Ghostbusters 2016

[Crabs]

What's weird about all this is that people are saying their issue with it isn't one of gender, it's the fact that it's a remake. But I've never seen any other remake get this much vitriol. The current Star Trek movies are remakes. There wasn't a huge protest to stop those from coming out. I remember seeing Fright Night a few years ago, also a remake. The remake was a horrible movie but it didn't get this kind of vitriol. I think there was a remake of Let The Right One In a few years ago. I love the original, it's a masterpiece, but no one seemed to give a shit it was being remade.

So what makes Ghostbusters different? If it's not about gender, what's causing this amount of hateful criticism? I don't believe the "it's a remake" excuse. Let's be real about this.

Ghostbusters is an immensely popular franchise that hadn't seen a movie in nearly 30 years. For comparison, the long awaited Star Wars Episode 1 came out 16 years after Return of the Jedi. GB fans had to wait twice as long for any sort of cinematic continuation of the characters and story we love, and this is the bullshit we get. The current Star Trek movies, although still unpopular among many diehard Trekkies, aren't complete and utter shitfests that hardly bear any resemblance to their source material. Aside from the constant slapstick comedy and juvenile jokes (and being set in a different universe where none of the events in the first two movies even took place), every element of this movie is worse than its predecessors: the car, the uniforms, the equipment, the special effects, etc. Then the director uses an obvious gimmick of swapping the gender of the team and their receptionist, and adds subtle little jabs at masculinity and the fanbase. All we wanted was an awesome Ghostbusters movie that paid respect to the originals, not an overly politicized cartoon that drags the GB name through the dirt. Nobody expected this movie to be as good as the originals, but if you can't understand why fans who grew up with Ghostbusters hate this movie then I don't know what to tell you.

Giving Paul Feig total control to do whatever he wanted was the dumbest decision SONY could've made. He's the biggest reason why this movie is a total piece of shit.

 

[magpie]

Ghostbusters is an immensely popular franchise that hadn't seen a movie in nearly 30 years. For comparison, the long awaited Star Wars Episode 1 came out 16 years after Return of the Jedi. GB fans had to wait twice as long for any sort of cinematic continuation of the characters and story we love, and this is the bullshit we get. The current Star Trek movies, although still unpopular among many diehard Trekkies, aren't complete and utter shitfests that hardly bear any resemblance to their source material. Aside from the constant slapstick comedy and juvenile jokes (along with being set in a different universe where none of the events in the first two movies even took place), every element of this movie is worse than the originals: the car, the uniforms, the equipment, the special effects, etc. Then the director uses an obvious gimmick of swapping the gender of the team and their receptionist, and adds subtle little jabs in the movie against men/masculinity in general and the fans in particular. If you can't understand why fans who grew up with Ghostbusters hate this movie then I don't know what to tell you.

I grew up with Ghostbusters too. I have no opinion on the remake because I haven't seen it. The above is your opinion and you're entitled to that, but what you're saying isn't objective and nor is it fact. Just because you dislike something doesn't mean other people will. Your dislike doesn't mean something is crap. Consider that only your feelings are informing your opinion about this movie. Since you decided to hate it from the get go, of course you think it's bullshit. Your emotions are clouding your perception. They're clouding even your ability to withhold judgement about something you haven't seen.

 

[Crabs]

I grew up with Ghostbusters too. I have no opinion on the remake because I haven't seen it. The above is your opinion and you're entitled to that, but what you're saying isn't objective and nor is it fact. Just because you dislike something doesn't mean other people will. Your dislike doesn't mean something is crap. Consider that only your feelings are informing your opinion about this movie. Since you decided to hate it from the get go, of course you think it's bullshit. Your emotions are clouding your perception. They're clouding even your ability to withhold judgement about something you haven't seen.

It's not just my opinion, it's the consensus of many fans. I admit that if it was any other movie/property, I wouldn't care.

If you think a lot of critics didn't let their emotions and political interests influence their objective analysis of this movie then you are as delusional as they are. All you have to do is compare it to other movies with similar ratings on Rotten Tomatoes to understand the disparity. Not that RT is any longer regarded as being objectively critical or consistent - its reputation as an accurate indicator of cinematic quality has been in question for years.

 

[magpie]

It's not just my opinion, it's the consensus of many fans. I admit that if it was any other movie/property, I wouldn't care.

If you think a lot of critics didn't let their emotions and political interests influence their objective analysis of this movie then you are as delusional as they are. All you have to do is compare it to other movies with similar ratings on Rotten Tomatoes to understand the disparity. Not that RT is any longer regarded as being objectively critical or consistent - its reputation as an accurate indicator of cinematic quality has been in question for years.

Yeah... I wasn't talking about critics and I never said critics were objective. It's not even possible for critiques to be truly objective given the fact that the people writing them are, well, people.

Many people often agree on the same thing, so I'm not surprised that some fans agree this is a bad movie. A consensus of an opinion is just that, a consensus of opinion. I'm glad we're on the same page about this and it was nice discussing this with you.

 

[Crabs]

Yeah... I wasn't talking about critics and I never said critics were objective. It's not even possible for critiques to be truly objective given the fact that the people writing them are, well, people.

Many people often agree on the same thing, so I'm not surprised that some fans agree this is a bad movie. A consensus of an opinion is just that, a consensus of opinion. I'm glad we're on the same page about this and it was nice discussing this with you.

I thought it was understood that we are discussing art, not math.

 

[magpie]

I thought it was understood that we are discussing art, not math.

Aren't we discussing art? I thought I was.

 

[Crabs]

Aren't we discussing art? I thought I was.

Then why the elaborate explanation that opinions are just opinions? That was never in dispute. It's unnecessary to constantly clarify that you're expressing an opinion when it's obvious that you're expressing an opinion.

 

[magpie]

Then why the elaborate explanation that opinions are just opinions? That was never in dispute. It's unnecessary to constantly clarify that you're expressing an opinion when it's obvious that you're expressing an opinion.

That clarification was for you. This thread comes across as you holding your opinion as fact, blasting something you simply dislike as if you disliking it means there's something wrong with it. Your dislike, aka your opinion, doesn't define whether something is "good" or "bad." Obvious as what I'm saying should be, this seems like a point that's sailed right over your head this entire thread.

All I see in this thread from you is strong emotion to such an extent that it starts to feel like an overreaction. Maybe you should examine why this movie elicits this sort of response from you on a deeper level than you have been. Aka, look inside yourself for answers rather than falling back on your blame of the movie. This is just some advice from an Fi-dom, take it or leave it.

 

[Crabs]

That clarification was for you. This thread comes across as you holding your opinion as fact, blasting something you simply dislike as if you disliking it means there's something wrong with it. Your dislike, aka your opinion, doesn't define whether something is "good" or "bad." Obvious as what I'm saying should be, this seems like a point that's sailed right over your head this entire thread.

What you just described could easily apply to the majority of this forum regarding their political views. I'm not claiming to be any different, just in the minority. All you have to do is look at how conservatives, Republicans and non-liberal ideas are branded as evil, wrong or stupid to see this in effect.

All I see in this thread from you is strong emotion to such an extent that it starts to feel like an overreaction. Maybe you should examine why this movie elicits this sort of response from you on a deeper level than you have been. Aka, look inside yourself for answers rather than falling back on your blame of the movie. This is just some advice from an Fi-dom, take it or leave it.

I've already stated why this movie elicits an emotional reaction from me. Ghostbusters has always been my favorite movie and I've been a member of the fan community for decades. It's the careless and disrespectful way that SONY and Paul Feig handled this property that angers me.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's just a movie. It looks like a shitty movie (my opinion). No one is forcing anyone to watch it. Great movies are remade into mediocre shadows of their originals all the time. I understand it feels good to rage into the void when our favorite movies are remade, perhaps seeing them as somehow being "erased" or "overwritten," but to my knowledge no one is destroying all prints of the original. I mean, I might understand the ongoing rage if Reitman or someone else had redone the original a la the Star Wars OT Special Edition, then vowed to destroy any trace of the original version (as Lucas did), but that is not the case and I think it's safe to say that the original will probably still be regarded as the superior and definitive version in 10 years time, while the remake may end up in bargain bins and remembered as that overly politicized reboot. It's already underperforming in ticket sales, so barring the destruction of all copies, I don't really understand what more the haters want or expect to achieve by continuing to scream. Paul Feig a douche? Sure, but why spend all day obsessing over ways to insult some Hollywood tool who's NEVER going to read ANY of this.

Can we get this thread closed now and move on to hating the next remake or bitching about women and blacks in SW ruining traditional cinema or some other non-issue?

 

[Crabs]

It's just a movie. It looks like a shitty movie (my opinion). No one is forcing anyone to watch it. Great movies are remade into mediocre shadows of their originals all the time. I understand it feels good to rage into the void when our favorite movies are remade, perhaps seeing them as somehow being "erased" or "overwritten," but to my knowledge no one is destroying all prints of the original. I mean, I might understand the ongoing rage if Reitman or someone else had redone the original a la the Star Wars OT Special Edition, then vowed to destroy any trace of the original version (as Lucas did), but that is not the case and I think it's safe to say that the original will probably still be regarded as the superior and definitive version in 10 years time, while the remake may end up in bargain bins and remembered as that overly politicized reboot. It's already underperforming in ticket sales, so barring the destruction of all copies, I don't really understand what more the haters want or expect to achieve by continuing to scream. Paul Feig a douche? Sure, but why spend all day obsessing over ways to insult some Hollywood tool who's NEVER going to read ANY of this.

The movie is still in theaters. It's not like it's been out for years.

There's no reason to close this thread. If it annoys you, then I suggest you avoid it.

Can we get this thread closed now and move on to hating the next remake or bitching about women and blacks in SW ruining traditional cinema or some other non-issue?

I've made my opposition to feminism known, but I find this post amusing coming from someone who is constantly posting videos in the 3rd wave feminism thread (and other relative topics). Talk about beating a dead horse. I, personally, have not complained about women or blacks in the SW universe. Then again, Disney didn't fuck up Star Wars beyond all recognition. They at least attempted to pay homage to the originals, almost to a fault.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The movie is still in theaters. It's not like it's been out for years.

There's no reason to close this thread. If it annoys you, then I suggest you avoid it.

Right, but at this point it seems the same basic sentiments are just being echoed ad infinitum. It's turning into a tired cycle: babymen bash movie, make big talk about Paul Feig being a bad person, claim movie made to push political agenda, and so on. Isn't there a female led remake of the matrix or something else you can move on to hating?

mods please close this shit show [MENTION=2]Ivy[/MENTION] [MENTION=1180]miss fortune[/MENTION] [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] [MENTION=22264]Bush Did 9/11[/MENTION] [MENTION=9335]Ingrid in grids[/MENTION] [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

I've made my opposition to feminism known, but I find this post amusing coming from someone who is constantly posting videos in the 3rd wave feminism thread (and other relative topics). Talk about beating a dead horse. I, personally, have not complained about women or blacks in the SW universe. Then again, Disney didn't fuck up Star Wars beyond all recognition. They at least attempted to pay homage to the originals, almost to a fault.

Disney is still a traditionalist boys' club that reinforces outdated gender roles to an audience mostly consisting of very impressionable children. They're making some progress but need to do better.

As for your comments regarding my post history, YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW ME OR ANYTHING ABOUT MY BACKGROUND, CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC.

 

[Crabs]

Right, but at this point it seems the same basic sentiments are just being echoed ad infinitum. It's turning into a tired cycle: babymen bash movie, make big talk about Paul Feig being a bad person, claim movie made to push political agenda, and so on. Isn't there a female led remake of the matrix or something else you can move on to hating?

mods please close this shit show [MENTION=2]Ivy[/MENTION] [MENTION=1180]miss fortune[/MENTION] [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] [MENTION=22264]Bush Did 9/11[/MENTION] [MENTION=9335]Ingrid in grids[/MENTION]

The only "babyman" I see in this thread is you, whining to the mods to close a topic that you don't like.

I never had a problem with female Ghostbusters. They've been around in other forms of media for over a decade. The problems with this movie go far beyond the gender swap.

Disney is still a traditionalist boys' club that reinforces outdated gender roles to an audience mostly consisting of very impressionable children. They're making some progress but need to do better.

I thought The Force Awakens was a good movie. And Rogue One looks even better. Female protagonists are not the problem with GB'16.

As for your comments regarding my post history, YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW ME OR ANYTHING ABOUT MY BACKGROUND, CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC.

You're right. I don't know your background. All I know is that you bitch like a fuckin' MGTOW all over the place. I don't think I've seen a single thread about feminism that you haven't hijacked with endless MRA videos.

I don't like feminism either, but I've never been to a forum or website dedicated to men who whine about their frustrations with women. You seem like you feed off that shit.

Pick your battles, dude. If you don't like this thread, stay away from it.

 

[Totenkindly]

... now I really want to see this movie, just to be able to talk intelligently about it.
It's hard to discuss something I haven't seen, and I feel like we're talking around it.

but geez I don't want to pay for a theater ticket.

isn't there a download somewhere on the internet, in Chinese, tilted, and with a bunch of head silhouettes blocking my view of the screen?


--

I don't recall if there is a Rogue One thread, but I have my hopes high for that one based on the trailer I've seen. (If the studio didn't muck too much with it.)

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I thought The Force Awakens was a good movie. And Rogue One looks even better. Female protagonists are not the problem with GB'16.

TFA moved ion the right direction with the inclusion of some strong female characters that didn't rely on the old traditional gender roles, but there were still a few problematic elements with the film.

You're right. I don't know your background. All I know is that you bitch like a fuckin' MGTOW all over the place. I don't think I've seen a single thread about feminism where you haven't hijacked it with endless MRA videos.

I'm appalled to be compared to those guys. They're even worse than those shitlord MRAs and PUAs. We all make mistakes and sometimes we dabble in stupid ideologies.

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay, I took one for the team -- I got a $6 ticket and saw the movie (2D) tonight.

My overall thought is that the disagreement over movie quality consists of (1) the movie is gender-targeted towards women and (2) it encroaches on a beloved nostalgic property that people can't dissociate from and (3) it's not a bad movie, and it's actually a lot of fun in spots, but it's also not a super-great movie... i.e., it's goofy summer fare.

A number of things:

1. The first 10-15 minutes are REALLY flat. Like, I was like, god, if I have to sit through this damn thing... Not horrific, just one of those things where a movie feels like it has no life / everything is inert. I had a few laughs wrung out of me around the 12 minute mark (rough guess), and then ramped up so i was laughing fairly regularly and enjoying much of the movie by 30 minutes into it. But yeah, it really needed some kind of kick in the early minutes. I could see people giving up on the movie after ten minutes without realizing it gets better.

2. If you don't like Paul Feig movies, yeah, you probably won't like this. if you liked The Heat, Spy, Bridesmaids, etc., then there's a decent chance you'll find some enjoyable sequences / banter here.

3. The movie is best viewed as a riff on the Ghostbuster elements, versus viewing as either a sequel or a remake. I highly advise not trying to compare or connect the two movies -- just take this one as its own picture.

4. Kristen Wiig's character is written very very straight. She eventually starts doing some funny Kristen Wiig stuff, but she really is kind of dampened for much of the movie. A lot of the heavy lifting is done by Melissa McCarthy, who is adept enough to handle it, but she shines most when she has someone to play off of... and eventually there are some decent sequences of her and Wiig going around and around.

5. The real star for me was Kate McKinnon -- damn, she made me laugh as the quirky mad-scientist/hack. most of it was her quirky / affected behavior and speech, but hey, I like being surprised, and I never quite knew what she'd do or say next. The Wiig / McCarthy routine is still funny, but pretty recognizable at this stage. Leslie Jones also does perfectly fine and is funny -- it's just that she's playing the "Feisty Black Chick" role. Nothing wrong with that, but yeah -- that's what it is. we've seen it before; we'll see it again. And it's the same kind of role the old movie had ("random black guy"), so... yeah. At least she actually had a lot more life than Ernie Hudson.

6. The original Ghostbusters has better ironic moments and overall a more momentous plot, even if maybe this movie has more consistency and tries to do more with a story. The plot here isn't really the strong suit of the movie, it's kinda "eh" and downgraded a bit, the ending is rather flat too.

7. There are probably 7-10 cameos, some by original actors, some by original characters. A few are decent, a few fall flat. You can either take them at face value and embrace what you can or you can be offended by them -- your choice.

8. There's a few cool ghosts. They weren't necessarily integrated into the story well, but conceptually they were kinda cool. (The opening ghost is one; the ghost balloons were also pretty cool.)

9. A few of the jokes are socially timely and almost like, "Damn, did they just say that in a movie?" About 70% of the audience tonight was black, and they ate it up.

10. Chris Hemsworth seemed to enjoy the hell out of this movie, playing a really cute/hot-as-hell mental vegetable. He just hammed it up... and damn, he can dance too. I think he really enjoyed just being given a chance to relax and act stupid. Since he's played mostly for laughs and as a sex object, I guess guys can determine whether they can laugh at it or not.

11. ... and the dreaded gender divide. yeah. I gotta say, there were a decent amount of men in the theater, but they always came with women, and it was the women who were much more highly represented in the laugh-o-meter for the first half of the movie. Every loud laugh moment was dominated by women laughing at stuff Wiig and McCarthy were doing that women would find funny (women banter and expressions and stuff) but maybe men just wouldn't really pick up on or be interested in. The men did warm up and by the halfway point and later there was a decent amount of male/female laughter in the theater. But definitely I think women seemed to be more enjoying this movie. hey, what can I say? I came in prepared to hate it, but I was laughing through much of it; I'd probably give it a 6.5/10. Paying $6 for this was a deal. If you have to pay more, I'd redbox it.


EDIT: Hmm, just saw Peter Travers' review (rolling stone, I think?) -- "No big whup and no big fat flop either, the female reboot of Ghostbusters settles for being a fine, fun time at the movies." Yup. I agree with that.

There's also a lot of shit in the credits. Small scene snippets here and there... various clips of Chris Hemsworth dancing (and the extras all dancing following his lead)... yeahhhhhh.......and then one at the very very end after all the credits are done.

 

[Crabs]

EDIT: Hmm, just saw Peter Travers' review (rolling stone, I think?) -- "No big whup and no big fat flop either, the female reboot of Ghostbusters settles for being a fine, fun time at the movies." Yup. I agree with that.

There's also a lot of shit in the credits. Small scene snippets here and there... various clips of Chris Hemsworth dancing (and the extras all dancing following his lead)... yeahhhhhh.......and then one at the very very end after all the credits are done.

That dance sequence was actually in the movie until the fanbase lambasted SONY for it. Just goes to show how much the director and studio failed to understand the property they were handling in the first place. It might be an "okay" comedy, but it's not a Ghostbusters movie. That's what fans are complaining about. The target audience for this film are fans of Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy movies, not Ghostbusters. It was a stupid decision by SONY to alienate the preexisting fanbase along with those who have no interest in Feig's movies. He's a niche director with no previous experience in science fiction, much less dealing with a franchise of this magnitude. Therefore, it's no surprise that it's performing badly at the box office. Anybody with a modicum of intuition or foresight could see this project was headed for disaster the moment SONY hired Paul Feig to helm a soulless cash grab with no respect for the legacy of Ghostbusters.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

That dance sequence was actually in the movie until the fanbase lambasted SONY for it. Just goes to show how much the director and studio failed to understand the property they were dealing with in the first place. It might be an "okay" comedy, but it's not a Ghostbusters movie. That's what fans are complaining about. The target audience for this film are fans of Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy movies, not Ghostbusters. It was a stupid decision by SONY to alienate the preexisting fanbase along with those who have no interest in Feig's movies. He's a niche director with no previous experience in science fiction, much less dealing with a franchise of this magnitude. Therefore, it's no surprise that it's performing badly at the box office. Anybody with a modicum of intuition or foresight could see this project was headed for disaster the moment SONY hired Paul Feig to helm a soulless cash grab with no respect for the legacy of Ghostbusters.

Meh. The original was soft science fiction at best but you're probably right....Feig understands comedy better than science fiction. These are primarily comedy films.

Soulless is a word that probably applies to a lot of remakes.

 

[Totenkindly]

That dance sequence was actually in the movie until the fanbase lambasted SONY for it.

haha! That would explain it. I know exactly where that sequence would have gone, and it was an obvious edit because I was like, "uhhhh... something got skipped." To be honest, that whole sequence would have come off a little too "Mask" versus the tone of the rest of this movie -- the sequence was too long, for one -- so it's good they chopped it.

Just goes to show how much the director and studio failed to understand the property they were handling in the first place. It might be an "okay" comedy, but it's not a Ghostbusters movie.

Here's where you skipped over my earlier point about not making this a "ghostbusters" movie in the sense you are thinking of a "ghostbusters" movie. It's not a sequel, and it's not a remake. It's a riff on the general material, just taken in a different direction.

That's what fans are complaining about. The target audience for this film are fans of Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy movies, not Ghostbusters.

Yes, it was. It was appealing to a different set of fans -- although the fan bases are not exclusive. I enjoyed the original movie, although I don't consider it in the same tier as Animal House or Caddyshack honestly -- its major victory was that it had an awesome marketing campaign and was unique in the marketplace at the time. I enjoyed this spin on the material as well, but it was definitely aimed at the market you've suggested. Still, does that make me NOT a fan of Ghostbusters original? You're laying claim to sacred ground that really is just terrain a lot of people overlap on.

It was a stupid decision by SONY to alienate the preexisting fanbase along with those who have no interest in Feig's movies. He's a niche director with no previous experience in science fiction, much less dealing with a franchise of this magnitude. Therefore, it's no surprise that it's performing badly at the box office. Anybody with a modicum of intuition or foresight could see this project was headed for disaster the moment SONY hired Paul Feig to helm a soulless cash grab with no respect for the legacy of Ghostbusters.

What it sounds like is that you're more concerned about protecting a favored take on the material versus judging a different movie (that you've already acknowledged had a different target audience) on its own merits.

And this is why the scores were so abnormally low coming from a particular demographic of audience, even people who had never seen the movie. "It's not the Ghostbusters I personally love, so it sucks." I'm like, "It's not the Ghostbusters I grew up with; but as a movie, it's got its own merits."

From a financial take perspective, it's essentially not really an existing franchise movie -- it would really be an unestablished movie opening -- but the fact it uses branding from the original drew a lot of negative publicity, so that kind of explains the revenue hit.

As a side note, every freaking actor from the old movie (aside from Ramis, although as a ghost he might have been the most appropriate) makes a cameo here.

---

Getting back to iconic moments a bit: I find Feig's movies generally funny and having their own merits, but one thing they suck at it is providing memorable lines. The humor is banter-based and more about cumulative effect + tone. It's still funny, but not the kind of humor that generates one-liners.

This is something that the early 80's male SNL-star movies actually did better, whether we're talking Vacation, or Animal House, or Caddyshack, or Blues Brothers, or even Ghostbusters... you can typically recall certain lines from the movie that take on an iconic status, or particular events in the movie that just stick in one's mind even if otherwise they are just pretty campy or even slapsticky in nature.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

haha! That would explain it. I know exactly where that sequence would have gone, and it was an obvious edit because I was like, "uhhhh... something got skipped." To be honest, that whole sequence would have come off a little too "Mask" versus the tone of the rest of this movie -- the sequence was too long, for one -- so it's good they chopped it.



Here's where you skipped over my earlier point about not making this a "ghostbusters" movie in the sense you are thinking of a "ghostbusters" movie. It's not a sequel, and it's not a remake. It's a riff on the general material, just taken in a different direction.



Yes, it was. It was appealing to a different set of fans -- although the fan bases are not exclusive. I enjoyed the original movie, although I don't consider it in the same tier as Animal House or Caddyshack honestly -- its major victory was that it had an awesome marketing campaign and was unique in the marketplace at the time. I enjoyed this spin on the material as well, but it was definitely aimed at the market you've suggested. Still, does that make me NOT a fan of Ghostbusters original? You're laying claim to sacred ground that really is just terrain a lot of people overlap on.



What it sounds like is that you're more concerned about protecting a favored take on the material versus judging a different movie (that you've already acknowledged had a different target audience) on its own merits.

And this is why the scores were so abnormally low coming from a particular demographic of audience, even people who had never seen the movie. "It's not the Ghostbusters I personally love, so it sucks." I'm like, "It's not the Ghostbusters I grew up with; but as a movie, it's got its own merits."

From a financial take perspective, it's essentially not really an existing franchise movie -- it would really be an unestablished movie opening -- but the fact it uses branding from the original drew a lot of negative publicity, so that kind of explains the revenue hit.

As a side note, every freaking actor from the old movie (aside from Ramis, although as a ghost he might have been the most appropriate) makes a cameo here.

I think that (the bolded) was one of James Rolfe's (angry video game nerd) major points of contention with this movie. Then of course the obvious "a possible sequel spent years in development hell because no one could agree on a script (which maybe suggests any III we would've gotten could have been shit and some of the same fans lamenting no true sequel might have bashed it the way Indy 4 was bashed) but the second Ramis died the studio greenlit and rushed a shit reboot into production" complaint. On the flip though, I can also see how waiting on the reboot could've have been at least in part out of respect to the original cast, and the second he died it was unlikely we'd get a sequel, so why not move ahead with a reboot?

Rolfe barely mentioned the gender-flip or anything about SJWs politicizing the film, but he was still lambasted as a manbaby. I just don't think his critics have really watched his series in depth, because he talks about Ghostbusters in several episodes, and it's basically for him what Star Wars is to a lot of people. If they understood that, then perhaps he wouldn't have received as much backlash. Imagine the ire from Warsies if Disney had said "we're not going to make Star Wars episodes 7 - 8 but instead reboot and remake the original film.

That's kind of just the business of Hollywood though. A lot of potentially awesome films spend years in development hell while shitty sequels and reboots are churned out every year. I don't really see any point in raging against a system I can't change, but if it makes [MENTION=23796]Crabs[/MENTION] and others feel better, I understand that need. Complete 180 from what I posted yesterday, so shoot me. I wouldn't be talking about it today if I wasn't at least a little interested in the topic.