At no time did I whine. Makes me wonder if you have a comprehension problem.

And believe me you do. Read back to the last time I made the same argument in this thread and you replied THANKING me because you'd failed to read it was directed at you.

If I remember correctly, I was thanking you for doing my work for me. Kinda like you just did with that hilariously hypocritical post above. Go back and read it again if you want.

He's an outlier on this board, but if you check the larger internet community (which I realize is a bad idea at the best of times), you'll find a lot of people parroting his same lines.

I think is a sense of frustration more than anything. Fans were strung along with hope after hope of a new storyline featuring the characters they already love. This process went on for almost 2 decades. Now as soon as Feig walks into the picture with his string of female led hits and makes the casting call and "reboot" of the franchise it takes off. Hell yes people are going to be pissed about this. And not because GB is being taken away from them. Well, in a sense it is. The opportunity to experience new stories with characters that are beloved has been taken away. I think thats where alot of the vitriol is coming from.

Ramis is already dead, Akroyd hasn't done anything worth watching since the '90s, Murray is completely uninterested, what exactly has been taken away?

Again, one of the actors who played those characters is dead, so that's already been taken away. Another has had no interest in making another movie since 1989, so that's long been taken away. Half of the team is already gone, so why are you blaming Feig? It sounds like you should be mad at Bill Murray.

Who knew that Ghostbusters could inspire such... er... passion in so many folks.

Star Wars, yeh. Star Trek, maybe. But Ghostbusters?

IIRC Universal can't without Zemeckis and Gale, I think they hold the rights or something...

Letters of transit signed by the resistance leader would be no good in a Nazi-occupied territory! Also, 1996 Pam Anderson gave me a way bigger boner than 1942 Bogey did, so Barb Wire forevz!

It's very strange.

Where is this strangeness? In some sort of community? Should we make some kind of hail or summoning?

It's sort of a sacred cow. Who cares that the sequels weren't all that good we cut them a break because they did such a good job with the first one. I mean who walked out of the first Ghostbusters and didn't think they just saw an hour and 45 minutes of pure awesomeness?

So if that cast is gone and the torch is going to be passed to an all new gang.. they better do it justice so we can say "Ghostbusters was so awesome!" without adding "No.. not that one."

It could work.

"Who's President in 2017, future boy?"

"Donald Trump."

"Donald Trump!?!? And I suppose Geraldo Rivera's Secretary of State!"

You know what? I'll grant you that it doesn't stretch believability at all that 3 women would go into business together and hire another woman as, "Muscle," more or less (if it were the right woman), and I'll even grant you that they may also be scientists. That isn't completely unrealistic (although I would imagine that men still outnumber women when it comes to teachers/professors of science in colleges).

But is it less believable than 3 or 4 men going in to business together? Statistics do say it's less believable. More men start businesses than women. That may not be true in another quarter century, but today it still is. But does that make the premise of gender-bender Ghostbusters implausible? No. Not at all. You are absolutely right on that point.

I guess I'm just not buying this group of actresses. Not one of them strikes me as being a scientist (not the way that Ramis and Akroyd did, not even close). And aside from Jones none of them have any real physicality that says they could handle physical action like you're going to see in the movie. They aren't believable. The premise may not be outrageous (and after further reflection, it really isn't - clearly the right women COULD easily pull that stuff off), but the casting was (outrageous - outrageously bad and inappropriate/unbelievable/non-credible).

And the promotion of the movie as, "Girl Power," sure seemed to exclude any attempt to appeal to men/boys. It was like they were saying, "Too bad, guys. This one isn't for you." The original never excluded women from it's audience. In fact, it gave a woman a prominent role (Weaver), and gave another a memorable one (Potts). And both of them played strong women, too! In this one we've got Hemsworth playing an emasculated girly man as secretary/receptionist to further the joke. So if you can't see the middle finger that the producers and writers intentionally gave to the guys in the potential audience then you're letting your social justice agenda get in the way of seeing what is so painfully obvious. It's almost like they wanted to offend men in order to create controversy and get attention. Well, if so, mission accomplished!

And the results look really bad. Far worse than a Ghostbusters 3 ever could have been 5 or 10 years ago. Even with Bill Murray doing just a glorified cameo and having a new Ghostbuster take his place I firmly believe that a G3 with Akroyd, Ramis, and Hudson would have been far better than this pile of excrement.

I see no reason to get behind this movie. None whatsoever. But there are a ton of reasons NOT to get behind this movie.

B5Erik, I'm kind of impressed by your post. The first half anyway. But this one paragraph...

Really? I'm a man in my 30's and I don't feel like they're excluding me at all.

Nah. If anything, they're saying "Too bad, guys. This one action/comedy blockbuster in a sea of dozens of action/comedy blockbusters isn't JUST for you." See the difference?

Love interest.
Snarky secretary.

These are literally the most common roles women are given.

I think that's a slight overstatement, but sure. Why not.

what? Because he's got an Australian accent and wears glasses? If the point was to make a joke towards the "real fans" don't you think they'd have picked a scrawny or overweight loser with no social skills, a terrible wardrobe, and no sense of humor?

Nah.

"wanting to offend men" and "knowing that no matter what they do, some men would be offended" are two different things.

Come on, you know that emasculating Thor had to give the producers a chuckle.

I don't see anything in this movie that appeals to me, and I'm a big fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so I have no problem with a female led action show/movie. Hell, I'd kill to see a Black Widow movie. I just absolutely hate the women that they cast in this movie. To me they're horribly UNfunny and just kind of pathetic. Their comedic acting styles are just lame. Bad TV sitcom lame.

But considering that they didn't put anything appealing to guys in the movie they had to know that there would be a backlash. They can't be that stupid.

All of those actors are doing a cameo of some kind (inexplicably apparently not as their characters?) Aykroyd would've done anything...so he could've introduced the new characters, played the Han Solo role from TFA.

I'm not against the female cast, but I'm not interested if it's not even being played as a sequel. (which the teaser even alluded to!) I'd be more interested if they worked in a 'passing of the torch' storyline.

The trendline is going up on women in academia actually. And I will say that with the exception of two excellent male professors, all the best classes I took at college had female professors (I also had some poor female and male professors, so I'm not trying to say that gender is going to determine how good one is at being a teacher).

This looks to me like a combination of nostalgia and arguing from your conclusion. First off, tell me what a scientist looks like. The general cultural concept of a scientist is semi-nerdy, white lab coat, pocket protector. Egon is the only one who fits that model in the original film. Murray and Akroyd don't look like scientists in any meaningful way. So in that regard, I'm willing to buy these actresses as scientists just as much as I'm willing to buy the actors in the original as scientists.

As for physical humor, was there that much physical humor in the original that required great physicality from the actors? Again, Ramis is the only one who does any significant physical acting, playing Egon as stiff. The rest of the physical gags generally involve the guys getting slimed. I don't recall any Buster Keaton-esque routines in the first two movies, or even something as physical as this:



Melissa McCarthy does physical humor all the time in her movies, not all of it is good but she's no stranger to it.

Like the movie, don't like the movie, whatever. But these justifications are really grasping at straws.

Strange that of all the movies franchises in the whole world, Ghostbusters is being discussed in such an angry tone, in a thread thread may be locked because of it. I find that strange because of the kind of film Ghostbusters represents, which isn't a boys club mentality that many on here think it does. It does not.

Vigo creeped me out pretty hard when I was a kid.

^ same.

As I said earlier in the thread, I loved GB2 for... forever. People said it was bad, but I always ignored them. I have never, and will never, read thinkpieces on why other people think it's so terrible (I mention this because the Angry game nerd guy mentions that he was "conditioned" to hate it, and I've never felt that that was the case, since I loved it up until my most recent viewing of it). Revisiting it in 2016... I just couldn't stand it. Weak jokes, terrible plot, sub-par performances, etc. etc. etc.
The only thing I like about it now is Janosz; dude is hilarious as hell and his performance is totally under-appreciated. Also, the ghost carriage taking away baby Oscar is still creepy shit.

So, for me, it's nearly impossible for GB2016 to be that bad. I've seen some terrible shit in the theatres (Pixels, The Happening, Hardcore Henry, Goodbye to Language 3D, ... the list goes on.)

I'm not saying GB2016 is going to be GOOD, but if it's better than GB2, then at least for me, it's good enough to exist.

I still don't understand why people are angry about it, though. Check YouTube or reddit (the barnacles of the internet), and you'll see it in full force. It's kind of fascinating.

She has to resort to that because she's not funny. Ever see a Kate Hudson comedy? She falls off every bar stool in sight. Literally the very first image that leaked from the making of Ghostbusters 2016 was McCarthy doing a prat fall getting out of the Ecto 1. That was the moment that solidified it for me. All the same tired, hacky schtick dressed up as something that resembles Ghostbusters.

Totally off topic, but if there's a single actress I can point to as being colossally unfunny, and less interesting to watch on screen than McCarthy, it'd be her.

It's like the girl from Almost Famous is not the girl in everything since Almost Famous.