Um, Kristen Wiig has headlined a movie. It was called Bridesmaids, it was a blockbuster movie and was nominated for two Academy Awards.

And this is the problem with the movie... nobody cared about the villain or the heroes because they were poorly written. There is no under-lying message... it was a bad movie that blew it's wad on marketing campaigns it couldn't live up to. The end.


Edit: That said, this movie was WAY better than Independence Day - Resurgence

Nobody liked the villain of the movie who was basically also the villain of the movie's existence? That's an odd irony... I was waiting for the deleted scene when Rowan went off about being a Men's Rights Activist!

God! Will somebody shoot this horse and please nobody beat it!

In honor of Day of the Woman I'm about to sit down and watch this tragedy.

This is the last time I'll say this - I don't think anyone here said because it had a female cast and you complained that you must hate women.

What was said was that the disproportionate about of hate this particular movie received (and it was a lot - far more than the other movies you mentioned) probably had something to do with the female cast. You could go to the YouTube comments that made this the most disliked trailer ever and see this clearly. Yet whenever it was even suggested as a factor, there was a contingent that said the hate had nothing to do with the all female cast. Which then lead us to things like the backpacks being to heavy being the reason, or the fact that their suits had stripes was the reason, or that the original cast was in it but not playing their original parts was the reason (never mind the fact that those actors chose to be in the film), or that whatever shit Akroyd would have spewed out for GB3 would be better than this (and we can all look at GB2 to see the direction things were going in).

It was the vehement dismissal of the all-female cast as playing a big factor in the massive backlash that bothered me. Especially since the original had an all-male cast and it was never questioned. And 99.99999% of that backlash seemed to be coming from men.

An all-male Ghostbusters team for the 1984 film wouldn't be an issue since it was a new concept at the time (yeah, I know about the tv show one with the gorilla). Once it became a thing, people had expectations for the reboot.
The Feig reboot switched up the genders but still seemed to make it a point that there be one African-American Ghostbuster. At the time, no one would have been bothered had Winston been played by a white actor, because what Ghostbusters "should be" hadn't been established in people's minds in 1984. Not having a Ghostbuster who was African-American would have caused a stir as well, and I'm pretty sure some defenders of the reboot would have had some issues with a female team that was all-white.



Yeah, I don't think it was just MRA stuff. It was a combination of factors. I think China wouldn't let it be shown in their market either which hurt the international box office potential.

The two names that I thought would be great for a Ghostbusters reboot were the ones originally attached to the reboot in the press gossip: Lizzy Caplan, and later, Channing Tatum.

I like Caplan in just about every thing I've seen her in (Hot Tub Time Machine, Party Down, etc). It was said that she was a fan of the original and wanted to be in the new one. I thought that was cool, and while yeah, she's easy on the eyes, she has good comedic delivery, and plays the introvert/nerd type well, something that may work when playing a scientist.

Channing Tatum was said to have wrote an email about his enthusiasm for doing the movie. Again, thought it was cool that an actor was a fan. And after seeing 21 Jump Street I thought he could be funny in a GB movie. Then again, after reading the actual email he supposedly made, maybe it was good he wasn't in the reboot.


I think a mixed gendered team would have worked better in order to get female AND male movie goers. I think some of the people lauding the Feig GB movie alluded to females possibly viewing the original GB as a "boys club" movie/team, and that the reboot would be a progressive step forward. But couldn't the new one then be viewed as a "girls club" movie then?

Most of these new franchise films based on nostalgic, kid-friendly properties seem to be attempting to be as inclusive as possible in order to appeal to all demographics.
The new Star Wars has a female protagonist, a black male romantic interest, a male Latino Han Solo-type, male and female Asian rebel fighters, etc.
Marvel and DC films do the same.

I still don't think the first trailer was terrible. But it wasn't awesome either.

I've read that before that Pascall wanted to do an all-female team movie, but I just read an article where Feig was saying that he chose an all female team because he just likes working with funny women.
Where was it said that it was Pascall's idea?

No, I think there was still interest and potential in a reboot. I'd rather they leave it alone, and I think that the original cast is what made the 1984 so perfect, but the concept itself is really strong.

You gotta give people what they need, not what they want. The entire cast was not going to come back. Bill Murray said no more, and I think he only agreed to a cameo because Sony was threatening him. I highly, highly doubt he would have agreed to do a GB3.

She already did an all women team that had a sequel... Charlie's Angels.

I meant, an all-female Ghostbusters team movie. I didn't know she was behind the Charlie's Angels films.

Somebody should re-make Charlie's Angels with an all male cast.

Toni's Boys

I enjoyed this movie. It was fun for what it was.

The self-righteous outrage it brings out of some dudes, though... unreal.

Yeah, it's nowhere near the disaster people make it out to be, it was silly fun.

But the outrage is a smidge more entertaining

Watched it last night. I have a load of criticisms that I'll keep to myself for now. I'd like to discuss one thing about this film that fascinated me and no one has mentioned: It's aspect ratio.

The film is, at first glance, presented in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. But it actually frequently explodes out of those dimensions and into the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. In other words the image extends into the "black bars". Is there a word for this? The first time I saw this was in Life of Pi during the flying fish sequence.

What aspect ratio was the screen during theatrical exhibition of GB?

It was mentioned quite a bit around the time of release.

As I recall, it was exactly as you've described when it was shown theatrically in 3D. I saw it in IMAX, but my wife saw it at a regular 3D Cinemark screen, and it was the same. It was projected at 2.35:1, but the effects spilling out of the screen went outside the frame. Neither theatre would have had matting over the top/bottom edges of the screen, for this purpose.
In 2D, I think it was just a flat 2.35:1, with nothing coming into the frame's black border. I think the effect was added back into the 2D version for home video, though, since people seemed to like it.

It's not unlike, but still fairly different from, when The Dark Knight switched its AR for the IMAX-filmed scenes, then back to 2.35:1 for the non-IMAX stuff.

The effect is dalled called "breaking the frame."

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them did it, too. It's unknown whether or not it will be included in any of the home video versions like it was with Ghostbusters.

Everybody, please follow the link and watch the credit sequence video --just to see the one guy described as a master of disguise!

Bro had the realist looking beard I ever saw.

So these all prove the real answer ... THEY WERE BAD MOVIES. Poorly written, bland attempts at rehashing past successes. It isn't even pushback or "license overload" ... To call them "vanilla" would be giving them too much credit.

That theory didn't last long.

You mis-heard that lyric. He is the master of 'dese guys'.

Finally watched this just now. Went in with an open mind, loved the original and most of my favorite comedy is from women. But this was awful, just completely unfunny from start to finish. The Akroyd cameo was the only moment that gave me pleasure. I guess the 3D wasn't horrible.

At least it was pretty much free, thanks to a Target customer service bonus, but I'm embarrassed that this will forever be my first UHD purchase.

In the original film the concept was that the whole world is the straight man and the Ghostbusters are the funny non-conformists (with the one exception of Rick Moranis). In the remake they make everyone funny. The mayor is funny, the receptionist is funny, the tour guide is funny, everyone is funny. That is to say jokes are put into their mouths, none of it is particularly funny. Anyway, that's like a 90's sitcom.

All they had to do was match the original and it would have been passable. They tweeked everything and made it worse.

Never looked at it like that, but spot-on observation.

If nothing else I did really like the scene near the end where Kate McKinnon uses her proton pistols. That was pretty badass even if the movie decided to change the rules they already established.

Great movie. 5/5 stars.