GHOSTBUSTERS 3

[Mr Snrub]

The Guardian have named it their cultural film of 2016, manage to link it all with Clinton

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/dec/30/cu...

SJWs still can't get over the fact no one liked this crappy film

[Halb]

Tried to read a bit of the Statesman's twaddle, but didn't finish it,it reads like satire. I wonder how he got a job, it's a bit desperate in trying to rubbish one of the best films of the 80s to push the worst film of this year, Pythonesque.

[Bullett]

It's hilarious. I pulled this from that Guardian article.
"The answer is that this was a pop-culture proxy war against Clinton, a dummy run. The trolls didn’t want a female remake of Ghostbusters, or the US presidency"

Nope, what Ghostbuster fans didn't want was a crappy remake of Ghostbusters.

[Moonhawk]

Halb said:

Christ, that's laughable...I wanna read it now..but I don't wanna read crap.

What is amusing, is how Ghostbusters destroys the stty revamp, even without inflation.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&amp...
Ghostbusters $229,242,989 adjusted $586,218,600
Ghostbusters II $112,494,738 adjusted $243,974,800
st Ghostbusters (2016)$128,350,574 adjusted $129,858,800

Now that's funny

Even Ghostbusters 2 (widely considered a not very good film - although I do rather enjoy it) took almost double what GB2016 took when inflation is accounted for.

Kinda highlights the scale of the failure.

Even without adjusting for inflation - GB2016 languishes down at #556 in terms of worldwide gross.

Box office mojo inflation adjusted list only goes up to 200 - so I used the data in this list to generate an average adjustment by age - and then applied this to their unadjusted list (which goes up to 670 movies). Adjusting for inflation in this way puts GB2016 at #662 (only 9th from bottom).

[anonymous-user]

techguyone said:

The film was beyond st, I don't know why on Earth they feel the need to reverse gender stuff - are women really that insecure.

Are some men really that insecure that women not used as eye candy in films makes them angry?

Turn your complaints upside down-think about the original film-what about it required an all male main cast?

[Don]

To be fair on Rotten Tomatoes 72% of critics liked it and 54% of the audience.
The original ranks at 97% of critics and 88% of the audience.

So by some kind of objective measure the new film is not a complete disaster but the old one is significantly better. The box office is, of course, the measure by which Hollywood will judge it. Business is not about misogyny, or political correctness, it's about money.

I haven't seen it yet. If it comes on Netflix and I can watch it for free I might give it a go.

Got to be worth it just for this

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

If that wasn't knowingly done I don't know what is...

[RemyMartin]

cookie118 said:

techguyone said:

The film was beyond st, I don't know why on Earth they feel the need to reverse gender stuff - are women really that insecure.

Are some men really that insecure that women not used as eye candy in films makes them angry?

Turn your complaints upside down-think about the original film-what about it required an all male main cast?

Nothing made it require an all male cast, however no one at the time moaned about the demographics of the cast. People judged it as a film.

Forgetting the all female leads ( done purely to make a point, no one will convince me otherwise) judging gb3 on its acting and script as a film. It's fking terrible.

[JagLover]

cookie118 said:

Are some men really that insecure that women not used as eye candy in films makes them angry?

Turn your complaints upside down-think about the original film-what about it required an all male main cast?

If this were the 1960s you may have a point.

Many classic action franchises have, or have had, female characters in lead roles.

As for attractiveness, leading men are usually as attractive to the opposite sex as leading women. It is part of the cinema experience, you aren't going there to look at ugly people.

Ghostbusters wasn't a movie that was challenging "gender stereotypes". It was just a cr*p remake that generated hype and controversy by reversing the genders and presenting men as idiots.

[Moonhawk]

cookie118 said:

Are some men really that insecure that women not used as eye candy in films makes them angry?

Turn your complaints upside down-think about the original film-what about it required an all male main cast?

In the original movie, the characters of Dana, Janine - and Gozer to an extent, were portrayed as strong, independent and intelligent. Why is it in this movie that all of the men (and I mean all) were portrayed as complete dicks or incompetent morons - can women cast in leading roles not hold their own unless men are put down and denigrated in the process (clearly they can - just look at the success of movies featuring strong female leads like Alien(s), Rogue One, Hunger Games, Silence of the Lambs, Pretty Woman, Kill Bill etc)

The original movie didn't need an all male main cast, but it happened to have one, and it worked because the casting was good, the characters were believable, supporting characters held their own and the writing was excellent.

This movie didn't fail just because it had an all female cast. It failed because it was a st movie, with poor predictable humour, poor chemistry between the characters, huge gender and racial stereotypes, poor writing, poor pacing and poor effects.

Who was it meant to appeal to? Just as many women seemed to hate it as men, so making out this is an "insecure male" thing is clearly bks.

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 31st December 12:26

[anonymous-user]

RemyMartin said:

Nothing made it require an all male cast, however no one at the time moaned about the demographics of the cast. People judged it as a film.

Forgetting the all female leads ( done purely to make a point, no one will convince me otherwise) judging gb3 on its acting and script as a film. It's fking terrible.

So if nothing required an all male cast in the first film, why is an all female cast 'just to prove a point'?
Or why did the first film have an all male cast?

[Moonhawk]

cookie118 said:

So if nothing required an all male cast in the first film, why is an all female cast 'just to prove a point'?

You seriously don't believe it (or the many gender reversal reboots on the horizon) are being done as a gimmick?

Neither Sony nor Feig are going to admit as much - but IMO it was a blatant gimmick (just like having an incompetent male secretary and a male baddie who gets shot in the cock to defeat him were).

Would movies where a traditionally female lead was replaced by a male be received warmly? If it's just the 'best person/people for the best job' and not a gimmick as you seem to be asserting, why haven't we seen (or heard about) any gender role reversal movies the other way around?

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 31st December 13:28

[Mr Snrub]

cookie118 said:

RemyMartin said:

Nothing made it require an all male cast, however no one at the time moaned about the demographics of the cast. People judged it as a film.

Forgetting the all female leads ( done purely to make a point, no one will convince me otherwise) judging gb3 on its acting and script as a film. It's fking terrible.

So if nothing required an all male cast in the first film, why is an all female cast 'just to prove a point'?
Or why did the first film have an all male cast?

Because the new Ghostbusters goes out of its way to show women are great and, as Moonhawk has pointed out, every single male in it is an idiot or a jerk. If you switched Egon, Ray or Winston for a woman it would make no difference to the film and you'd barely have to change the script. Just like how Winston's race in the first two was completely incidental and never used for the plot, but here it's the generic loudmouth black woman who isn't intelligent but knows the street

[dudleybloke]

As a remake, its st.
As a stand alone movie, its st.
Its just a st film.

[Moonhawk]

Mr Snrub said:

Because the new Ghostbusters goes out of its way to show women are great and, as Moonhawk has pointed out, every single male in it is an idiot or a jerk. If you switched Egon, Ray or Winston for a woman it would make no difference to the film and you'd barely have to change the script. Just like how Winston's race in the first two was completely incidental and never used for the plot, but here it's the generic loudmouth black woman who isn't intelligent but knows the street

Yep - exactly. Imagine the original, but where Gozer what defeated by shooting her in the tits..........

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 31st December 13:44

[TerryThomas]

cookie118 said:

So if nothing required an all male cast in the first film, why is an all female cast 'just to prove a point'?
Or why did the first film have an all male cast?

Because they wrote for themselves to star in?

[irocfan]

Moonhawk said:

Would movies where a traditionally female lead was replaced by a male be received warmly? If it's just the 'best person/people for the best job' and not a gimmick as you seem to be asserting, why haven't we seen (or heard about) any gender role reversal movies the other way around?

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 31st December 13:28

quite possibly because most 'heroic' or action leads are predominantly male - let's be honest it's pretty much a nailed on cert most of those sorts of films will be male.

I suspect that the problem is that leading women in action movies don't seem to pull in the crowds (Red Sonja anyone?) - is it because the films are crap or because men don't want to see 'action women'?


WRT to GB - it wasn't straight to video bad, but by no stretch of anyone's imagination was a good film and, as been commented, it did seem that each actress was trying to outdo the other rather than pull together to make a good film.

[Halb]

Men don't want to see strong women in lead roles in action films? Ripley is one of my fave leads action heroes, so it can be done. ALien/Aliens are true classics, the film needs to be good, as it would for a male action hero, Die Hard is as good today as it was then, some of the AhNold fare...less so. Obviously AhNold's best are still good.

[Moonhawk]

Halb said:

Men don't want to see strong women in lead roles in action films? Ripley is one of my fave leads action heroes, so it can be done. ALien/Aliens are true classics, the film needs to be good, as it would for a male action hero, Die Hard is as good today as it was then, some of the AhNold fare...less so. Obviously AhNold's best are still good.

In this list of the top 100 action hero characters 8% are women.

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-most-ba...

When you consider the percentage of women in front line 'action' type roles in real life (armed forces combatants, firefighters, front line police/SWAT, mountain rescue etc) - one could argue that "action women" are fairly represented or even over represented in terms of popularity in the cinematic world compared to the real life instance of women in these types of roles.

Why should this be the case if all men are just whining misogynists who hate to see women in this type of role?

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 31st December 14:33

[Halb]

Moonhawk said:

In this list of the top 100 action hero characters 8% are women.

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-most-ba...

When you consider the percentage of women in front line 'action' type roles in real life (armed forces combatants, firefighters, front line police/SWAT, mountain rescue etc) - one could argue that "action women" are fairly represented or even over represented in the cinematic world compared to real life.

If it was a list of war films or documentaries, that might be valid, but from quickly checking the list, comic book heroes and androids and the like, I think it doesn't matter. One just needs to accept whomever the lead is, can do the st they are shown to be doing. I believed Sarah COnner mk 2, she really beefed up for that role. Looking at the list reminds me of the sheer amount of generic blah male heroes that are out there.
Terminator for some reason has two entries.

[JagLover]

irocfan said:

quite possibly because most 'heroic' or action leads are predominantly male - let's be honest it's pretty much a nailed on cert most of those sorts of films will be male.

I suspect that the problem is that leading women in action movies don't seem to pull in the crowds (Red Sonja anyone?) - is it because the films are crap or because men don't want to see 'action women'?

If you look at the movies of the last two decades men seem very happy with female action heroes.

A number of action movie franchises have a female as the lead (Resident Evil, Hunger Games, Aliens, Underworld, Tomb Raider), and more have a female as one of their key characters.

If anything the preponderance of "kick ass" girls in action movies is presenting a rather unrealistic portrayal of women and it is occasionally refreshing to have a brave, capable woman in these types of movies who isn't beating everyone up.

What is the case is that the women in question are usually attractive. It tends to be actresses like Mila Jokivich and Scarlett Johnason who have no difficulty attracting the audience.

But then men in these types of movies are usually very well built and far from the average couch potato themselves.