My bigger question is why some people have issues with Quotes.

The outrage is so strong, forum usage skills are affected.

This is the kind of comment that undercuts any claim of "the failure of this movie is NOT about sexism!!!" cry. Why would "male moviegoers" have a problem with this film before it was even out?

I'm a male moviegoer and I liked it fine. And if Sony "had no faith in it" then they are a bad judge of what movies to put their faith in, as this was a perfectly fine film (and the review scores back that up).

Another dude here who thought it was fine.

same

No! They screwed with us! Open your eyes! Take the red pill! Enter the not-the-Matrix!

I think Sony's recent history pretty much confirms their bad faith. The movie could be F'N Casablanca but it missed it's audience, hence the low box office.

Uh maybe because it didn't look good? Maybe because after the movie came out the Cinemascore for it was mediocre? Maybe because the reviews were mediocre and it's the textbook definition of a movie that didn't appeal to anyone? Yes there's Bluelitespecials of the world but that seems like a minority.

Congratulations but it's pretty obvious that men weren't excited about this movie. At all.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...reboot-nba-ads

Doing things like advertising during the NBA finals and having Kobe be a Ghostbuster proved that Sony realized they were in trouble with male viewers. And the simple truth is that they screwed up plenty with this movie.

1. Amy Pascal was more concerned about getting an all female starring tent pole made then actually doing it well. If it wasn't Ghostbusters it was going to be Spiderman related.

2. You don't greenlight a $150 million dollar tent pole that only appeals to one segment of the audience. Especially an effects heavy genre film that should appeal to everyone.

3. They tried to make it a political girl power movement and audiences just didn't care about it. It's well documented that Sony was deleting comments from women that criticized the movie and kept sexiest comments about it. They pretty much knew they had nothing else.

And as for the Rotten Tomatoes score which people keep leaning on. The consensus with top critics is that GB is a 58% which makes it rotten among top critics. Ignoring the fact that RT is held up way too much as some type of measuring stick about a movies quality. And simply audiences didn't seem to care about it. Nobody was telling their friends to go see it, people weren't talking about how great it was and that's evident by the movie having no legs whatsoever.

And all this BS about it failing because of sexism is crap. Lucy made a ton of money with a female lead. Resident Evil is still going with a female lead(though I have no idea why). The Hunger Games were successful, people want a Black Widow movie and theres excitement around Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel. But nah it can't be because they made a bad movie not many people liked.

Oh and maybe this video will put an end to some of the sexist claims people keep mentioning.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UWROBiX1eSc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So an all-male Ghostbusters appeals to everyone, but an all-female Ghostbusters appeals only to women.

Still haven't seen it, waiting till a little time passes so I can watch it without too much baggage.

But I still maintain that a lot of the problem with this project was it being a reboot instead of a continuation. It would have felt a lot more natural had the women been daughters/interns suiting up to take on a new generation of ghosts.

Not w/ that creative team...

Pretty much.

The original had empowered women who came across as either intelligent, street smart, or positive in some way. The original did not bash women. The remake bashes men. There isn't a single male character who is both intelligent and noble. ALL of the male characters in the remake are either incredibly stupid or total assholes, or some combination of the two on a sliding scale.

They turned Ghostbusters 2016 into a, "Girl Power," movie that targeted only women as an audience. That was a conscious decision by Amy Pascal and Paul Feig. Sony's marketing team then went into overdrive making it look like the ONLY people bashing the movie were misogynist misanthropes. THEY created the, "Misogynists VS Women," battle.

If a studio is going to replace ALL male leads in a franchise with women then going out of their way to make a movie that is as unappealing to men as possible isn't exactly going to lead to big support from men. Having at least a couple noble/intelligent male characters would have gone a long way towards proving that their goal wasn't a man hating movie. They failed all around on that count.

An INTEGRATED team, with both men AND women could have been cool - it would have shown true equality, but NOOOOOOO. Pascal and Feig didn't want that. They wanted to grab headlines and get attention with the gender reversal concept.

Hell, with the death of Harold Ramis they could have brought a woman in to be the brains of the outfit and had that passing of the torch movie. They could have made EVERYONE happy with that concept, but Pascal didn't want that. Her leaked e-mails prove what an arrogant, obnoxious, man hating tyrant she really was. Oh, and she's a hack, too, when it comes to recognizing quality scripts and talent. How the hell did she get that position at Sony anyway? She was arguably the worst studio exec in history.

I agree. To completely ignore the first two movies was a huge mistake.

Yeah, that screed really proves that this wasn't about gender for you.

It was and it wasn't. I could have accepted the concept if the movie were up to the standards of the original and if Feig and Pascal didn't engage in man bashing. It isn't and they did.

Gender plays an issue with a lot of movie choices for a lot of people. Like a lot of guys (probably a majority) I don't usually go for, "Chick flicks," either. Not my thing.

On the other hand, I'm a big supporter of women's sports (I attend the women's basketball games at SDSU at least twice a season, and was a big supporter of the girls basketball team at my daughter's high school, being the volunteer, unpaid PA announcer and scoreboard operator the last two years). So it isn't a, "Women are bad," thing, it's a, "Bashing men is bad," thing.

Let's be honest - Dana Barrett in the original Ghostbusters was sexually harassed, possessed and turned into a sex object, rescued by the guy who harassed her in the first place and then fell in love with him.

So why is that okay but Chris Hemsworth isn't? Also, you have an awful lot of definitive opinions about a movie you haven't seen.

How absurd. And no, she didn't fall in love with him, as the sequel played that out. I chose not to support this film with my $$, so I can only go off of the marketing....and boy did they ever try to write off 50% of the potential audience...they broke almost every marketing rule. Hopefully it's a lesson for studios and film classes going forward.

Le'ts be honest - Dana Barrett was a very intelligent character, and she was having NONE of Venkman's BS. She saw right through him and he had to become more, "Real," to win her over. (And, as noted above, she didn't put up with his nonsense for long, as she showed him the door.) She was a very strong character.

I've read all about it. You don't have to have been in WWII to know what happened, you know?

And Chris Hemsworth's character in GB16 is nothing but a total airhead moron. Dana was intelligent and confident. It took a demon from another dimension to get the best of her.

Its a shame they didn't wait a year and take note from The Force Awakens on how to appeal to your target audience.

Step 1. If you can somehow wrangle together almost the entire beloved original cast after no one thought it possible, don't cast them as new characters.

It's a comedy. How often have airhead bimbos been played for laughs in comedies? But when it's a guy in that role suddenly it's "bashing men". Give me a break. Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious in the film and is clearly having a blast. It seems like the only people upset about his character are people who haven't actually seen the movie.

You're missing the point Supermallet.

You are right, there are countless comedies out there that take female characters and use their looks and stupidity for laughs. Sometimes it can be funny, sometimes it can be awful. But the thing is, that is not the type of humor the original Ghostbusters movie went for, and it's one of the reasons its so beloved.

It seems that everyone who says, "It's not the classic you think it is," hasn't watched the film (and I mean, really sat down to watch it) in years. The movie plays itself very straight, with smart and subtle humor. Every character in that movie is memorable and somewhat likable (yes, even Mr. Walter Peck). It's a smart comedy that has stood the test of time and to this day doesn't look or feel terribly dated.

With this new one, we are given the lowest common denominator of jokes.

"No, not my cat. I want to bring my dog, Mike Hat, to work."

God it was cringeworthy.

In the end, I'm so glad this film was a failure. While it kills any chances for a decent Ghostbusters movie to ever be made, it at least is going to be forgotten so quickly, that whenever I mention "Ghostbusters" again, people will still immediately know I'm talking about the 1984 classic.

Going by the emails, it was clear that Pascal wanted Feig and only Feig for this movie. So when he told her he wasn't interested in a sequel and the only way he was doing this was if he got to do it his own way with a reboot, she didn't care. The goal should've been to find a good director who wanted to continue the story in the same universe as the first two movies. Whether it was a passing the torch story, or just a story of another GB team in another city. It could've been an all-female team, but it needed to have a connection to the original. No one wanted to see Ghostbusters rebooted from scratch - all men, all women, mixed, whatever. Everyone remembers how the GB were formed and everyone remembers (fondly) the original team, so there was no good reason to pretend they never existed. It was just a misfire from the start, and that rests squarely on Pascal and Sony.

This article goes in depth on this topic. I'm not saying they're right about everything, but they make a solid point. It doesn't make GB84 a bad film (I still love it), but it is undoubtedly a product of its time...

http://qz.com/732293/ghostbusters-wi...-the-original/
Again, they're not necessarily right about all of it, but there's definitely valid points throughout the article.

"It's both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects."

right? It's fascinating. "I've read about it, so I know it's true." Amazing.

No, that's not even remotely true. I've seen a ton of comments and YouTube videos from people who are offended by this movie. Some by men, some by women who are embarrassed by it.

And, sure, you get movies with airhead bimbos - but I've never seen a movie where EVERY woman is bad (either incredibly stupid, or a total bitch, or something else negative). In this movie EVERY man has massive negative qualities. Every single one.

You have been vehemently defending this movie, and if you truly like it that much that's fine. But just understand - a lot of people strongly disagree with you. The brand of comedy in it is much less intelligent than in the original, and the agenda that Feig and Pascal had when making it is anti-men. That's a fact (hell, her leaked e-mails point to that being true). They tried to prop up women by tearing men down. That's not the right way to do it. You show that women are intellectually equal by building them up, not tearing the men in the movie down. If Feig had to tear men down to bring them down to the level of women then he did the opposite of what should have been done to truly put women on an equal intellectual footing with men in this movie. Then again, Feig thought that alien ghosts were a good idea (in his original pitch), so I'm not surprised that his script failed in it's most basic goal.

Dan...

Anyone who thinks that Venkman is sexually harassing Dana is trivializing sexual harassment. And Louis is barely even flirting with her. He's just desperate for attention. And when Louis and Dana are both possessed they are no longer Louis or Dana. The whole premise of that piece is fatally flawed.