-1 from another car but in Back to the Future the time machine was referred to by its brand name.

So yeah they could easily adapt the story of Back to the Future to modern day (in fact having the 80s as the past could be an interesting twist on the formula) but doing so means ditching the things about the films that you can sell.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 19, 2016)

I just watched the old Ghostbusters recently, and I would like to point out a couple of things that I feel shows the new Ghostbusters actually defeats itself.  Given I don't want to waste too much time, I'll stick with the below two points:

1.) Realism, or as close to realism as a film about ghosts can be.  In the original Ghostbusters, you not only believed but knew that Egon, Venkman and Ray were amateurs to ghost-busting when they started out.  Just look at what happened when they dealt with Slimer.  Even when they are up against Gozer, the Ghostbusters' style of fighting isn't only simple, but practical and effective, if a bit risky ("crossing the streams").  But in the new "Ghostbusters", the girls suddenly bust out ninja moves and the like when fighting the ghost army, *all very impractical when actually trying to aim a gun*, with no hint of any of them having that kind of physical training beforehand*.  *Not to mention that they keep the regular Proton Packs and Ghost trap throughout the first film; the new Ghostbusters has their Egon-analogue invent an entire *armory *in half a day.

2.) Physical appearance and personalities.  Yes, I'm making mention of this.  Egon, Ray and Peter are rather unremarkable in appearance, a far cry from the kind of male actors you'd see cast in action movies nowadays.  Despite this, each of them affords themselves to their own individual personality quirks that makes them genuinely funny without making them caricatures, while you can still believe these guys would be professors.  In the case of Winston, he's not some token minority stereotype, *but the everyman,* nor does he fall prey to naive new-comer (the novelization even mentions he was a *former marine)*, resulting in the four main Ghostbusters playing off each other naturally.

I do not get that feeling from the trailers to the new movie.  Basically, it feels like the scriptwriter or director thought: "Let's make the new Ghostbusters all the cool/sexy modern things that the old dull dunderhead guys weren't", including Patty playing sassy black woman to the hilt.  And don't get me started on Holtzmann, who is like a mad scientist stereotype compared to Egon's stoicism, and they always, always show that one scene of Holtzmann *licking one of her Proton Pistols.  *I mean...why?  If you want me to take these new characters seriously, *don't try to sexualize them like that.*


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jul 19, 2016)

The creators have the rights to Back to the Future so no reboots while they're still breathing. 

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/no-back-to-the-future-reboot-robert-zemeckis


----------



## Stunna (Jul 19, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> The thing that makes Back to the Future unlikely to get a reboot is pretty specific to it. The things that are marketable about the franchise are dated. Most notably the Delorean, an actual failed car brand that ties it specifically to the 80s. You can make a new Ecto-1 from another car but in Back to the Future the time machine was referred to by its brand name.
> 
> So yeah they could easily adapt the story of Back to the Future to modern day (in fact having the 80s as the past could be an interesting twist on the formula) but doing so means ditching the things about the films that you can sell.


no it doesn't lol

the iconography is ageless, regardless of the real world practicality.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 19, 2016)

Stunna said:


> no it doesn't lol
> 
> the iconography is ageless, regardless of the real world practicality.


Only because the Delorean failed as a car brand.


----------



## The Runner (Jul 19, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> The thing that makes Back to the Future unlikely to get a reboot is pretty specific to it. The things that are marketable about the franchise are dated. Most notably the Delorean, an actual failed car brand that ties it specifically to the 80s. You can make a new Ecto-1 from another car but in Back to the Future the time machine was referred to by its brand name.
> 
> So yeah they could easily adapt the story of Back to the Future to modern day (in fact having the 80s as the past could be an interesting twist on the formula) but doing so means ditching the things about the films that you can sell.


If it were dated like that, it wouldn't be the classic that it is.


----------



## The Runner (Jul 19, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Only because the Delorean failed as a car brand.


Probably the most famous car brand in popculture. Many people don't even realise that the brand failed. The movie is that iconic.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 19, 2016)

Back to the Future remake would probably showcase a time traveling Kia.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 19, 2016)

Sir Jogga said:


> Probably the most famous car brand in popculture. Many people don't even realise that the brand failed. The movie is that iconic.



On January 27, 2016, the new DMC announced that it would build 300 DMC-12 cars in late 2016 and "new" DMC-12s in early 2017, each projected to cost just under $100,000.


----------



## The Runner (Jul 19, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> On January 27, 2016, the new DMC announced that it would build 300 DMC-12 cars in late 2016 and "new" DMC-12s in early 2017, each projected to cost just under $100,000.


Oh yeah


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jul 19, 2016)

This thread should get renamed to the Back to the Future nostalgia thread


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 19, 2016)

Sir Jogga said:


> If it were dated like that, it wouldn't be the classic that it is.


Actually that's exactly why it's the classic that it is. It's a time travel movie about an 80s kid being stuck in the 50s, the time periods are a plot point.



Sir Jogga said:


> Probably the most famous car brand in popculture. Many people don't even realise that the brand failed. The movie is that iconic.


Because it failed. The car is only remembered because of the Back to the Future movies. If it was still around to this day the car wouldn't be nearly as iconic. The films would but the car would have just been another movie car.


----------



## The Runner (Jul 19, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Actually that's exactly why it's the classic that it is. It's a time travel movie about an 80s kid being stuck in the 50s, the time periods are a plot point.


Dude...

I meant the context of the car.




> Because it failed. The car is only remembered because of the Back to the Future movies. If it was still around to this day the car wouldn't be nearly as iconic. The films would but the car would have just been another movie car.


Read what you wrote. You are stating the the movie is only iconic because the car failed, yet are stating that if the the car never failed it would be as iconic but the movie would still be iconic.

Read before you post.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 19, 2016)

Sir Jogga said:


> Read what you wrote. You are stating the the movie is only iconic because the car failed, yet are stating that if the the car never failed it would be as iconic but the movie would still be iconic.
> 
> Read before you post.


What I'm saying is the reason they'd want to make a remake is to make money off of merchandise. Except the things to make merchandise of that would sell for Back to the Future are specific to their time periods. That's my point. Hopefully that clears up any confusion.


----------



## Krory (Jul 20, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> Back to the Future remake would probably showcase a time traveling Kia.



Starring Amy Schumer as Doc Brown.


----------



## Jena (Jul 21, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> The thing that makes Back to the Future unlikely to get a reboot is pretty specific to it. The things that are marketable about the franchise are dated. Most notably the Delorean, an actual failed car brand that ties it specifically to the 80s. You can make a new Ecto-1 from another car but in Back to the Future the time machine was referred to by its brand name.
> 
> So yeah they could easily adapt the story of Back to the Future to modern day (in fact having the 80s as the past could be an interesting twist on the formula) but doing so means ditching the things about the films that you can sell.



It's cute that you think they wouldn't remake a movie because of pesky things like narrative logic.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2016)

They'll remake anything as long as they have an agenda to push along with it.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 22, 2016)

You mean as long as the idea is still marketable,right ?

I don't think most remakes come with agendas .


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2016)

Between this and the upcoming Ocean's Eleven remake, I beg to differ.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 22, 2016)

lol pls remakes don't need agendas, they just need to be marketable

having an agenda is part of having a market


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 22, 2016)

Here is my video review is "Ghostbusters".

So do you think they'll push a sequel? Even though it's had a solid opening, I can't imagine it will be a huge hit, as the box office relies so much on china these days.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 22, 2016)

Jena said:


> It's cute that you think they wouldn't remake a movie because of pesky things like narrative logic.


No I think they could find a way to make the narrative work, I'm saying that doing so would mean sacrificing the things that are marketable about the films and those are the reasons to make a remake/reboot.



MartialHorror said:


> So do you think they'll push a sequel? Even though it's had a solid opening, I can't imagine it will be a huge hit, as the box office relies so much on china these days.


I do think it'll get a sequel but just the one (unless the sequel is a huge hit).

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 22, 2016)

I don't think "Back to the Future" should be remade, simply because its concept doesn't leave a lot of room for exploration. Any variation would deviate too much from the plot. Of course course they can still do it if they want to and they'd probably just rehash the script, but it would suck and I don't think studios would want it to suck. It's the type of story that works once. 

"Ghostbusters", for all of its controversy, at least has a premise that can lead to many different kinds of stories, all under the same umbrella.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2016)

> Isn’t it strange that a non-comedic actor has one of the funniest roles in “Ghostbusters”? Aside from Kate McKinnon, playing a bonkers scientist with endless facial tics, Kevin, played by Chris Hemsworth, delivers most of the biggest laughs. He plays the ghoul-shooting quartet’s idiotic secretary. He’s not much of an assistant — an 8-year-old would probably do a better job — but he’s so nice to look at that he gets the gig.
> 
> His stupidity is kooky and bizarre. It’s also funnier than all of Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy’s lines put together. Part of the joke is that Hemsworth isn’t known for being funny. He’s known for being Thor.
> 
> ...




*Chortles*. You cannot make that shit up. I'm sure the film has its issues but .


----------



## Stunna (Jul 22, 2016)

MartialHorror said:


> I don't think "Back to the Future" should be remade, simply because its concept doesn't leave a lot of room for exploration. Any variation would deviate too much from the plot. Of course course they can still do it if they want to and they'd probably just rehash the script, but it would suck and I don't think studios would want it to suck. It's the type of story that works once.
> 
> "Ghostbusters", for all of its controversy, at least has a premise that can lead to many different kinds of stories, all under the same umbrella.


I'd rather see the premise of BttF milked over Ghostbusters' tbh

Time traveling mad scientist and his teenage sidekick, or, four schlubs with ghost-capturing vacuum cleaners? Both are great premises, but I know which I'd go with if I wanted to milk out a bunch of sequels/remakes.


----------



## PlacidSanity (Jul 22, 2016)

Hmm, don't know how reliable Variety is but the site has reported that the toy sales has exceed expectations for Mattel.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2016)

I'm sure a pimple faced, fugly, SOB exceeds his expectations with the ladies.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 22, 2016)

The film still haven't made profit !


----------



## Jake CENA (Jul 22, 2016)

I bet those people who watched this were trolled and pressured by their peers and labeled them fascists pigs and anti feminists


----------



## The Runner (Jul 22, 2016)

Stunna said:


> I'd rather see the premise of BttF milked over Ghostbusters' tbh
> 
> Time traveling mad scientist and his teenage sidekick, or, four schlubs with ghost-capturing vacuum cleaners? Both are great premises, but I know which I'd go with if I wanted to milk out a bunch of sequels/remakes.


Live action Rick and Morty


----------



## Rukia (Jul 22, 2016)

I haven't really talked about this movie.  Because I thought indifference was the right attitude to display.  But you know what?  Fuck that.  I love the original Ghostbusters.  And I cannot believe a bunch of female comedians were brought in to make fart jokes!


----------



## ~VK~ (Jul 22, 2016)

mfw this garbage has basically the same RT rating as kingsman

guess critics truly are full of shit


----------



## Rukia (Jul 22, 2016)

Batman v Superman has 29%!  Give me a fucking break!  Why were the critics so negative?!

Reactions: Agree 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 23, 2016)

MartialHorror said:


> Here is my video review is "Ghostbusters".
> 
> So do you think they'll push a sequel? Even though it's had a solid opening, I can't imagine it will be a huge hit, as the box office relies so much on china these days.



>Solid opening
>Not even half of its filming budget

Lol wut?


----------



## Rukia (Jul 23, 2016)

Ouch, Ghostbusters will fall to 5th this weekend.


----------



## Krory (Jul 23, 2016)

As of today, it has still only made almost $90 million on a $144 million filming budget.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 23, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> As of today, it has still only made almost $90 million on a $144 million filming budget.



Meanwhile, both Warcraft and Independence Day Resurgence made back at least their production amount in the same amount of time.  It looks like Ghostbusters will be lucky to make its budget.

Looks like China`s refusal to air the movie is what will kill it.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Gunners (Jul 23, 2016)

It's kind of funny. What happened with the film reveals that cashing in on the narrative is more important than changing people's views. 

I you sincerely wanted to change the way things are approached, you wouldn't spend your efforts on a mediocre film let alone a terrible one. It's presents a risk and is inefficient. The film's lack of success has left people with the impression of an empty and rickety bandwagon. 

If they wanted to change people's views, they'd have been better served attaching their narrative to a film that looks good on paper. When the film is successful, people would associate it with a popular movement that they would then want to be part of. 

Essentially, you wouldn't pick an obese slob to be the face of a brand unless you want the brand to further the obese slob.


----------



## Krory (Jul 23, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> Meanwhile, both Warcraft and Independence Day Resurgence made back at least their production amount in the same amount of time.  It looks like Ghostbusters will be lucky to make its budget.
> 
> Looks like China`s refusal to air the movie is what will kill it.



Yeah, China might've made it break even but it's kind of doomed. Just looked at my local theaters, even our huge AMC theater only has one more showing for the night, two and a half hours from now, so must only be on one screen. 

It's drop was 63%. And people already writing complaint articles about how Hemsworth "showed up" the female cast. Yknow, patriarchal conspiracy.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 23, 2016)

Rukia said:


> Batman v Superman has 29%!  Give me a fucking break!  Why were the critics so negative?!



expectations. People were really looking forward to "Batman Vs Superman", while "Ghostbusters" had one of the worst marketing campaigns ever. I think most RT critics were pleasantly surprised, so maybe over-reacted with their ratings.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 23, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> It's drop was 63%. And people already writing complaint articles about how Hemsworth "showed up" the female cast. Yknow, patriarchal conspiracy



What were they expecting when they cast *THOR *in that role?  

It essentially shows that he's no "niche actor", but it also says something when he's supposed to be secondary, and he outshines the main cast.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 23, 2016)

He was entertaining but I wouldn't say he outshines the rest of the cast. As you might guess from my signature I thought Kate McKinnon was the stand out performance.


----------



## Krory (Jul 23, 2016)

MartialHorror said:


> expectations. People were really looking forward to "Batman Vs Superman", while "Ghostbusters" had one of the worst marketing campaigns ever. I think most RT critics were pleasantly surprised, so maybe over-reacted with their ratings.



There reviews that flat out say, "It's only okay but see it because womens"


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 24, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> He was entertaining but I wouldn't say he outshines the rest of the cast. As you might guess from my signature I thought Kate McKinnon was the stand out performance.



If your sig is a microcosm for the humor of this film and that is supposed to be one of the highlights of the supposed stand outs, I'll say almost anything decent would bulldoze the unfunny in your sig.


----------



## Atlas (Jul 24, 2016)

Has Paul Feig or any of the cast talked any shit about this turn out, yet?


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 24, 2016)

I'm guessing all those predictions of Paul Feig's comedies having long staying power didn't pan out then?


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 24, 2016)

I really don't know why I bother with this thread.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Gunners (Jul 24, 2016)

Yeah, you should leave.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 24, 2016)

Gunners said:


> Yeah, you should leave.


I really should.


----------



## Krory (Jul 24, 2016)

I apologize for not pandering to an awful film that is a financial flop.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 24, 2016)

Eh... so I watched this.

Went in with no hype whatsoever, positive or negative. I didn't watch the original Ghostbusters when I was a child (only last year), so I had no nostalgia goggles. I didn't watch the trailer either. I thought the original GB was just a popcorn movie and I was expecting another popcorn movie.

It's actually... decent. The humor goes back and forth between cringeworthy and legitimetely funny. The acting is the same. The actions and special effects are great. The plot is very similar to tyhe original GB one, which was average at best so this stays average.

As for the leads... Kristen Wiig is pretty bad. They wanted to write her as "the straight one" but forgot to make her likable. Leslie Jones is a stereotypical comedy character, who works for most of the time but is cringeworthy at points. Melissa McCarthy was great, she was funny without looking incompetent. Kate McKinnon steals the show though. She is really fucking funny, and also doubles as a badass. She the smartest member of the team, the one responsible for the tech, and pulls off the "weird nerd" role in a more likable way than Egon ever did. I'd totally watch a sequel of this just to watch her again.

The film is pretty feminist, yes. Not in a heavy-handed way, since the conflict is about people not believing in ghosts, not about the protagonists being female. They simply are female, and the film doesn't give a shit. The Chris Hemsworth character being mentally challenged was kind of exaggerated though, but he was pretty funny so it's fine.

I give it a 7/10. Which is probably the same grade I'd give to the original Ghostbusters. Go watch it before judging it. And don't pay attention to the trailer or to what youtube commenters want you to think. It's not a bad film at all.

Reactions: Like 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 24, 2016)

Rukia said:


> Batman v Superman has 29%!  Give me a fucking break!  Why were the critics so negative?!



This film is so much better than BvS is not even funny.

Bless the critics.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Disagree 1


----------



## Atlas (Jul 24, 2016)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> so I had no nostalgia goggles.
> 
> the one responsible for the tech, and pulls off the "weird nerd" role in a more likable way than Egon ever did. I'd totally watch a sequel of this just to watch her again.
> 
> ...


----------



## Krory (Jul 24, 2016)

>Says half the movie ain't even funny and half the main cast sucks
>7/10


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 24, 2016)

Jubilee said:


> >Says half the movie ain't even funny and half the main cast sucks
> >7/10



One is amazing, one is great, one is average, and one sucks.

Doing the math is probably averages to 7/10.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 24, 2016)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I give it a 7/10. Which is probably the same grade I'd give to the original Ghostbusters.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 24, 2016)

Dragon D. Luffy, bringing some common sense to this thread at last.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Disagree 7


----------



## Krory (Jul 25, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Dragon D. Luffy, bringing some common sense to this thread at last.



"Stop having different opinions than me!"


----------



## Stunna (Jul 25, 2016)

Honestly, agreeing with Dragon D. Luffy about anything is kinda' sus'.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 26, 2016)

Stunna said:


> Honestly, agreeing with Dragon D. Luffy about anything is kinda' sus'.


Didn't say I agree with him, just that he has common sense. And he's not the first person to bring it to this thread, just that he balances out the perspectives on the film a bit more.


----------



## Krory (Jul 26, 2016)

After two weekends, still hasn't even made its production budget.  But HUGE SUCCESS, right Sony?


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Jul 30, 2016)

I saw this film, tonight, and, while I do not believe that it can compare to the original films, it still was enjoyable in its own right.

I was worried that Patty's sassy attitude would be present for much of her screentime, but it thankfully was not. I am very glad that the actresses in this film did not attempt to exactly copy the personalities and interactions of the charterers from the original films, instead giving their own unique performances. I definitely did not like how the mayor attempted to prevent the Ghostbuster from doing their job, and then denied that anything had occurred, despite countless eyewitnesses. That sharply contrasted with the mayor from the original films, who initially was distrustful of the titular characters, but then praised them for their services. At least the city thanked them at the end.

I am not certain whether to regard the new devices introduced in this film (the grenades, the proton gauntlet, and the shredder), as cool or corny, as they certainly are interesting concepts, but they could also be seen as excessive and over-the-top.

Why was Kevin, the receptionist, portrayed as being so ridiculously incompetent? I imagine that it was done for humor, but, if the film writers needed to use such cheap tactics to produce laughs from the audience, that is not a good sign for the film overall.

The main antagonist, Rowan North, was unfortunately too bland of a character for me to take him seriously or feel anything for him, at all; he need more depth and development to have been more memorable, in my mind.

Some of the best parts of the films were the cameos from the cast of the original films, and I have to admit that it took me several seconds to realize that the taxi driver was Dan Aykroyd, but I recognized all the others immediately. Obviously, Harold Ramis was not able to make a cameo appearance, but the line in the credits dedicating the film to him was a very nice touch, which I liked, since he was my favorite actor from the original films. There were obviously many other references to the previous films, most noticeably the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, but did anyone notice the billboard that said "that's a big twinkie?" That was a nice in-joke. I also really liked the cameo by Ozzy Osbourne, although I also think that Alice Cooper would have worked well for that scene, as well.

The post-credits scene was clearly hinting at a sequel, but it remains to be seen if this film shall be sufficiently popular or profitable for the studio to make a sequel.

Overall, I feel that people who dislike this movie are being far too critical of it, as it was very enjoyable and was able to recapture the spirit (pun not intended) of the original films while not duplicating them exactly. I do not have any intention to watch this film a second time, but it was good to see it once, since I am a great fan of the originals.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 30, 2016)

Into the third weekend, still didn't make budget.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jul 30, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> I will applaud this film if it makes over 200 million despite the negative feedback _and_ having to be released around the same time of "Secret Life of Pets", "Star Trek" "Ice Age", "Jason Bourne" and "Suicide Squad".


...

This movie was doomed even with good marketing and male leads! It didn't stand a chance of finding great success during the most competitive month of the year .


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 30, 2016)

I've been picking up the Ghostbusters comics that were published by IDW.  I have finished up to volume 4 at the moment, and I have come across the Ghostsmashers.  

Now, here is where I come to the point: I think the 2016 Ghostbusters was so intent on focusing on being "better" than the original Ghostbusters movie that they completely neglected the extended universe in the comics (a part of me wonders if they are even aware the comics exist).  In the new movie, so I have heard, there are instances of ghosts being outright destroyed by the new Ghostbusters, rather than being captured, which is what the Ghostbusters have always done to Ghosts.  

Here is where they ignore the IDW comics: as shown in volume 4, trying to "destroy" ghosts not only doesn't work, *but is a bad idea*.

Yes, the new movie will undoubtedly operate on different logic.  But if you apply the logic from the original Ghostbusters and its comic spin-offs to the new movie, then any ghosts that were "destroyed" by the Ghostbusters are simply dispersed and will come back later, if not amalgamate into a super-ghost, depending on the number of ghosts destroyed in that manner.

After all, conservation of energy is in play in the IDW comics, and arguably the original films - "destroying" a ghost only disperses its energy, and that energy will build up over time.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 30, 2016)

Except destroying the ghosts was only what they were doing when they didn't really have a way of trapping them. They only have one trap in the film and only get a bigger containment system at the end. The end goal during the fight with the ghosts taking over the city was to suck them back through Rowan's portal. Honestly you're just nitpicking at this point.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 30, 2016)

No, that's not nitpicking, that seems like a major point on the mechanics of the story's universe.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 30, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> I've been picking up the Ghostbusters comics that were published by IDW.  I have finished up to volume 4 at the moment, and I have come across the Ghostsmashers.
> 
> Now, here is where I come to the point: I think the 2016 Ghostbusters was so intent on focusing on being "better" than the original Ghostbusters movie that they completely neglected the extended universe in the comics (a part of me wonders if they are even aware the comics exist).  In the new movie, so I have heard, there are instances of ghosts being outright destroyed by the new Ghostbusters, rather than being captured, which is what the Ghostbusters have always done to Ghosts.
> 
> ...



I seriously doubt more than 1% of the audience were even aware there was such a thing as "ghostbusters comics" so I think it is extremely unlikely that this would have interferred in this film's box office.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 30, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, that's not nitpicking, that seems like a major point on the mechanics of the story's universe.


The comics are their own timeline, the film is set in its own universe that is separate from the original and as I already explained they were only destroying the ghosts because at the time it was their best option. So yes it is nitpicking.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 30, 2016)

Seriously the fact there are even people who bought ghostbusters comics is already surprising.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 30, 2016)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Seriously the fact there are even people who bought ghostbusters comics is already surprising.



They're very good, actually. 

I suggest that you give them a read.


----------



## Krory (Jul 30, 2016)

Instead of using time and resources developing and building seventy-two different weapons with all the same exact purpose, they could've just streamlined the production of the traps... so, y'know... they could follow through on the Ghostbusters mission statement.

 But I guess it's not as cool and edgy as stabbing a ghost to death and licking your Ghostbusting Cock Glock.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 30, 2016)

Man the people in this thread sure do love nitpicking.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 30, 2016)

Rey said:


> But I guess it's not as cool and edgy



Which, from what I have seen in the trailers and in a review, seems to be "the main selling point" of the new Ghostbusters (on top of the all-female cast vs. "the male misogyny" of the original) - they're "cooler" and "edgier" than the original crew with all that supposedly entails.  Basically, the Ghostbusters if they were the Ghostsmashers.


----------



## Krory (Jul 30, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> Which, from what I have seen in the trailers and in a review, seems to be "the main selling point" of the new Ghostbusters (on top of the all-female cast vs. "the male misogyny" of the original) - they're "cooler" and "edgier" than the original crew with all that supposedly entails.  Basically, the Ghostbusters if they were the Ghostsmashers.



And now we see how successful of a selling point it was - not at all.


----------



## Krory (Jul 30, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Man the people in this thread sure do love nitpicking.



Yes, complaining about entire point of their tech is "nitpicking." It's not like we're complaining about Lezzy McDykish's undercut, we're talking about something that was a major focal point of BOTH movies. We ain't complaining that Slimer was a different shade of green.

Christ, you're acting like Nolan when people complained about Superman splattering peoples' skulls against concrete.


----------



## Krory (Jul 30, 2016)

Rey said:


> Yes, complaining about entire point of their tech is "nitpicking." It's not like we're complaining about Lezzy McDykish's undercut, we're talking about something that was a major focal point of BOTH movies. We ain't complaining that Slimer was a different shade of green.
> 
> Christ, you're acting like Nolan when people complained about Superman splattering peoples' skulls against concrete.



Acting like Snyder, rather (as there's still no fucking edit button on mobile)


----------



## The Runner (Jul 30, 2016)

Rey said:


> Acting like Snyder, rather (as there's still no fucking edit button on mobile)


Try getting the Orange Beta style in the Preferences.

Then you'll find the edit part in the three bars besides the reputation part of your post.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Krory (Jul 30, 2016)

Sir Jogga said:


> Try getting the Orange Beta style in the Preferences.
> 
> Then you'll find the edit part in the three bars besides the reputation part of your post.



Thanks.

Now to question if it's worth actually using the Orange Beta style...


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 30, 2016)

Rey said:


> we're talking about something that was a major focal point of BOTH movies.


Why they didn't destroy the ghosts was not a major focal point of the films.


----------



## Krory (Jul 30, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Why they didn't destroy the ghosts was not a major focal point of the films.



Not of this one - they were too busy being edgy and hip, smashing guitars and doing backflips in slow-mo while shooting ghosts like they were in a cheesy video game.

But although Venkman was only concerned with a business (and 'ze ladies), Spengler and Stantz more embraced their scientific aspects and wanted them to be _studied_, and the writing embraced the first law of thermodynamics which is energy cannot be destroyed - and that's what ghosts were.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Jul 30, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> Now, here is where I come to the point: I think the 2016 Ghostbusters was so intent on focusing on being "better" than the original Ghostbusters movie that they completely neglected the extended universe in the comics (a part of me wonders if they are even aware the comics exist).



That is exactly what happened with _Star Wars;_ the new film completely ignored the vast expanded universe that had been built for over twenty years since _Return of the Jedi,_ and that was definitely a detriment, not a benefit, in my mind, so it seems that the same has happened with this film, as well.

Reactions: Dislike 2


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 30, 2016)

Rey said:


> Not of this one - they were too busy being edgy and hip, smashing guitars and doing backflips in slow-mo while shooting ghosts like they were in a cheesy video game.
> 
> But although Venkman was only concerned with a business (and 'ze ladies), Spengler and Stantz more embraced their scientific aspects and wanted them to be _studied_, and the writing embraced the first law of thermodynamics which is energy cannot be destroyed - and that's what ghosts were.


Except there *was* a desire to study the ghosts. Again they were only destroying them when the city was overrun with ghosts, once that problem was solved they went back to work on a way of containing the ghosts. So if the major focal point you're talking about is the catching and studying ghosts part that's still there.


----------



## Krory (Jul 30, 2016)

Yet they still had all the time to create the weapons that would _kill_ the ghosts. That is the damn point. They claimed the interest in containing but instead dedicated all of their time to making a bunch of shit to kill them. If people really expect me to take these scientists seriously, you can't tell me that they weren't smart enough to learn to streamline a capture method when they instead came up with a way to _*break the laws of science*_. 

They tried to go for "Rule of Cool."


----------



## Krory (Jul 31, 2016)




----------



## Atlas (Jul 31, 2016)




----------



## BlazingInferno (Jul 31, 2016)

Got beat by a limited run movie


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 31, 2016)

Rey said:


> Yet they still had all the time to create the weapons that would _kill_ the ghosts.


Makes them easier to catch. I mean after that sequence the ghosts are still lying there meaning they can be sucked into a trap, and since they're already dead killing them is only going to be a temporary solution anyway. There's no reason they can't do both.

Oh and you realize that comparison chart is for the amount made in a single day right? Films make less money after they've been out long enough and it's been almost a month since Ghostbusters came out. And also the fact that The Killing Joke is an adaptation of one of DC's most iconic comics starring the actors considered to be the best Batman and Joker actors by a majority of people, of course it was going to make a lot of money in its limited run. But no share a post by some idiot whose Twitter feed consists of a bunch of anti-feminism posts who is in no way biased against the film.


----------



## Krory (Jul 31, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Makes them easier to catch. I mean after that sequence the ghosts are still lying there meaning they can be sucked into a trap, and since they're already dead killing them is only going to be a temporary solution anyway. There's no reason they can't do both.
> 
> *Oh and you realize that comparison chart is for the amount made in a single day right?* Films make less money after they've been out long enough and it's been almost a month since Ghostbusters came out. And also the fact that The Killing Joke is an adaptation of one of DC's most iconic comics starring the actors considered to be the best Batman and Joker actors by a majority of people, of course it was going to make a lot of money in its limited run. But no share a post by some idiot whose Twitter feed consists of a bunch of anti-feminism posts who is in no way biased against the film.



WOAH MAN, IS THAT WHAT "FRIDAY" MEANS!? Holy shit, I had no idea.

Like, I know you have this massive hard-on for the film but you really need to come up with some new material.


----------



## Gaiash (Jul 31, 2016)

And you seem to have one for hating this film. Seriously why are you still in the thread for a film you didn't even like almost a month after its release?


----------



## Krory (Jul 31, 2016)

I know facts and numbers trigger the fuck out of Gaiash so I'll spoiler tag the current weekend numbers:



If they didn't ask for such a failure, I'd almost feel bad.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jul 31, 2016)

And up next this week is Suicide Squad.

I wouldn't be surprised if Suicide Squad showing up will result in Ghostbusters falling out of theatres within the next week or two.


----------



## Krory (Aug 1, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> And up next this week is Suicide Squad.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if Suicide Squad showing up will result in Ghostbusters falling out of theatres within the next week or two.



Well it already lost a quarter of its theaters this weekend alone and it didn't look like Bourne took up a huge amount. So it's pretty logical. Not a hell of a lot of big movies coming out the next coming weeks but it's already been demonstrated this movie doesn't need big movies to be nailed by competition. It'll probably get beat out by other comedies whether its' the children's a movie Nine Lives or the hip "adult" animated one next week, Sausage Party (especially since THAT stars Kristen Wiig as well).


----------



## Catalyst75 (Aug 1, 2016)

*shivers* Sausage Party is an aberration that, by all rights, should not have even been conceived.  That's my opinion from the trailers alone.

Either way, Nine Lives and Suicide Squad debut on the same day, so it won't be a good day for Ghostbusters on any front when those two roll into theatres simultaneously.


----------



## Gaiash (Aug 1, 2016)

And you are following the process of newer movies being higher in the weekend sales than movies out for most of a month why?


----------



## Krory (Aug 1, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> *shivers* Sausage Party is an aberration that, by all rights, should not have even been conceived.  That's my opinion from the trailers alone.
> 
> Either way, Nine Lives and Suicide Squad debut on the same day, so it won't be a good day for Ghostbusters on any front when those two roll into theatres simultaneously.



Like all Seth Rogen movies, but people eat that shit up.  Sorry Paul Feig, looks like "misogyny" won this time.


----------



## Krory (Aug 1, 2016)

Well, it only took two and a half weeks (not including the early showings), but between 2D, 3D, and IMAX 3D they finally managed to make back their production budget. 

Total Lifetime Grosses
*Domestic:* *$106,171,471* *67.1%*
+   $52,100,000  32.9%
= *Worldwide:* *$158,271,471* 

(Production budget being $144 million)

Now they need to work off that advertising budget.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Aug 1, 2016)

There is no way drugs weren't involved when "Sausage Party" was thought up


----------



## Krory (Aug 1, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> There is no way drugs weren't involved when "Sausage Party" was thought up



A screenplay by Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, and the two writers behind the Roast of James Franco? Plus a director who, up to this point, primarily directed Thomas the Tank Engine videos?

No fucking shit.


----------



## PlacidSanity (Aug 1, 2016)

Well we are coming to the point where this film will probably be finishing it's showings at the Dollar Cinemas, now comes the question what the home media of this will be providing.    ID Resurgence has it's reported store exclusives (Steel Book (Best Buy), Guide (Target)) and ST Beyond has on pre-order the Amazon Giftset, so what is going to come with this film's home media release.


----------



## Gaiash (Aug 1, 2016)

PlacidSanity said:


> so what is going to come with this film's home media release.


I want to see a three movie DVD set that labels the films on the cover like this

Ghostbusters
Ghostbusters 2
Ghostbusters


----------



## Krory (Aug 1, 2016)

You want to see a DVD set that labels films by their titles?

Bizarre.


----------



## Krory (Aug 1, 2016)




----------



## Gaiash (Aug 1, 2016)

Rey said:


> You want to see a DVD set that labels films by their titles?
> 
> Bizarre.


I mean I don't want the cover to specify the years. I want it to look like a Ghostbusters 2 sandwich.


----------



## PlacidSanity (Aug 1, 2016)

Hmm, if they do release another film set it's probably going to try to beat out this collector's set.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 2, 2016)

Dat backtracking at the end.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Catalyst75 (Aug 2, 2016)

It's only "not a flop", even disregarding the extreme bias of the article, but they also ignore the IDW comics as if they never existed.

From what I have seen, any movie that is an actual success would have to make back *double* its production cost, not simply squeak by it after its third weekend (with Suicide Squad on the way the next weekend to nuke it).

They seem so damn intent on making it out to be something more than it actually is, that Fieg and Sony might be deluding themselves into thinking that they're going to end up with a franchise on par with Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Gunners (Aug 6, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> It's only "not a flop", even disregarding the extreme bias of the article, but they also ignore the IDW comics as if they never existed.
> 
> From what I have seen, any movie that is an actual success would have to make back *double* its production cost, not simply squeak by it after its third weekend (with Suicide Squad on the way the next weekend to nuke it).
> 
> They seem so damn intent on making it out to be something more than it actually is, that Fieg and Sony might be deluding themselves into thinking that they're going to end up with a franchise on par with Lord of the Rings.



They're not deluding themselves, they are being dishonest. How often do people in their position come out and say ''we dropped the ball."? They will put on a brave face and act as though it never happened once the dust settles. 

They know they fucked up. I think they got a first hand experience on what a vocal minority is and how much money their support is worth.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 6, 2016)

Oh yes, I did find out that theaters take almost up to a 50% cut from ticket sales. So they probably haven't even made back their budget yet. I was listening to some that used to be involved in the business talk about what it means to 'break even'. Apparently there are also studio fees and administrative fees that have to be covered too, in addition to the advertising budget. So on that, it does make sense why Feig would desire Ghostbusters 2016 to make 500 million. Assuming they'd need to actually make twice as much as went into production to cover that, and the additional 100 million+ for advertising, a 500 million sales number would probably mean about 112 million in actuality. Then maybe DVD sales would boost that a bit. MAYBE enough for a sequel, or enough money to cover for any lack of confidence in Sony investing funds into it.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Aug 6, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Oh yes, I did find out that theaters take almost up to a 50% cut from ticket sales. So they probably haven't even made back their budget yet. I was listening to some that used to be involved in the business talk about what it means to 'break even'. Apparently there are also studio fees and administrative fees that have to be covered too, in addition to the advertising budget. So on that, it does make sense why Feig would desire Ghostbusters 2016 to make 500 million. Assuming they'd need to actually make twice as much as went into production to cover that, and the additional 100 million+ for advertising, a 500 million sales number would probably mean about 112 million in actuality. Then maybe DVD sales would boost that a bit. MAYBE enough for a sequel, or enough money to cover for any lack of confidence in Sony investing funds into it.



Then I guess Independence Day and Warcraft were very fortunate then, since they successfully made back over double their production values.  So far, if the above statistic is true, Ghostbusters hasn't even given back half its production cost to the studio that made it, with the theatre taking the other half.  

I suppose that would make Ghostbusters a case example of how negative reaction to the initial advertising and premise of a film can impact its performance in the box office.


----------



## Krory (Aug 10, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> Then I guess Independence Day and Warcraft were very fortunate then, since they successfully made back over double their production values.  So far, if the above statistic is true, Ghostbusters hasn't even given back half its production cost to the studio that made it, with the theatre taking the other half.
> 
> I suppose that would make Ghostbusters a case example of how negative reaction to the initial advertising and premise of a film can impact its performance in the box office.



Or having an awful trailer that shows how bad of a movie it is.


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 10, 2016)

Well, it's official. Ghostbusters is a flop



> *'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely *
> 5:00 AM PDT 8/10/2016 by Pamela McClintock
> 
> 3K
> ...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Krory (Aug 11, 2016)

Hey hey hey, it's not a flop!

It's an "underperformance due to mass sexism"


----------



## Gaiash (Aug 11, 2016)

The film isn't a flop, the marketing campaign is. The film surpassed the budget that went into making it, the budget they haven't made back is from advertising and when you consider the wide range of products made to promote the film it's not surprising. The film has gained a fanbase, fans like me who would like to see more from this Ghostbusters team, but that fanbase isn't going to be interested in every bit of merchandise while the hardcore collectors who'll buy anything LEGO/Funko/etc aren't going to be enough to make up for that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 11, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> The film isn't a flop, the marketing campaign is. The film surpassed the budget that went into making it, the budget they haven't made back is from advertising and when you consider the wide range of products made to promote the film it's not surprising. The film has gained a fanbase, fans like me who would like to see more from this Ghostbusters team, but that fanbase isn't going to be interested in every bit of merchandise while the hardcore collectors who'll buy anything LEGO/Funko/etc aren't going to be enough to make up for that.



You're ignoring the cut the theaters will take from that. So no.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 11, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> The film isn't a flop, the marketing campaign is. The film surpassed the budget that went into making it, the budget they haven't made back is from advertising and when you consider the wide range of products made to promote the film it's not surprising. The film has gained a fanbase, fans like me who would like to see more from this Ghostbusters team, but that fanbase isn't going to be interested in every bit of merchandise while the hardcore collectors who'll buy anything LEGO/Funko/etc aren't going to be enough to make up for that.



I'll agree that the marketing campaign was atrocious. I haven't seen a marketing debacle this bad since John Carter of Mars, and John Carter at least had the excuse of being a relatively obscure sci-fi franchise. Its like they tried to apply the SJW Anita Sarkeesian model of money making - insult established fanbase, play victim when fanbase backlash inevitably happens, rake in money from feminist sympathizers- to this movie. To which I say I'm glad it failed and hope it serves to discourage future attempts at this. I was half expecting the film to make back its budget because of people hate watching it or being spurred by the controversy though. I do wonder why that didn't happen this time.

And as for the fanbase, I think its telling that the only thing people are talking about this movie is the controversy and supposed sexism of the Ghostbusters fandom, as opposed to any memes or songs or scenes from the movie itself.


----------



## Krory (Aug 12, 2016)

hcheng02 said:


> I'll agree that the marketing campaign was atrocious. I haven't seen a marketing debacle this bad since John Carter of Mars, and John Carter at least had the excuse of being a relatively obscure sci-fi franchise. Its like they tried to apply the SJW Anita Sarkeesian model of money making - insult established fanbase, play victim when fanbase backlash inevitably happens, rake in money from feminist sympathizers- to this movie. To which I say I'm glad it failed and hope it serves to discourage future attempts at this. I was half expecting the film to make back its budget because of people hate watching it or being spurred by the controversy though. I do wonder why that didn't happen this time.
> 
> *And as for the fanbase, I think its telling that the only thing people are talking about this movie is the controversy and supposed sexism of the Ghostbusters fandom, as opposed to any memes or songs or scenes from the movie itself*.



Probably because there's nothing worth talking about. 

Expect this same tactic with Ocean's Eight, too.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 12, 2016)

The backlash towards Ocean's 8 is already beginning. Feig pretty much tainted the concept of gender-flipping casts of an established franchise.


----------



## Gaiash (Aug 12, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You're ignoring the cut the theaters will take from that. So no.


I'm pretty sure they already take out the cut the cinemas when they add up the amount the movie has made. And even then the cinema itself earns very little from ticket sales, that's why snacks costs more there and bringing in outside food and drinks is frowned upon, because that's how they make their money.



hcheng02 said:


> And as for the fanbase, I think its telling that the only thing people are talking about this movie is the controversy and supposed sexism of the Ghostbusters fandom, as opposed to any memes or songs or scenes from the movie itself.


It's not the only thing people are talking about, in fact in newer reviews it's mostly just brought up as a side note. I've actually seen a lot of posts that bring up specific scenes and quotes they liked along with plenty of fanart.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2016)

Theaters take on average a 50% cut. Less domestic, more abroad, cancel each other out
Then there's the marketing costs

Then there's the investor's market point. See the people who fund sony aren't in it to break even. To earn less than projected is to tell them they are better off investing money somewhere else, and so they do, at a varying rate of, let's say 60%, depending on what else the company's got going on. In Sony's case, it was a big tentpole launch, so let's be generous and say 40% of the investors walk, especially considering their spider-flops

So the movie, that is not only looking at a minimal gross of 70-80 million dollars loss for the studio, also comes with an added 100 million dollars lost of future investment, which at a standard doubling and a half of a big budget movie investment, the Ghostbusters budget loss comes down to a total of long term losses of


roundabouts of 190 to 220 million dollars



If we indeed pretend like the theater take has already been taken into account. If not then the losses shoot up to 260-300 million dollars


----------



## Krory (Aug 17, 2016)

B... but it's totally not a flop, guys!


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2016)

adjusted for inflation, I'm not sure it beat out the first ghostbusters. Certainly not when adjusting the return on the advertising investment, and total investment


----------



## Gaiash (Aug 17, 2016)

Why are you even putting this much effort into this debate about a film you don't even like?


----------



## RAGING BONER (Aug 17, 2016)

because they they hate women!


----------



## ~VK~ (Aug 17, 2016)

"Anyone saying a remake "ruined my childhood" shouldn't worry. If you whine this much your childhood is clearly still alive and well!" - Alex Hirsch

 

no


----------



## Gaiash (Aug 17, 2016)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 18, 2016)

Do people think they are helping things with tweets like that?


----------



## Pilaf (Aug 18, 2016)

They're sure not making this a box office success.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 23, 2016)

Gaiash said:


> Why are you even putting this much effort into this debate about a film you don't even like?



I'm confused

What effort? What debate?


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Sep 4, 2016)

Vongola King said:


> "Anyone saying a remake "ruined my childhood" shouldn't worry. If you whine this much your childhood is clearly still alive and well!" - Alex Hirsch
> 
> 
> 
> no



Do you actually respect people who say "X ruined my childhood?"

Thats one of the most stipid and selfish arguments the internet insists on repeating.


----------



## Krory (Sep 4, 2016)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Do you actually respect people who say "X ruined my childhood?"
> 
> Thats one of the most stipid and selfish arguments the internet insists on repeating.



You must be new to the internet, then.


----------



## ~VK~ (Sep 4, 2016)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Do you actually respect people who say "X ruined my childhood?"
> 
> Thats one of the most stipid and selfish arguments the internet insists on repeating.


respect is a big word lol. i can definitely empathise with it if the remake/reboot is shitty

it kinda stains the otherwise happy memories you will have of it since the shittyness will now be part of that franchise's legacy and you'll be reminded of it everytime said movie/serie comes up

ghostbusters 2 already accomplished that for this franchise tho


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2016)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Do you actually respect people who say "X ruined my childhood?"
> 
> Thats one of the most stipid and selfish arguments the internet insists on repeating.



More than anyone that throws out unfounded accusations of bigotry. 

It's just an expression...


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Sep 4, 2016)

Vongola King said:


> respect is a big word lol. i can definitely empathise with it if the remake/reboot is shitty
> 
> it kinda stains the otherwise happy memories you will have of it since the shittyness will now be part of that franchise's legacy and you'll be reminded of it everytime said movie/serie comes up
> 
> ghostbusters 2 already accomplished that for this franchise tho



You guys need stop taking works of fiction seriously.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BlazingInferno (Sep 4, 2016)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> You guys need stop taking works of fiction seriously.



Try telling that to the users in the Dragon Ball section who have heated arguments over power scales.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2016)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> You guys need stop taking works of fiction seriously.



I mean, you say that while on a forum discussing fictional works. Have a bit of self-awareness.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PlacidSanity (Sep 5, 2016)

Looking at the upcoming blu ray/DVD release for this film, it would appear it's getting an extended edition along with the theatrical film.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Sep 5, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I mean, you say that while on a forum discussing fictional works. Have a bit of self-awareness.



I do, and I'm self-aware that nothing I do in this place should ever make me angry like that. Its just a fucking anime forum.

And a sequel should never be able to ruin any of my memories. My memories are not that fragile.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gaiash (Sep 5, 2016)

PlacidSanity said:


> Looking at the upcoming blu ray/DVD release for this film, it would appear it's getting an extended edition along with the theatrical film.


Neat. I'll be sure to check out the Extended Edition when I buy it.


----------



## Krory (Sep 5, 2016)

PlacidSanity said:


> Looking at the upcoming blu ray/DVD release for this film, it would appear it's getting an extended edition along with the theatrical film.




Still loling at how they chimped the fuck out and changed the title.


----------



## Gaiash (Sep 5, 2016)

Rey said:


> Still loling at how they chimped the fuck out and changed the title.


That extended title has been on some of the posters already so it's not really changing the title, especially since the side of the DVD just says Ghostbusters.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Sep 5, 2016)

Rey said:


> Still loling at how they chimped the fuck out and changed the title.


I find the fact that they're so proud of their rotten tomato score and the  "every bit as fun as the original " review   funnier


----------



## Krory (Sep 5, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> I find the fact that they're so proud of their rotten tomato score and the  "every bit as fun as the original " review   funnier



Could be worse - they could've defaulted to the "It's underwhelming and unimpressive but see it because WOMAN POWER!!" reviews.


----------

