# Paul Feig and Sony know GHOSTBUSTERS SUCKS! PROOF!



## ecartman12 (Jul 5, 2016)

The Ghostbusters remake is just around the corner and I really do hope that it does not do well in order for us to not get any sequels! A link below to a video is below, explaining in a short amount of time as to how Paul Feig and Sony both hate the movie and why NO ONE should see it.

Paul Feig and Sony know GHOSTBUSTERS SUCKS!


----------



## nero99 (Jul 5, 2016)

I'm going to assume that you don't know a good movie when you see one.


----------



## RustInPeace (Jul 5, 2016)

Crap, I forgot Sony handled this movie. After the disaster that ended 2014 with them, it's hard to really get behind them. Even before that, they neutered Spider-Man with the third movie in the Raimi trilogy, took it upon themselves to reboot it unnecessarily before Marvel finally came in...to reboot it again. Crap man, and this will stand as probably the first black mark in Paul Feig's otherwise great filmography. The best way to make this movie a fail is if nobody sees it. Consequently I'll see it if it's on a streaming service to form my own opinion of it. If the box office return is so bad and is a fraction of this film's high budget, that will send the message that it's a failure and to never reboot beloved franchises. But with that 3D IMAX thing, suckers will buy that, and even if they like the movie or not, they still put in money towards the box office return.


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 5, 2016)

I don't feel they're trying to make a good movie for fans to enjoy, I don't think they're trying to nostalgia pander, or even appeal to feminists. At this point they're just trying to incite a bunch of fucking drama into the Internet. 
It's fairly smart too - all the "movie sucks" responses are considered "SEXISM!" or Trump supporters, ignoring any possible criticism past "the characters are female so it sucks" so all those same feminists will probably watch it... Then realize it _fucking sucks. 
_
And, yeah, I'll jump on the "sexist" train here too - to be honest, the female cast does feel like a desperate pandering attempt. Rule 63ing all the main characters wasn't a good move by any means, and making them _all female_ was bad as well. Star Wars did a nice job with having a diverse cast without inciting drama.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 5, 2016)

Only whiny MRA/KKKs are pre-judging this movie because it hurts their wittle feefees


----------



## vb_encryption_vb (Jul 5, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> Only whiny MRA/KKKs are pre-judging this movie because it hurts their wittle feefees




I'm neither and already know this movie will be a shit show, just like every other reboot they have done in the past 10 years. Give up on the reboots, get new ideas.

Trashed reboots from what I can remember.

Total Recall
Fright Night
The Karate Kid
Ghostbusters 
Ninja Turtles
Spiderman ( Different story line if you read the various comics, so it was decent I guess )
Fantastic Four
Xmen reboot
Poltergeist


I'm sure there is more, just can't think of them.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 5, 2016)

vb_encryption_vb said:


> I'm neither and already know this movie will be a shit show, just like every other reboot they have done in the past 10 years. Give up on the reboots, get new ideas.
> 
> Trashed reboots from what I can remember.
> 
> ...


It aint even out yet, people judging a movie based on a trailer RATHER INDICATIVE of women-hating


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 5, 2016)

I am going to see because I am not a nostalgia blind manchild.
If it turns out to be crap, then that sucks. If it turns out to be good, then I am glad to have seen it. Regardless, I am going to see it because it's worth watching.


----------



## vb_encryption_vb (Jul 5, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> It aint even out yet, people judging a movie based on a trailer RATHER INDICATIVE of women-hating




The trailer was more than enough to show it will be garbage, has nothing to do with them being woman.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 5, 2016)

vb_encryption_vb said:


> The trailer was more than enough to show it will be garbage, has nothing to do with them being woman.


I've seen trailers that made shit movies look great and great movies look like shit. Judging a movie based on the trailer isn't a fair judgement. 
It also doesn't help that everyone is _telling you_ it's shit. From the very first poster of the movie people have been declaring it shit, it didn't even make it to the first trailer before people were hating on it.


----------



## ric. (Jul 5, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> It aint even out yet, people judging a movie based on a trailer RATHER INDICATIVE of women-hating


Or maybe there was no reason to reboot Ghostbusters and the trailer looks awful? To be fair the previous rumours of a Ghostbusters reboot with Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell sounded just as bad.
My point is you can't top Bill Murray + Harold Ramis + Dan Aykroid + Ernie Hudson. Now if on top of that you give the project to a director who clearly doesn't care about the francise, you're going to end up with a disaster like this one. Why not let Ivan Reittman direct it? He knows Ghostbusters better than anybody - hell, he co-wrote the first film, and helped polish Dan Aykroid's Ghostsmashers idea.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 5, 2016)

ric. said:


> Or maybe there was no reason to reboot Ghostbusters and the trailer looks awful? To be fair the previous rumours of a Ghostbusters reboot with Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell sounded just as bad.
> My point is you can't top Bill Murray + Harold Ramis + Dan Aykroid + Bernie Hudson. Now if on top of that you give the project to a director who clearly doesn't care about the francise, you're going to end up with a disaster like this one. Why not let Ivan Reittman direct it? He knows Ghostbusters better than anybody - hell, he co-wrote the first film, and helped polish Dan Aykroid's Ghostsmashers idea.


Gee I don't remember this outrage at Extreme Ghostbusters


----------



## ric. (Jul 5, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> Gee I don't remember this outrage at Extreme Ghostbusters


Extreme Ghostbusters sucked too - but at least it didn't label anyone who refused to see it a mysogynist pig.
Even then, Extreme Ghostbusters was a direct sequel to Ghostbusters, it had Egon Spengler and even Janine. It made sense for the old Ghostbusters to pass the torch to a new generation, even if this new generation was a bunch of annoying brats.
You want a *good* example of women Ghostbusters being awesome without the franchise being shat on? IDW Comics.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 5, 2016)

ric. said:


> Or maybe there was no reason to reboot Ghostbusters and the trailer looks awful? To be fair the previous rumours of a Ghostbusters reboot with Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell sounded just as bad.
> My point is you can't top Bill Murray + Harold Ramis + Dan Aykroid + Bernie Hudson. Now if on top of that you give the project to a director who clearly doesn't care about the francise, you're going to end up with a disaster like this one. Why not let Ivan Reittman direct it? He knows Ghostbusters better than anybody - hell, he co-wrote the first film, and helped polish Dan Aykroid's Ghostsmashers idea.


Expect people were excited for a reboot when they thought it would involve men. As soon as they said it would have an all women cast, then it was "unnecessary" and people started shitting on the movie. 
It would be one thing if people were hating on it after the trailer, it's another when people were calling it shit before there was even a piece of promotional art for it.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 5, 2016)

RustInPeace said:


> Crap, I forgot Sony handled this movie. After the disaster that ended 2014 with them, it's hard to really get behind them. Even before that, they neutered Spider-Man with the third movie in the Raimi trilogy, took it upon themselves to reboot it unnecessarily before Marvel finally came in...to reboot it again. Crap man, and this will stand as probably the first black mark in Paul Feig's otherwise great filmography. The best way to make this movie a fail is if nobody sees it. Consequently I'll see it if it's on a streaming service to form my own opinion of it. If the box office return is so bad and is a fraction of this film's high budget, that will send the message that it's a failure and to never reboot beloved franchises. But with that 3D IMAX thing, suckers will buy that, and even if they like the movie or not, they still put in money towards the box office return.


Agreed. I haven't seen Bridesmaids, but I have seen The Heat and Spy. I did not like The Heat but Spy was AWESOME! Unnecessarily gross but still awesome. This movie though is just all levels of wrong.


----------



## ric. (Jul 5, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Expect people were excited for a reboot when they thought it would involve men. As soon as they said it would have an all women cast, then it was "unnecessary" and people started shitting on the movie.
> It would be one thing if people were hating on it after the trailer, it's another when people were calling it shit before there was even a piece of promotional art for it.



Except that's totally not what happened? I can tell you as a hardcore GB fan, nobody wanted a reboot. What everyone wanted was Ghostbusters 3 (which we got, sort of, in the form of the Ghostbusters game published by Atari), in which we'd hopefully see the original Ghostbusters pass on the torch to a new generation. However, everyone's hopes for that died when Harold Ramis passed away in 2014.
Like I said before, I'm not against the idea of an all-women ghostbusters team. It was awesome in the comics, and had this movie been properly executed I would be hyped. Imagine the direction it could've taken the franchise. My biggest issue with this movie is not only that it's poorly casted, produced, and directed - but that it has no respect for the originals at all. Why go out of it's way to act like the original movies didn't happen? They easily could've made it a loose sequel - the original goal of Pete Venkman and Ray Stantz was to turn Ghostbusters into a franchise, after all.
It's that kind of revisionist history that really grinds my gears as a Ghostbusters fan, and it's the reason I won't be seeing this movie, not even pirating it.


----------



## Chary (Jul 5, 2016)

Sonic_Cee_Dee said:


> I don't feel they're trying to make a good movie for fans to enjoy, I don't think they're trying to nostalgia pander, or even appeal to feminists. At this point they're just trying to incite a bunch of fucking drama into the Internet.
> It's fairly smart too - all the "movie sucks" responses are considered "SEXISM!" or Trump supporters, ignoring any possible criticism past "the characters are female so it sucks" so all those same feminists will probably watch it... Then realize it _fucking sucks. _And, yeah, I'll jump on the "sexist" train here too - to be honest, the female cast does feel like a desperate pandering attempt. Rule 63ing all the main characters wasn't a good move by any means, and making them all female was bad as well. Star Wars did a nice job with having a diverse cast without inciting drama.



Duh, money is the biggest driving factor. It's basically big news sites being like, Top 20 Reasons Why Men Are Pigs For Hating New Ghostbusters. Then the movie gets press. Bad press, but attention nonetheless. I'm sure they're overjoyed at the hate, just because it's got so many people talking about it. And really, having an all female team shouldn't mean much. Sure, it's bad that they didn't have the original cast, but so long as they have good writing, _which the trailers don't seem to showcase_ then it would have been acceptable at best. People don't want the universe here, they want the classic actors that they KNOW are funny.



vb_encryption_vb said:


> I'm neither and already know this movie will be a shit show, just like every other reboot they have done in the past 10 years. Give up on the reboots, get new ideas.



Totally. I'm so sick of seeing rebooted franchise #9023324. There's so many good ideas and books to adapt into movies. Why waste time on a reboot, which isn't even catering to the original audience? 




yuyuyup said:


> It aint even out yet, people judging a movie based on a trailer RATHER INDICATIVE of women-hating



Lolwat. Judging a _couple_ of trailers might be jumping the gun slightly. But women-hating? Seriously? I don't care too much whether this movie sinks or swims, but from the handful of trailers that are out right now, it looks terribly unfunny. If some lame non-jokes are the best thing the editing team can put into a trailer, what does that say about the quality of the movie? It's because all these loud milennials that grew up with the original Ghostbusters are mad that they're not getting what they want, which is the original cast. It's like when people were pissed Shatner wasn't in the Star Trek reboot. Not due to people deciding to hate on women.  Or maybe that's just all my _*INTERNALIZED MISOGYNY*_ speaking.



Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Expect people were excited for a reboot when they thought it would involve men. As soon as they said it would have an all women cast, then it was "unnecessary" and people started shitting on the movie.
> It would be one thing if people were hating on it after the trailer, it's another when people were calling it shit before there was even a piece of promotional art for it.



Um. Pretty sure people were pissed because Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray weren't going to be in the movie in a large capacity. Not because OH MAH GAWH THE WOMENZ ARE TAKING OVER MAH MOVIES.


----------



## darkaxe (Jul 5, 2016)

Imo, its not that its an all female cast or who the cast is, I think its the attitude of "Ïm making a new GB movie and Im not even gonna acknowledge the original ones".  The Star Trek reboot, while a whole new timeline and story, they included Leonard Nemoy's Spock and that kinda gave that nod of acknowledgement to the previous movies / series. I think even something as simple as maybe having Aykroyd as Stanz at the beginning handing over the reins or selling them the rights, anything, would have made a much better movie from what ive seen and read. Like a sequel / reboot kinda thing.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 5, 2016)

Chary said:


> Um. Pretty sure people were pissed because Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray weren't going to be in the movie in a large capacity. Not because OH MAH GAWH THE WOMENZ ARE TAKING OVER MAH MOVIES.





ric. said:


> Except that's totally not what happened? I can tell you as a hardcore GB fan, nobody wanted a reboot. What everyone wanted was Ghostbusters 3 (which we got, sort of, in the form of the Ghostbusters game published by Atari), in which we'd hopefully see the original Ghostbusters pass on the torch to a new generation. However, everyone's hopes for that died when Harold Ramis passed away in 2014.
> Like I said before, I'm not against the idea of an all-women ghostbusters team. It was awesome in the comics, and had this movie been properly executed I would be hyped. Imagine the direction it could've taken the franchise. My biggest issue with this movie is not only that it's poorly casted, produced, and directed - but that it has no respect for the originals at all. Why go out of it's way to act like the original movies didn't happen? They easily could've made it a loose sequel - the original goal of Pete Venkman and Ray Stantz was to turn Ghostbusters into a franchise, after all.
> It's that kind of revisionist history that really grinds my gears as a Ghostbusters fan, and it's the reason I won't be seeing this movie, not even pirating it.


It's one thing to be disappointed, it's another to declare a movie is complete shit before it even has a promotional art for it.
If the movie is shit, let it fail on it's own merit. Just because you are disappointed that you didn't get the Ghost Busters 3 that you wanted, doesn't mean the movie is going to be shit, on that fact alone.


----------



## vb_encryption_vb (Jul 5, 2016)

Rebooting Ghostbusters was a shitty idea, thank god there will be no Back to The Future reboot, ever.


----------



## ric. (Jul 5, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> It's one thing to be disappointed, it's another to declare a movie is complete shit before it even has a promotional art for it.
> If the movie is shit, let it fail on it's own merit. Just because you are disappointed that you didn't get the Ghost Busters 3 that you wanted, doesn't mean the movie is going to be shit, on that fact alone.



Nah, I decided the movie was going to be shit when they showed the trailers, and after seeing the MASSIVE amount of damage control Sony did on the comment section for the trailer. I think it's pretty telling that the Ghostbusters 2016 Trailer is one of the most disliked videos in Youtube history.
Speaking of which, did you know Sony actually threatened Bill Murray, Dan Aykroid and Ernie Hudson with "aggressive litigation" unless they publicly supported this movie? Sony knows they have a big stinker in their hands - so they're going to use every trick in their book to get people to see it - they're even playing the mysogyny card to try and recover all the money they spent on this pile of goop.
https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 5, 2016)

The trailers look atrocious. Unless there's some sort of massive turnaround when it releases and reputable sources say it's actually good and the trailers misrepresented it I have no intention of seeing it. Besides, when's the last time a movie reboot was actually good. They're always shit


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 5, 2016)

ecartman12 said:


> The Ghostbusters remake is just around the corner and I really do hope that it does not do well in order for us to not get any sequels! A link below to a video is below, explaining in a short amount of time as to how Paul Feig and Sony both hate the movie and why NO ONE should see it.
> 
> Paul Feig and Sony know GHOSTBUSTERS SUCKS!




Sony Pictures and Paul Feig have completely destroyed the film's marketing themselves by labelling anyone who doesn't like it as "sexist" and "misogynistic". Paul Feig should have never been given an actual franchise because all he's good for are parodies and even then.. they're not very good.



yuyuyup said:


> Only whiny MRA/KKKs are pre-judging this movie because it hurts their wittle feefees


Please tell me you're joking.



yuyuyup said:


> It aint even out yet, people judging a movie based on a trailer RATHER INDICATIVE of women-hating


Seems like you actually believe that B.S.

Well, here's links to a lot of footage of GB2016 that Sony has released:

Trailer 1 -  
Trailer 2 -  
Trailer 3 International -  
Russian Trailer 1 - http://www.videodetective.com/movies/ghostbusters-russian-trailer-1-/926656 
Russian Trailer 2 -  

TV Spot #2 -  
TV Spot #3 -  
TV Spot #4 -  
TV Spot #5 -  
TV Spot #6 -  
TV Spot #7 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onRpOdPSqrs 
TV Spot #9 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsDXsDJ_xnI 
TV Spot Tease - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO1SM_GvlYI 

An additional TV Spot would be of Dan Aykroyd as a Taxi Driver saying "I ain't afraid of no ghost!" which I can't find online anywhere at the moment. 

Cadillac Scene - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ0YexsRCPc

And here's all the shittalk that Sony, Paul Feig, Melissa, Judd Apatow, Patton Oswalt and others did against the "misogynistic and sexist pigs":

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/ghostbusters-director-paul-feig-responds-attacks-article-1.2621647 
http://www.businessinsider.com/melissa-mccarthy-responds-to-ghostbusters-hate-2016-6 
http://i.imgur.com/Rp9NYrD.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aQTJw1wlQ8

Quit with your damage control, yupyupyup.



ecartman12 said:


> Agreed. I haven't seen Bridesmaids, but I have seen The Heat and Spy. I did not like The Heat but Spy was AWESOME! Unnecessarily gross but still awesome. This movie though is just all levels of wrong.


Spy was awesome? If you like seeing Melissa McCarthy fall of a bike, swearing and pretending to be funny then I guess it's 'awesome'.

Btw, the FOB Ghostbusters song is horribly repetitive but thankfully Walk the Moon's version heals the wound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMUf1QDQZl0


----------



## ric. (Jul 5, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> An additional TV Spot would be of Dan Aykroyd as a Taxi Driver saying "I ain't afraid of no ghost!" which I can't find online anywhere at the moment.


Wait
wait wait wait wait WOAH
If you can get DAN AYKROID in your GHOSTBUSTERS movie, why in the name of all that is holy wouldn't you have him as HIS ACTUAL RAY STANTZ CHARACTER???
This makes no sense to me and I think my brain just farted. Just what is Paul Feig thinking?


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 5, 2016)

ric. said:


> Wait
> wait wait wait wait WOAH
> If you can get DAN AYKROID in your GHOSTBUSTERS movie, why in the name of all that is holy wouldn't you have him as HIS ACTUAL RAY STANTZ CHARACTER???
> This makes no sense to me and I think my brain just farted. Just what is Paul Feig thinking?


It's strange. The original Ghostbusters are on this one but they're not playing cameos of themselves in the past but playing different roles.

The leaked script is also legit.


----------



## ric. (Jul 5, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> It's strange. The original Ghostbusters are on this one but they're not playing cameos of themselves in the past but playing different roles.
> 
> The leaked script is also legit.


Which one? The one with the ghost possessing a bunch of cops and making them dance?
Oh my fuck.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 5, 2016)

I never gave a fuck about a ghostbusters remake.
I gave even less fucks after knowing about the concept.
The fuckgiving meter went below minus 9000 after the trailers.
Why would I give them my money in the first place?

PS: market research was bad with this one.
PS2: I ask for a "I don't give enough of a fuck to feel insulted and they don't get my money" option.


----------



## TVL (Jul 5, 2016)

I think reboots/remakes are usually terrible and/or pointless and wasn't going to watch it anyway. But it doesn't bother me that they are making one.


----------



## orangy57 (Jul 5, 2016)

Everybody knows that it was doomed from the start. It's not like there's anything interesting about the characters like in the originals, all the women are just the token goofy character. We all saw the trailer, the jokes were bad and forced.


----------



## ov3rkill (Jul 5, 2016)

We'll see when it comes out. The reviews and feedbacks I mean. Hahaha


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 5, 2016)

The feedback this movie has received BEFORE RELEASE is PATHETIC.  People are only standing up for the franchise because it gives them an excuse to spit at the idea of an all-female team.  The mental health community does a terrible job de-stigmatizing mental help, so men whine about Ghostbusters instead of going to get the help they desperately need.


----------



## ric. (Jul 5, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> The feedback this movie has received BEFORE RELEASE is PATHETIC.  People are only standing up for the franchise because it gives them an excuse to spit at the idea of an all-female team.  The mental health community does a terrible job de-stigmatizing mental help, so men whine about Ghostbusters instead of going to get the help they desperately need.


Except you have yet to respond to any of the points people have made in this thread, and instead keep parroting the narrative spread by Sony that people hate this movie because it has women in it, not because it's going to be a terrible film.
I don't have to wait until it's released to form an opinion on it: that's what trailers are for. Trailers are usually designed to showcase the best aspects of a movie, so you know the movie is gonna be bad if the trailer is as atrocious as the Ghostbusters 2016 one. I don't need to eat a plate full of shit to know that it's going to taste like shit and I won't like it.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 5, 2016)

ric. said:


> Except you have yet to respond to any of the points people have made in this thread, and instead keep parroting the narrative spread by Sony that people hate this movie because it has women in it, not because it's going to be a terrible film.
> I don't have to wait until it's released to form an opinion on it: that's what trailers are for. Trailers are usually designed to showcase the best aspects of a movie, so you know the movie is gonna be bad if the trailer is as atrocious as the Ghostbusters 2016 one. I don't need to eat a plate full of shit to know that it's going to taste like shit and I won't like it.


I am 99% positive this movie is gonna be shit. But there have been cases where trailers were BS and the movie was actually OK (not this case for sure)


----------



## gameboy (Jul 5, 2016)

DID ANY OF YOU WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO, the guy never saw a single ghost busters movie ever then says the movie is bad when it hasnt even hit theatres yet. If thats the case then paul fieg is right

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Sony Pictures and Paul Feig have completely destroyed the film's marketing themselves by labelling anyone who doesn't like it as "sexist" and "misogynistic". Paul Feig should have never been given an actual franchise because all he's good for are parodies and even then.. they're not very good.
> 
> 
> Please tell me you're joking.
> ...




ghostbusters fanboy, Spy WAS funny its one of the better comedies that year


----------



## ric. (Jul 5, 2016)

gameboy said:


> DID ANY OF YOU WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO, the guy never saw a single ghost busters movie ever then says the movie is bad when it hasnt even hit theatres yet. If thats the case then paul fieg is right
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> 
> ...





gameboy said:


> DID ANY OF YOU WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO, the guy never saw a single ghost busters movie ever then says the movie is bad when it hasnt even hit theatres yet. If thats the case then paul fieg is right
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ghostbusters fanboy, Spy WAS funny its one of the better comedies that year


To be fair this thread has become less about the video and more about the Temp's opinion on the movie. 
And Spy was mediocre at best.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 5, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> It aint even out yet, people judging a movie based on a trailer RATHER INDICATIVE of women-hating


Someone I follow on Twitter got their hands on both the Adult and Junior Novelizations, both of which are based *directly* off of the movie, and are basing their opinion off of that.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 6, 2016)

ric. said:


> Except you have yet to respond to any of the points people have made in this thread, and instead keep parroting the narrative spread by Sony that people hate this movie because it has women in it, not because it's going to be a terrible film.
> I don't have to wait until it's released to form an opinion on it: that's what trailers are for. Trailers are usually designed to showcase the best aspects of a movie, so you know the movie is gonna be bad if the trailer is as atrocious as the Ghostbusters 2016 one. I don't need to eat a plate full of shit to know that it's going to taste like shit and I won't like it.


Even one of the actresses in the movie said it was a bad trailer.  I wouldn't judge a movie based on the trailer, that's a bad move


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 6, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> Even one of the actresses in the movie said it was a bad trailer.  I wouldn't judge a movie based on the trailer, that's a bad move


Bad trailer, sure. But did they say if the movie was good or bad in comparison?


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 6, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> Only whiny MRA/KKKs are pre-judging this movie because it hurts their wittle feefees


If you watched the video you will have seen that I have no attachment to the Ghostbuster franchise as I was too young to understand the movie, and I still notice that there is far too much problems with this film. So it's nothing to do with the movie hurting their whittle feefees as you so poetically put it. :/ My video explains all my points extremely clearly so if anyone in this forum has not watched the video I suggest you do before taking part in the forums discussion.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 6, 2016)

vb_encryption_vb said:


> I'm neither and already know this movie will be a shit show, just like every other reboot they have done in the past 10 years. Give up on the reboots, get new ideas.
> 
> Trashed reboots from what I can remember.
> 
> ...


Totally agree. I did like Fright Night though. What do you mean the X-Men Reboot? Are you referring to First Class?


----------



## vb_encryption_vb (Jul 6, 2016)

ecartman12 said:


> Totally agree. I did like Fright Night though. What do you mean the X-Men Reboot? Are you referring to First Class?


Yeah.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 6, 2016)

vb_encryption_vb said:


> Rebooting Ghostbusters was a shitty idea, thank god there will be no Back to The Future reboot, ever.


If only that were true. A Back to the Future sequel could still happen. Just look at Jumanji, Robocop, Total Recall, Fright Night and now Ghostbusters. Nothing will stop the studios from resorting to reboots like that unless they perform poorly at the box office.


----------



## vb_encryption_vb (Jul 6, 2016)

ecartman12 said:


> If only that were true. A Back to the Future sequel could still happen. Just look at Jumanji, Robocop, Total Recall, Fright Night and now Ghostbusters. Nothing will stop the studios from resorting to reboots like that unless they perform poorly at the box office.


Robert Zemeckis  says it will not happen. Good for him!


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 6, 2016)

ecartman12 said:


> If only that were true. A Back to the Future sequel could still happen. Just look at Jumanji, Robocop, Total Recall, Fright Night and now Ghostbusters. Nothing will stop the studios from resorting to reboots like that unless they perform poorly at the box office.


That has the possibility to be great... 

But I swear, if they make it another female reboot...


----------



## johnbus (Jul 6, 2016)

Sonic_Cee_Dee said:


> But I swear, if they make it another female reboot...



Honestly, I'd be fine with Rule 63 reboots IF it went both ways... but, that will probably never happen.

I'm still waiting on a Spice World reboot staring The Spice Boys.


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 6, 2016)

johnbus said:


> Honestly, I'd be fine with Rule 63 reboots IF it went both ways... but, that will probably never happen.


Honestly, I don't like the idea of replacing established movie characters with female versions with no given reason. Better off for things like fanart. If it's done well, sure, but if it's like Ghostbusters, it probably wouldn't be.


----------



## johnbus (Jul 6, 2016)

Sonic_Cee_Dee said:


> Honestly, I don't like the idea of replacing established movie characters with female versions with no given reason. Better off for things like fanart. If it's done well, sure, but if it's like Ghostbusters, it probably wouldn't be.



That's WHY I would like to see it go both ways.

If everyone sees that the female remakes are terrible, but the male remakes are at least decent (and sales reflect that), it would breed healthy competition, and raise quality all-around. As of now, they can release any old trash, and simply claim any criticism is sexist.

What does Sony care about more than good press? Money.


----------



## FireEmblemGuy (Jul 6, 2016)

ecartman12 said:


> The Ghostbusters remake is just around the corner and I really do hope that it does not do well in order for us to not get any sequels! A link below to a video is below, explaining in a short amount of time as to how Paul Feig and Sony both hate the movie and why NO ONE should see it.
> 
> Paul Feig and Sony know GHOSTBUSTERS SUCKS!



So are you incapable of making a thread with a purpose other than the promotion of your derivative videos or what? People generally frown on using GBATemp to spam advertising and you're not changing that by adding lots of caps and fake outrage.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

gameboy said:


> DID ANY OF YOU WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO, the guy never saw a single ghost busters movie ever then says the movie is bad when it hasnt even hit theatres yet. If thats the case then paul fieg is right


Paul Feig isn't right.



gameboy said:


> ghostbusters fanboy, Spy WAS funny its one of the better comedies that year


_Spy_ was one of the better comedies last year? Well, if you like _Big Bang Theory_ then I guess _Spy_ is better. After all, they're both gross and unfunny.



yuyuyup said:


> Even one of the actresses in the movie said it was a bad trailer. I wouldn't judge a movie based on the trailer, that's a bad move


_If_ only it was one trailer/video.



ecartman12 said:


> A Back to the Future sequel could still happen.


Nope. Zemeckis has turned that down thankfully.

EDIT:



FireEmblemGuy said:


> fake outrage


Fake outrage?


Spoiler


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 6, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Paul Feig isn't right.
> 
> 
> _Spy_ was one of the better comedies last year? Well, if you like _Big Bang Theory_ then I guess _Spy_ is better. After all, they're both gross and unfunny.
> ...


Just because you spam a ton of unrelated pictures doesn't make this movie bad.  It aint even out yet, that's how you can tell who has issues with the ladies


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> Just because you spam a ton of unrelated pictures doesn't make this movie bad.  It aint even out yet, that's how you can tell who has issues with the ladies



Unrelated? That's the media trying to defend GB2016 by blaming people who dislike it as "sexist" and "misogynist". How can you pretend that isn't relevant?

Also, SJWs have been triggered: Total Film’s Ghostbusters cover branded ‘SEXIST’ with Chris Hemsworth's secretary


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 6, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Unrelated? That's the media trying to defend GB2016 by blaming people who dislike it as "sexist" and "misogynist". How can you pretend that isn't relevant?
> 
> Also, SJWs have been triggered: Total Film’s Ghostbusters cover branded ‘SEXIST’ with Chris Hemsworth's secretary


Well who cares about your campaign against women, why don't you talk about the movie, who cares what the mean ol' feminists have to say about it?  Half those pictures you posted weren't even criticizing the movie, you just took random coverage and made one big image.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 6, 2016)

I'm not going to see it. Nothing to do with feminism or whatever, none of that bothers me. It just doesn't look funny to me. It looks like a fan movie made by someone who watched Bridesmaids til they could quote it word for word. The effects don't look all that great, the jokes are flatter than an old can of coke crossing an event horizon, and the marketting strategy of accusing any non-customer of being sexist isn't something I want to encourage. Basically the film looks like utter bollocks on every concievable level, so I won't even bother to download it out of morbid curiosity.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> Well who cares about your campaign against women, why don't you talk about the movie, who cares what the mean ol' feminists have to say about it? Half those pictures you posted weren't even criticizing the movie, you just took random coverage and made one big image.



It has nothing to do with the women. The film has extremely dated CGI, "jokes" are terrible and it's a racist film too (Leslie Jones' plays a negative stereotype of blacks). You're clearly a clueless person to even be attempting to defend this manure.

I'm giving up on responding to you since you have no idea what you're talking about and assume "Hey you hate the movie? You're a MRA/KKK and women-hater!!".

EDIT:



Blaze163 said:


> I'm not going to see it. Nothing to do with feminism or whatever, none of that bothers me. It just doesn't look funny to me. It looks like a fan movie made by someone who watched Bridesmaids til they could quote it word for word. The effects don't look all that great, the jokes are flatter than an old can of coke crossing an event horizon, and the marketting strategy of accusing any non-customer of being sexist isn't something I want to encourage. Basically the film looks like utter bollocks on every concievable level, so I won't even bother to download it out of morbid curiosity.



Exactly!

Yupyupyup doesn't get this.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 6, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> It has nothing to do with the women. The film has extremely dated CGI, "jokes" are terrible and it's a racist film too (Leslie Jones' plays a negative stereotype of blacks). You're clearly a clueless person to even be attempting to defend this manure.
> 
> I'm giving up on responding to you since you have no idea what you're talking about and assume "Hey you hate the movie? You're a MRA/KKK and women-hater!!.


You just talked about the meanie SJW response, your anti-woman agenda is crystal clear, also yeah you BETTER back down


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> You just talked about the meanie SJW response, your anti-woman agenda is crystal clear, also yeah you BETTER back down


Anti-woman agenda? lol. You're hilarious.


----------



## kineticUk (Jul 6, 2016)

I f-in' love the original Ghostbusters movies, didn't click that it was a reboot.
The way I see it just like games music etc if you remake something to properly improve or better the original cool but if something isn't broke... (I'm keeping an open mind and not gonna take it too seriously, hopefully I'll enjoy it for what it is. Hopefully it'll still be fun).


----------



## Haymose (Jul 6, 2016)

I wasn't planning on seeing this because I'm not a fan of Mellisa McCarthy's comedy, nobody casts her to play any role except the same one she does in every movie. The video just solidified my plans. Judd Apatow wtf? Probably bitter nobody cares about his films anymore.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

By yupyupyup's logic all those that have disliked these three GB2016 videos are "woman-haters" and "MRA/KKK members". Or you know, it's just terrible.









kineticUk said:


> I f-in' love the original Ghostbusters movies, didn't click that it was a reboot.
> The way I see it just like games music etc if you remake something to properly improve or better the original cool but if something isn't broke...



They could have at least made a new game like the one from 2009 but instead they'll be releasing a rehash based on Sanctum of Slime.

Now, check this out, the title of the two games:

2009 - Ghostbusters: The Video Game
2016 - Ghostbusters: Video Game

It's obvious they're trying to mislead people into thinking it's the 2009 game improved but it isn't.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 6, 2016)

nero99 said:


> I'm going to assume that you don't know a good movie when you see one.


The Dark Knight, Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2, Titanic, Original Star Wars Trilogy Scream and so on. Nope I do know a good movie when I see one. Also I know a good movie once I see one and this one will not even come close to any of them. This movie takes a concept and butchers it with terrible jokes, crappy CGI and copy and paste character stereotypes. Tell me in what way will this movie be good if it has no originality and is a copy and paste movie but with none of the stuff that made the original good, particularly the Jokes, characters and threatening CGI.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 6, 2016)

you don't need to lick a turd to know it tastes like shit


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 6, 2016)

Haymose said:


> I wasn't planning on seeing this because I'm not a fan of Mellisa McCarthy's comedy, nobody casts her to play any role except the same one she does in every movie. The video just solidified my plans. Judd Apatow wtf? Probably bitter nobody cares about his films anymore.


I know right. I could not believe that he made a comparison like that! I am glad the video made solidified your feelings towards this movie. Thanks for watching and taking part in the forum! I will be making a video talking about what the outline of the script should be in an upcoming video.


----------



## gameboy (Jul 6, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> By yupyupyup's logic all those that have disliked these three GB2016 videos are "woman-haters" and "MRA/KKK members". Or you know, it's just terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




you realize that now you HAVE to go see the movie on opening day to give an honest review of it right? Leslie Jones is HILARIOUS shes from SNL and shes proud to be black, female and from the hood so i dont see why people have a problem with it...


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

Two great GB2016-related videos:




And a top 10 why it'll be a flop:





gameboy said:


> you realize that now you HAVE to go see the movie on opening day to give an honest review of it right?



I've already seen enough of it to decide that I'm not going to.



gameboy said:


> Leslie Jones is HILARIOUS



Hm, being loud, swearing, using the race card now and other crap makes her "HILARIOUS"? Wow. That's good to know, thanks.



gameboy said:


> shes from SNL



Adam Sandler was also on SNL, so, is that really something to praise? No.



gameboy said:


> and shes proud to be black, female and from the hood so i dont see why people have a problem with it...





Leslie Jones is almost 50 years old and she still acts as the black stereotypical character that Hollywood wants. Yeah, very progressive no doubt.


----------



## gameboy (Jul 6, 2016)

leslie is being herself just like sandler and everyone else. Lupita is damn funny too, but the negativity from those who havent even seen it already killed the movie. The real question is

Why the hell is Zack Effron always cast as the lead in comedies? hes not funny, he cant act, hes a douchebag, hes awkward AF. 

Is looks all it takes for people to go watch a damn movie before judging it?

BvS is a disaster of a movie even from its trailers, (which was the whole movie). "batfleck" is EASILY the worst batman ever portayed on any kind of media. Batfleck doesnt think, he doesnt use any detective skills, hes a complete idiot, he kills anyone and anything.... But the workout scene was enough to justify him as the best batman ever huh? because of his looks...


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

gameboy said:


> leslie is being herself just like sandler and everyone else.


You know, an actor has to have range don't you? One-liners tend to get pretty boring quickly.



gameboy said:


> Lupita is damn funny too


I agree.



gameboy said:


> the negativity from those who havent even seen it already killed the movie.


No, what killed it was Paul Feig, Sony Pictures, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, Tom Rothman, Judd Apatow, Patton Oswalt and the media outlets attacking anyone who doesn't like it as "sexist" and "misogynist". The trailers and all footage released just showed how much worse it is.



gameboy said:


> Why the hell is Zack Effron always cast as the lead in comedies?


Just this year he basically played the same role in three movies (Dirty Grandpa, Bad Neighbours 2, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates). It's safe to say he's another one-liner just like Seth Rogen, Jason Bateman, Vince Vaughn, Adam Sandler, Owen Wilson, Jonah Hill and etc. Even though Jason Bateman is a one-note actor at least he knows how comedy works and how to make it funny.



gameboy said:


> Is looks all it takes for people to go watch a damn movie before judging it?


Sony Pictures has released more than enough evidence if people want or not to spend their money to watch a film they want or not.



gameboy said:


> BvS is a disaster of a movie


I agree again with ya.


----------



## gameboy (Jul 6, 2016)

people WERE being misogynist and sexist though. If it were young sexy actresses who couldnt act a lick it would be fine though right, because everybody PRAISED wonder woman for having 2 lines YET those where the same people who said her boobs werent big enough, but her looks were enough to say she stole that movie...

people need to see the movie to even say anything about it first.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

gameboy said:


> people WERE being misogynist and sexist though.


You're really original and creative!



gameboy said:


> If it were young sexy actresses who couldnt act a lick it would be fine though right, because everybody PRAISED wonder woman for having 2 lines YET those where the same people who said her boobs werent big enough, but her looks were enough to say she stole that movie...


Yeah... no. It'd still be a pile of crap 'cause you know, if it were by that flawed logic then _Movie 43_ wouldn't have sucked but it did.



gameboy said:


> people need to see the movie to even say anything about it first.


No. There's plenty of footage of the movie to decide whether it's worth go see it or not.


----------



## Jao Chu (Jul 6, 2016)

Nobody is going to pay real money to watch 4 fat/ugly women ruin and old classic.

Gender and race politics are infiltrating hollywood more and more every year.

Remember when film making was about entertainment and not political statements?


----------



## gameboy (Jul 6, 2016)

I thought the trailers looked fine, its not a horror movie so they dont need scary ghosts but they obvioulsy wanted to stay true to the original, Leslie being 50 years old shouldnt matter. 
Humor for women IS completely different though so yea misogynist and sexist couldnt have been picked any better.
Amy Schumer HAD to lose a ton of weight just to star in a movie and women love her but she still has to lose a ton of weight huh? 
movie43 shouldnt even be in the same category because that was crude humore rated r

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jao Chu said:


> Nobody is going to pay real money to watch 4 fat/ugly women ruin and old classic.
> 
> Gender and race politics are infiltrating hollywood more and more every year.
> 
> Remember when film making was about entertainment and not political statements?



you couldnt have said it any better, misogynist and sexist, people arent going to see a movie because theyre ugly women, but their ability to act has nothing to do with it. the original ghostbusters werent male models either but could at least act, because rick moranis was a heart throb right? These people worked hard to try to make a good movie and now its being judged by a trailer.

go watch first, then judge after, thats all im saying


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

gameboy said:


> its not a horror movie so they dont need scary ghosts


It's Ghostbusters so it needs scary ghosts. You obviously have never seen the original to know this.



gameboy said:


> but they obvioulsy wanted to stay true to the original


They're anything but staying true to the original.



gameboy said:


> Leslie being 50 years old shouldnt matter.


She's almost 50 and yet Leslie Jones is unfunny and the stereotypical black character Hollywood desires her to be.



gameboy said:


> Humor for women IS completely different


No, humour is subjective.



gameboy said:


> so yea misogynist and sexist couldnt have been picked any better.


Wow. You're very original again.



gameboy said:


> Amy Schumer HAD to lose a ton of weight just to star in a movie and women love her but she still has to lose a ton of weight huh?


Amy Schumer is also another unfunny hack that thinks making fun of her weight, cursing and being loud makes her funny.



gameboy said:


> movie43 shouldnt even be in the same category because that was crude humore rated r


Paul Feig's "comedy" is based around crude "humour" so it's fitting. Don't try to disregard that.



gameboy said:


> go watch first, then judge after, thats all im saying


How gullible are you, Gameboy? There is plenty of footage out there as it is (I shared a lot on Page 2).

Here's two new ones:


----------



## gameboy (Jul 6, 2016)

lol, i actually like the trailers, i still dont see anything wrong with it. Feig spoke the truth about how the internet was judging it and he picked the most suitable words to describe the internet hate. So the internet can have a voice but Feig can't even though the movie hasnt even come out to be judged for real...


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

Instead of addressing the issues the film has it's better for Paul Feig to insult the audience, yeah, that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## gameboy (Jul 6, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Instead of addressing the issues the film has it's better for Paul Feig to insult the audience, yeah, that makes a lot of sense.



THE FILM IS EVEN OUT YET, problems? People got screwed with BvS and they took out their rage on Ghostbusters. Have you seen the original two recently? they arent spectacularly funny either


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

gameboy said:


> THE FILM IS EVEN OUT YET, problems?


"Comedy", Scooby Doo 2 CGI, the roles, soundtrack, etc.



gameboy said:


> People got screwed with BvS and they took out their rage on Ghostbusters.


No, you're just trying to put the blame on a different film.



gameboy said:


> Have you seen the original two recently? they arent spectacularly funny either


Yes. The subtle comedy is still very much solid, in fact, a lot better than most movies and series done these days that claim to be "comedies".

It's very clear you're just as clueless as yupyupyup and prefer to ignore the facts regardless how many times they're brought up. No point arguing with you 'cause you'll just keep on saying the same: "people hate the movie because they're sexist and misogynistic", "movie not out so people can't know how it is" yada yada. So predictable and tiresome.


----------



## gameboy (Jul 6, 2016)

But youve ignored the fact that this dude ec12 uploaded his own youtube video for self promotion to sway you, which he obviously did


----------



## duffmmann (Jul 6, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> Only whiny MRA/KKKs are pre-judging this movie because it hurts their wittle feefees



You mean to tell me you don't pre-judge movies based on trailers?  Isn't the point of a trailer, to convince you to go see the movie? If the trailer succeeds, then they've got my interest and I'm gonna go to the movie or at the least consider going to it.  If the trailer fails, then I'm going to say it looks like a shitty movie and not go.  This isn't anything new, this is how I've operated my entire life in regard to new films, and I know I am not alone at all with this kind of mentality in judging whether a film will be good or not and therefore dictating if I'll even bother to see it or not.  Crazy how my whole life this line of reasoning was never an issue.  But now, because I and people like me don't think the movie looks good at all based on the trailers, are automatically sexist pigs because this one happens to star female actors.  How come no guys or robots were up in arms about me and people like me stating how trash every Transformers movie looks before even seeing it?


----------



## duffmmann (Jul 6, 2016)

gameboy said:


> I thought the trailers looked fine, its not a horror movie so they dont need scary ghosts but they obvioulsy wanted to stay true to the original, Leslie being 50 years old shouldnt matter.
> Humor for women IS completely different though so yea misogynist and sexist couldnt have been picked any better.
> Amy Schumer HAD to lose a ton of weight just to star in a movie and women love her but she still has to lose a ton of weight huh?
> movie43 shouldnt even be in the same category because that was crude humore rated r
> ...



This is what annoys me most.  A few outspoken morons are speaking down of this movie legit due to being a misogynist or sexist.  But most complains I've seen online are legit issues with the trailers and it just looking like a very crap movie (which as I mentioned in my post above, is something most of us have done our entire life, judge movies based on the trailers to dictate whether we'll even see the movie or not.  Why suddenly is this movie an exception where I MUST see the movie first before judging it based on the trailer, even though that's how I've operated my entire life).  Now, if a film like it was coming out and was a brand new property, it definitely wouldn't be getting the attention that it is, but that doesn't somehow make the film look any less shitty.

You know, Tom Hanks had to lose a ton of weight for Castaway, is that somehow sexist?  Why is it that when an actor is asked to do something for a movie, its just business as normal if its asked of a male, but if its asked of a female, suddenly its something that never happens to males and only happens to females (obviously not true), and therefore is instantly sexist.


----------



## tbb043 (Jul 6, 2016)

gameboy said:


> Have you seen the original two recently? they arent spectacularly funny either



Troll confirmed.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 6, 2016)

gameboy said:


> But youve ignored the fact that this dude ec12 uploaded his own youtube video for self promotion to sway you, which he obviously did


I already had done my research before I watched the guy's video. You are so predictable and dull, Gameboy.


----------



## gameboy (Jul 6, 2016)

even look at the poll on the top of the page LOL thats not suggestive at all?


----------



## gameboy (Jul 7, 2016)

i also thought the original trailer for the ghost busters was so fall out my chair funny i had to time travel back to 1984 to see it premiere week too



you guys did it, you guys convinced me... Ghostbusters 2016 is THE ABSOLUTE WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME before word of mouth from early viewer or even before the movie came out
i dont need to go see it
i can just judge every movie from tiny trailer clips
and i dont have to watch movies because actors and actresses dont have the right to express their own opinions


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 7, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> large image spam





> How Can The "I Refuse To See The _Ghostbusters_ Reboot" Guy Be Masturbating If We See Both Of His Hands?


Really, Internet? _Really? _


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 7, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> By yupyupyup's logic all those that have disliked these three GB2016 videos are "woman-haters" and "MRA/KKK members". Or you know, it's just terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I doubt they are trying to piggy back off the game. People are usually aware if there is more than one Ghostbusters game and the difference in graphics will make it blatantly obvious. It's the movie they are trying to make the new generation watch over the original.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 7, 2016)

gameboy said:


> you guys did it, you guys convinced me... Ghostbusters 2016 is THE ABSOLUTE WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME before word of mouth from early viewer or even before the movie came out
> i dont need to go see it
> i can just judge every movie from tiny trailer clips
> and i dont have to watch movies because actors and actresses dont have the right to express their own opinions



You're really desperate. lol



ecartman12 said:


> I doubt they are trying to piggy back off the game.


They are trying to piggyback on the game as they are with the original movie itself. Ecartman, you made that video? I have my doubts as you don't seem that knowledgeable about it.



Sonic_Cee_Dee said:


> Really, Internet? _Really? _


SJWs and Feminists get triggered by basically anything.

Anyone noticed what the new TV Spots contained? Yep, a female Slimer. Paul Feig sure loves pandering to the feminists.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 7, 2016)

Sonic_Cee_Dee said:


> I don't feel they're trying to make a good movie for fans to enjoy, I don't think they're trying to nostalgia pander, or even appeal to feminists. At this point they're just trying to incite a bunch of fucking drama into the Internet.
> It's fairly smart too - all the "movie sucks" responses are considered "SEXISM!" or Trump supporters, ignoring any possible criticism past "the characters are female so it sucks" so all those same feminists will probably watch it... Then realize it _fucking sucks.
> _
> And, yeah, I'll jump on the "sexist" train here too - to be honest, the female cast does feel like a desperate pandering attempt. Rule 63ing all the main characters wasn't a good move by any means, and making them _all female_ was bad as well. Star Wars did a nice job with having a diverse cast without inciting drama.


Exactly. Star Wars did it much better. Also if the movie sucks I guarantee you the people who are defending this movie will still rate it a 10/10 and deny anything was bad about it.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 7, 2016)

Bladexdsl said:


> you don't need to lick a turd to know it tastes like shit


Nice analogy.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 7, 2016)

ecartman12 said:


> Star Wars did it much better.


And that's how they should have done here too but this is a Paul Feig & Melissa McCarthy™ Production so can't actually expect a serious, honest and true reboot/sequel. This is a parody about Ghostbusters and a remake too.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 7, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> You're really desperate. lol
> 
> 
> They are trying to piggyback on the game as they are with the original movie itself. Ecartman, you made that video? I have my doubts as you don't seem that knowledgeable about it.
> ...


A female Slimer could be smart but judging by the ridiculous advertisements that have been so unfunny I bet this will be a missed opportunity aswell.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 7, 2016)

ecartman12 said:


> A female Slimer could be smart but judging by the ridiculous advertisements that have been so unfunny I bet this will be a missed opportunity aswell.


Slimer was genderless until this movie showed up so it's hard to make something that was genderless to be a "smart" female. The _female_ part should be in quotes too because they just edited the original Slimer and added feminine touches to it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Two more scenes from GB2016:




If it wasn't bad enough, they even included the FOB Ghostbusters song on the movie itself.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 7, 2016)

ecartman12 said:


> Totally agree. I did like Fright Night though. What do you mean the X-Men Reboot? Are you referring to First Class?


Should have been called X-Men Ryan Air.


----------



## bkifft (Jul 7, 2016)

As nobody seems to have mentioned it yet:
Leaked Sony emails (https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704) seem to indicate that they had to threaten Bill Murray in order for him to appear in GB2016


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 7, 2016)

bkifft said:


> As nobody seems to have mentioned it yet:
> Leaked Sony emails (https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704) seem to indicate that they had to threaten Bill Murray in order for him to appear in GB2016


The expression on Bill Murray's face at Jimmy Kimmel with the GB2016 cast looked very depressing and as if he didn't want to be there. Then again, it's also because Murray's stubbornness that Ghostbusters 3 was never made albeit they could have killed his character and make the film anyway.


----------



## duffmmann (Jul 7, 2016)

gameboy said:


> i also thought the original trailer for the ghost busters was so fall out my chair funny i had to time travel back to 1984 to see it premiere week too
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So... I'm confused, do you just go to every single movie ever and then decide if you like it or not?  Because how can you choose which movies to watch when apparently you don't let previews affect your opinion at all.  How do you determine which video games you want to buy?  Surely trailers and previews can't indicate to you if a video game looks like its fun or lame.  I'm also curious what you think the purpose of trailers are then if we aren't supposed to make judgements of the media in question based on the trailers, what possible purpose could they be serving?  Face it, you're wrong, we have every right to judge a film based on a trailer, that's how I've operated my whole life in deciding which movies I want to see and which I do not.  And you know what?  This method of judging which films will be good or not, has worked out phenominally for me in my life.  I can only think of one or maybe two exceptions where I was wrong about a movie not looking good from the trailer and then it turned out to be pretty good.  But I can tell this is not one of those films, these trailers don't just look bad, they look awful.  I just find it so crazy that I've operated like this my entire life and no one has given me crap for it (probably because just about everyone else operates this way), but because this film stars women, suddenly my whole way of utilizing trailers is wrong and has been wrong my whole life.


----------



## gameboy (Jul 8, 2016)

duffmmann said:


> So... I'm confused, do you just go to every single movie ever and then decide if you like it or not?  Because how can you choose which movies to watch when apparently you don't let previews affect your opinion at all.  How do you determine which video games you want to buy?  Surely trailers and previews can't indicate to you if a video game looks like its fun or lame.  I'm also curious what you think the purpose of trailers are then if we aren't supposed to make judgements of the media in question based on the trailers, what possible purpose could they be serving?  Face it, you're wrong, we have every right to judge a film based on a trailer, that's how I've operated my whole life in deciding which movies I want to see and which I do not.  And you know what?  This method of judging which films will be good or not, has worked out phenominally for me in my life.  I can only think of one or maybe two exceptions where I was wrong about a movie not looking good from the trailer and then it turned out to be pretty good.  But I can tell this is not one of those films, these trailers don't just look bad, they look awful.  I just find it so crazy that I've operated like this my entire life and no one has given me crap for it (probably because just about everyone else operates this way), but because this film stars women, suddenly my whole way of utilizing trailers is wrong and has been wrong my whole life.



Ill but it into terms of video games and books and even people, you cant judge it by its cover...
only when you see/experience it fully only then can you judge it.
does anyone remember Wind Waker? Does anyone remember the judgment it recieved before even being played? well it turns out that was the best 3d zelda according to the same people.
does anyone know about the black guy who was shot by police for no wrong doing other than having a different shade of skin?
was the original trailer not catering to men at all? segourney weaver... c'mon...
theres no real proof to say fieg or sony knows it sucks.


----------



## duffmmann (Jul 8, 2016)

gameboy said:


> Ill but it into terms of video games and books and even people, you cant judge it by its cover...
> only when you see/experience it fully only then can you judge it.
> does anyone remember Wind Waker? Does anyone remember the judgment it recieved before even being played? well it turns out that was the best 3d zelda according to the same people.
> does anyone know about the black guy who was shot by police for no wrong doing other than having a different shade of skin?
> ...



Like I said,  maybe once or twice I was wrong on judging a film based on the trailer, but 99% of the time my initial reaction based on the trailers turns out to be accurate.   That's the kind of consistency I can absolutely count on.   And I guarantee you, this new Ghostbusters is not the film equivalent of Windwaker.  So please, can you explain to me what you believe the purpose of a trailer is if it isn't to sell the movie (or equivalent form of media)  to you, cuz apparently I've been using them all wrong, not realizing I was supposed to disregard every trailer.


----------



## gameboy (Jul 8, 2016)

If you can remember, Fellowship Of The Ring was also a domestic BOMB, raking in only 40mil opening, it was the success overseas that made people realize it was actually a good movie.


----------



## ric. (Jul 8, 2016)

gameboy said:


> theres no real proof to say fieg or sony knows it sucks.


Except it's quite clear there is, starting from Sony literally threatening to sue the pants off the original cast if they didn't speak favorably of the film, to them deleting legitimate criticism off the trailer's Youtube comment section, making sure only the "sexist" comments remained, in order to give the public the impression that everyone who disliked the movie was nothing but a woman-hater.

If they were certain they were making an actually good film, there would be no need to go through all these hoops to make the movie look good. Quality speaks for itself, and had they made a legitimately good Ghostbusters remake/reboot/sequel, I'm sure the story would be different. They know they fucked up the movie, they're trying not to fuck up their marketing campaign (have you, by any chance, noticed the sudden spike in all the "GO SEE GHOSTBUSTERS 2016 AND BATHE IN MEN'S TEARS" articles as of late? Guess who's behind that.), and they're going to try and sell as many movie tickets as they can to artificially increase the sale numbers for the movie in order to pretend it was a commercial success. I mean, they're even giving out a digital download for the movie with the upcoming videogame - which as far as I know is completely unrelated to the film. Who does that in this day and age?


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 8, 2016)

not to mention the official trailer has OVER 900.000 dislikes on YT!


----------



## Smash Br0 (Jul 8, 2016)

[delete]


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 8, 2016)

gameboy said:


> you realize that now you HAVE to go see the movie on opening day to give an honest review of it right? Leslie Jones is HILARIOUS shes from SNL and shes proud to be black, female and from the hood so i dont see why people have a problem with it...


No one should go to support this movie. Especially on the opening weekend. After all the insults we have been getting including those of us that are not sexist, the movie deserves to fail.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 8, 2016)

gameboy said:


> well it turns out that was the best 3d zelda according to the same people.


It's a very pretty 3D Zelda game but would never say the best.



gameboy said:


> does anyone know about the black guy who was shot by police


I can't believe you just compared a shooting to Ghostbusters. That's absolutely disgusting and heartless of you. Then again, it's not unusual for GB2016 defenders because one named Eched on IMDb/YouTube compared the Orlando shooting to GB2016 too.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 8, 2016)

The Dan Aykroyd cameo scene is up again:


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 8, 2016)

And counting...


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 8, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The Dan Aykroyd cameo scene is up again:




It's funny how that few second cameo is how they are trying to sell us on the 2 hour long movie.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 8, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> It aint even out yet, people judging a movie based on a trailer RATHER INDICATIVE of women-hating


Its nothing to do with the fact that they are women. The trailers have done a shit job at selling the movie which is naturally what people are going to judge. Also the jokes are nothing like the original Ghostbusters movie. They are really pathetic and fall into the same category as the majority of Melissa Mcarthy's lame films. The fact that they are just slapping the Ghostbusters licence onto a crappy film just further prooves that Sony did not know what to do to Spider-Man and that they don't know what to do with Ghostbusters.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 8, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> It aint even out yet, people judging a movie based on a trailer RATHER INDICATIVE of women-hating


Right, if a trailer is terrible it can only be misogyny.

^That was sarcasm.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 8, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> Right, if a trailer is terrible it can only be misogyny.
> 
> ^That was sarcasm.


Well said.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 9, 2016)

gameboy said:


> even look at the poll on the top of the page LOL thats not suggestive at all?


LOL I know.


----------



## ric. (Jul 9, 2016)

LOCAL MAN WATCHES MOVIE EARLY, THINKS IT'S GARBAGE


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 9, 2016)

ric. said:


> LOCAL MAN WATCHES MOVIE EARLY, THINKS IT'S GARBAGE



Just you wait for yupyupyup and gameboy to call him a "sexist" and "misogynist" even though he stated he too would have liked the idea of a female Ghostbusters albeit gender-mix would've been much better.

That fella just stated what many of us already expected from all the footage Sony Pictures' released.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 9, 2016)

ric. said:


> Extreme Ghostbusters sucked too - but at least it didn't label anyone who refused to see it a mysogynist pig.
> Even then, Extreme Ghostbusters was a direct sequel to Ghostbusters, it had Egon Spengler and even Janine. It made sense for the old Ghostbusters to pass the torch to a new generation, even if this new generation was a bunch of annoying brats.
> You want a *good* example of women Ghostbusters being awesome without the franchise being shat on? IDW Comics.


Noooo but that has a man in it so that means sexism and women hating because it is saying women need a man.


----------



## ric. (Jul 9, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Noooo but that has a man in it so that means sexism and women hating because it is saying women need a man.


Actually the man is debatably the least competent member of the team - Kylie knows about the paranormal in general so she's a stand in for Ray, Ortiz knows about handling weapons so she's filling Winston's shoes, and Janine provides the team with Venkman-tier snark, while Ron is technically just a poor man's Egon, a blowhard who's proficient at neither the actual Ghostbusting or the maintenance of the equipment. His biggest achievement in the series was to make a cheap knockoff of the Ghostbuster's equipment, which brings the team more harm than good.

It works because these are all characters who were introduced previously, they've had contact with the Ghostbusters and have seen them do their job. They're not bumbling idiots picked at random, they have a basic idea of what needs to be done in order to properly bust a ghost, and while they lack the experience, they most certainly can fill in for Venkman, Stantz, Spengler and Zeddemore while they're gone. The reason it's so great is because it brings new blood to the series, characters with entertaining personalities and quirks, all while being respectful of the continuity and the old characters the fans know and love.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 9, 2016)

ric. said:


> Actually the man is debatably the least competent member of the team - Kylie knows about the paranormal in general so she's a stand in for Ray, Ortiz knows about handling weapons so she's filling Winston's shoes, and Janine provides the team with Venkman-tier snark, while Ron is technically just a poor man's Egon, a blowhard who's proficient at neither the actual Ghostbusting or the maintenance of the equipment. His biggest achievement in the series was to make a cheap knockoff of the Ghostbuster's equipment, which brings the team more harm than good.
> 
> It works because these are all characters who were introduced previously, they've had contact with the Ghostbusters and have seen them do their job. They're not bumbling idiots picked at random, they have a basic idea of what needs to be done in order to properly bust a ghost, and while they lack the experience, they most certainly can fill in for Venkman, Stantz, Spengler and Zeddemore while they're gone. The reason it's so great is because it brings new blood to the series, characters with entertaining personalities and quirks, all while being respectful of the continuity and the old characters the fans know and love.


That...actually sounds really cool.  Where would I go to get this comic?


----------



## ric. (Jul 9, 2016)

VinLark said:


> That...actually sounds really cool.  Where would I go to get this comic?


These comics are part of the IDW continuity - which treats both the movies and the 2009 videogame as canon (the Rookie from the games makes several appearances as Bryan Welsh). I don't know if there's a compilation or something but I'm sure you can find them on Amazon just by typing "ghostbusters idw". Or if you wanna go the pirate route, you can also get them off kat.cr, I'm sure there's a Ghostbusters comic collection torrent in there.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 9, 2016)

My mom, who just so happens to be a feminist, thinks this movie looks like its gonna be total shit. Is she a woman hater because she thinks this movie looks like ass just based off of the trailers?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 9, 2016)

Tomato Hentai said:


> My mom, who just so happens to be a feminist, thinks this movie looks like its gonna be total shit. Is she a woman hater because she thinks this movie looks like ass just based off of the trailers?


Well, it really depends what your mom believes in feminism. If she isn't on the crazy side yeah she would believe that. It's mostly the hardcore man-hating fems who spew hate at anyone who doesn't like it and praises this movie.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 9, 2016)

VinLark said:


> Well, it really depends what your mom believes in feminism. If she isn't on the crazy side yeah she would believe that. It's mostly the hardcore man-hating fems who spew hate at anyone who doesn't like it and praises this movie.


She's not really hardcore but she does believe in some things that just aren't true (e.g. the wage gap) like a very vast portion of Tumblr feminists seem to do.


----------



## ric. (Jul 9, 2016)

Tomato Hentai said:


> My mom, who just so happens to be a feminist, thinks this movie looks like its gonna be total shit. Is she a woman hater because she thinks this movie looks like ass just based off of the trailers?



ＩＮＴＥＲＮＡＬＩＺＥＤ  ＭＩＳＯＧＹＮＹ



VinLark said:


> Well, it really depends what your mom believes in feminism. If she isn't on the crazy side yeah she would believe that. It's mostly the hardcore man-hating fems who spew hate at anyone who doesn't like it and praises this movie.


The thing, anyone with a grip on reality will tell you this movie looks like total crap. It's not a super progressive film either, Jones basically plays a stereotypical, loud black woman who joins the team for her "street smarts", while one of the big "jokes" of the film is how the Ghostbusters secretly want a piece of their stupid secretary's dick. May I add that this was never the issue with Janine in the original - she was hot and all, but the Ghostbusters kept her around because she was incredibly competent at her job. They even called her again for the sequel, years after they originally disbanded because she was _that_ good, and helped the team hold the business together. No one ever commented on her appearance, and there was never any romantic tension between her and the guys - she made moves on Egon but he never seemed interested. So this new movie somehow manages to be less progressive than the supposedly "sexist male-centric original". Go figure.

Sony and Feig just embraced the "IT'S AN EMPOWERING AND FEMINIST FILM" angle when the original fans turned against them after the first shots of the movie were made public, I don't think it was ever designed with a feminist audience in mind.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 9, 2016)

ric. said:


> ＩＮＴＥＲＮＡＬＩＺＥＤ  ＭＩＳＯＧＹＮＹ
> 
> 
> The thing, anyone with a grip on reality will tell you this movie looks like total crap. It's not a super progressive film either, Jones basically plays a stereotypical, loud black woman who joins the team for her "street smarts", while one of the big "jokes" of the film is how the Ghostbusters secretly want a piece of their stupid secretary's dick. May I add that this was never the issue with Janine in the original - she was hot and all, but the Ghostbusters kept her around because she was incredibly competent at her job. They even called her again for the sequel, years after they originally disbanded because she was _that_ good, and helped the team hold the business together.
> ...


^^^^^^^^^^This all the way


----------



## purupuru (Jul 9, 2016)

I'm not going to pay $$ to see a bad movie with a cast all ugly women. If Sony is going to make a crap movie at the very lest they should have provided us with some eye candy and the one fat chick for comic relief.


----------



## ric. (Jul 9, 2016)

purupuru said:


> I'm not going to pay $$ to see a bad movie with a cast all ugly women. If Sony is going to make a crap movie at the very lest they should have provided us with some eye candy and the one fat chick for comic relief.


Liam Hemsworth is this movie's eye candy. Also the only actor who's legitimately funny, it seems.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 9, 2016)

Here's a comparison of Ghostbusters 2016 trailer vs Scooby Doo 2 trailer:




GB2016 is more true to Scooby Doo 2 than it is for the Ghostbusters franchise.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 10, 2016)

gameboy said:


> even look at the poll on the top of the page LOL thats not suggestive at all?


Lol, the poll is just getting higher with votes against not watching the movie.


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Jul 10, 2016)

Even AVGN who has dedicated his life to filmmaking and even produced a movie who loves Ghostbusters more than life itself even declares this movie not worth his time. Never once said anything regarding the female cast.


----------



## DaFixer (Jul 10, 2016)

vb_encryption_vb said:


> I'm neither and already know this movie will be a shit show, just like every other reboot they have done in the past 10 years. Give up on the reboots, get new ideas.
> 
> Trashed reboots from what I can remember.
> 
> ...



Don't forget The Omen 2006,Let me in,Old boy...


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 10, 2016)

Do I know that movie will be bad? No, of course not. It's not even out yet. However, I can make an educated guess based on what we've been shown.

A trailer's main purpose is to excite potential viewers and make the movie appear even better than it probably will be, to the point that a large chunk of trailers are compiled from, arguably, the best scenes and lines of the movie.
After seeing a trailer for _this_ movie, my first thought was "Wow, that movie won't be very good at all", which means the trailer failed miserably. Now, I'm not going to assume the trailer contained the best content from the film, because if it did not even Sony Pictures would allow the movie to have their name on it. However I am going to assume that it contained a good bit of it, because it's a trailer and that's why they exist.

Using this information, I'm able to infer that the movie probably won't be good. I'm willing to be proven wrong, of course, since I loved the first two Ghostbusters films and I feel that the setting could easily spawn more great content, which I'd love to see.


That being said, It's really quite jarring to see people labeling anyone who isn't 102% hyped for this movie as "misogynist shitlords", simply for not sharing an opinion that they formed immediately after reading the words "all-female cast".
I see people in this very thread deflecting legitimate criticism with, "it's not even out yet", before telling off anyone who isn't prepared to give it a five-star review.
And you're right, the movie isn't out yet, so having an opinion set in stone is simply impossible. So how is it that you know it's going to be the 10/10 blockbuster of 2016 and that anyone who doesn't just love it must be a sexist? Seems like a pretty bad argument to me.

It deeply bothers me that, within 10 replies into this thread, I see people unironically posting things like this:


yuyuyup said:


> Only whiny MRA/KKKs are pre-judging this movie because it hurts their wittle feefees


Surely anyone who talks like this isn't old enough to know what Ghostbusters is. Where are your parents?


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 10, 2016)

purupuru said:


> I'm not going to pay $$ to see a bad movie with a cast all ugly women. If Sony is going to make a crap movie at the very lest they should have provided us with some eye candy and the one fat chick for comic relief.


You're probably unable to talk to women, you're never going to get laid


----------



## purupuru (Jul 10, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> You're probably unable to talk to women, you're never going to get laid


Oh did I upset a SJW. Tsk tsk tsk


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 10, 2016)

purupuru said:


> I'm not going to pay $$ to see a bad movie with a cast all ugly women. If Sony is going to make a crap movie at the very lest they should have provided us with some eye candy and the one fat chick for comic relief.


Lol I just realised. Did you post the same comment on my video on YouTube?


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 10, 2016)

yuyuyup said:


> You're probably unable to talk to women, you're never going to get laid


Wow, yupyupyup. You're as original and creative as the GB2016 defenders on the rest of the internet.


----------



## Ritsuki (Jul 10, 2016)

I've never seen the original Ghostbusters (too young, was born in 1990 and no real interest in cinema) and I laughed when I saw the trailer of the reboot and I'm not ashamed of it.


----------



## XDel (Jul 10, 2016)

Modern movies don't have to be good. All you gotta do is make a bad movie, build a lot of hype for it, and people will go in droves to pay and see it, just so they can complain as to how bad it was, and walla; you got a block buster hit with enough sales to fund a crappier sequel.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 10, 2016)

purupuru said:


> Oh did I upset a SJW. Tsk tsk tsk


Lol. Nice comeback mate.


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 10, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Here's a comparison of Ghostbusters 2016 trailer vs Scooby Doo 2 trailer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Scooby Doo looks like the better movie.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 10, 2016)

pingas


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 10, 2016)

CeeDee said:


> Scooby Doo looks like the better movie.


Yeah, Scooby Doo knows it's a cheesy and corny flick but enjoyable because it's not trying to force its jokes on too much, except for the likes of that fart joke and such.


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 10, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Yeah, Scooby Doo knows it's a cheesy and corny flick but enjoyable because it's not trying to force its jokes on too much, except for the likes of that fart joke and such.


Forced fart jokes are in most every family movie nowadays, with a few exceptions (like Disney movies) and if that's the type of humor in the movie, I probably won't like it at all. 

Still better than Ghostbusters 2016, though!


----------



## ric. (Jul 10, 2016)

CeeDee said:


> Scooby Doo looks like the better movie.


That awkward moment when you realize Monsters Unleashed is a 2004 film and the effects look on par with those of Ghostbusters 2016.


----------



## Swiftloke (Jul 10, 2016)

CeeDee said:


> Scooby Doo looks like the better movie.


Should've done something better for your 2000th post.


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 10, 2016)

Swiftloke said:


> Should've done something better for your 2000th post.


What else would I do? A more apparent shitpost?


----------



## Swiftloke (Jul 10, 2016)

CeeDee said:


> What else would I do? A more apparent shitpost?


I dunno, but better than a comment. At least edit the post to say '2000th'.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 11, 2016)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Here's a comparison of Ghostbusters 2016 trailer vs Scooby Doo 2 trailer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, nice comparison.


----------



## ecartman12 (Jul 12, 2016)

RustInPeace said:


> Crap, I forgot Sony handled this movie. After the disaster that ended 2014 with them, it's hard to really get behind them. Even before that, they neutered Spider-Man with the third movie in the Raimi trilogy, took it upon themselves to reboot it unnecessarily before Marvel finally came in...to reboot it again. Crap man, and this will stand as probably the first black mark in Paul Feig's otherwise great filmography. The best way to make this movie a fail is if nobody sees it. Consequently I'll see it if it's on a streaming service to form my own opinion of it. If the box office return is so bad and is a fraction of this film's high budget, that will send the message that it's a failure and to never reboot beloved franchises. But with that 3D IMAX thing, suckers will buy that, and even if they like the movie or not, they still put in money towards the box office return.


I totally agree.


----------



## Engert (Jul 13, 2016)

I like where the votes are at. 60 + me, will not see this movie.

I also hope that all the women playing in that movie die from an internal vagina explosion.


----------



## GuyInDogSuit (Jul 13, 2016)

ric. said:


> Extreme Ghostbusters sucked too - but at least it didn't label anyone who refused to see it a mysogynist pig.
> Even then, Extreme Ghostbusters was a direct sequel to Ghostbusters, it had Egon Spengler and even Janine. It made sense for the old Ghostbusters to pass the torch to a new generation, even if this new generation was a bunch of annoying brats.
> You want a *good* example of women Ghostbusters being awesome without the franchise being shat on? IDW Comics.



Yes, both of the Ghostbusters cartoons sucked big donkey balls. But I've never seen this comic book series before. I like the art style. I think I'll look into it.

As for this movie, I've seen all the trailers, including various clips on social media, and I didn't laugh a single time. Not even Chris Hemsworth can save this botched abortion.



vb_encryption_vb said:


> Rebooting Ghostbusters was a shitty idea, thank god there will be no Back to The Future reboot, ever.



Did you ever play the game? It was decent, but I think they went full retard on the ending.


----------

