Why Ghostbusters 2016 Flopped

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

Hey all. A lot of you guys argue here that the film was very disrespectful, and there are very valid points for thinking that - I'd probably argue all reboots are a little bit just by their nature. The reason I don't think GB 2016 is wholly disrespectful to the franchise is because, in my opinion, it sought to be it's own thing and not overwrite the original two and it tried to put in respectful nods to those movies. Did it do it well? No. Did it mishandle the backlash? Yes. I know a lot of OG fans thought it was disrespectful, which I can understand - if that's your opinion I'm not trying to convince you otherwise with this comment, I'm just making mine clear. But if you've got fans thinking your reboot craps on the original, well you've failed at marketing.

[@ScotsDestroyer]

disrespectful? nah it was just shit. the humour just wasn't there for me, thor probably made me crack a smile more than the main cast.

[@michaelklos7248]

Georg Rockall-Schmidt if they were trying to be original, why ghostbusters..?create your own thing.

[@michelechilders151]

I really like your thoughts on this film. I would have really liked to see the serviving cast hand over the business to either protege's that they fell into like the batman forever cartoon did in the early 2000's, or maybe to their children which would have made the emotional connect for the film. Also they made the characters too cold. There was no way to take the sweet simple funny guys and girls with Jeanine and associate them with the snide characters of gb 2016. They also picked the wrong girls if they wanted it to be all women, sorry I love Melissa but she is sooooo not a Ghost buster type and the rest left me feeling disconnected as well.

[@brtrimmer132]

I think a sequel could easily been successful, make Ghostbusters a corporation with the OG's as execs. cameos would be built it and relevant. a new cast wouldn't be seen as replacements, plus you have a whole universe of other "busters" to explore in other films the possibilities are endless.

[@michaelpettersson4919]

They should have done the hand over thing. Shouldn't been hard. Assemble what you can of the old team and since they are to old the newbloods are needed to take over. Simple. Add a couple of scenes when they train the newbies as old masters and then send them of with some leftover gear. Done.

[@furyan9850]

It felt like a SNL sketch that went 200 minutes longer than needed

[@nickvantinteren9871]

The original GB was all SNL writers/actors, so it's in keeping at least!

[@TheSilentWalkerz]

Ouch, if you're talking about the new SNL, that's really harsh.

[@laurocoman]

That's just SNL.

[@jessepike3565]

My thoughts exactly

[@fishintheocean-i4g]

The biggest problem over the Ghostbusters reboot as I see it...and this is also why the Ghostbusters reboot IS a trolling to the original. The first Ghostbusters was revolutionary of its time, it was designed to poke fun of cheesy horror cliches. Before Ghostbusters horror films were movies like Ghoulies were a group of college kids break out the Ouija board while donning sunglasses. After Ghostbusters horror films in the vein of A Nightmare On Elm Street, Hellraiser, etc, horror flicks that were in a nightmarish angle, far more wild stories, an element of fantasy, were made. Now Ghostbusters itself isn't a horror. It doesn't have any parts in the movie that specifically are meant to drag out tension, it's not a scary movie. But flash forward to the Ghostbusters reboot. Not only did it not poke fun of cheesy horror cliches but it was in fact riddled all over the place with cheesy Hollywood writing cliches. This is why the reboot movie was a slap in the face to the original.

[@thomasjenkins7506]

if there are three things the internet hates, it's reboots, pandering, and changing source material. this movie decided to do all three.

[@Nukestarmaster]

Don't forget "direct attacks against the fanbase".

[@GramLikesBread]

You seem to overlook the fact that it also wasn't funny.

[@jaqssmith1666]

@fry so *that's* why you can only find m/m gay porn online.

[@RagingRugbyst]

@fry fuck you.

[@LFC-Star]

@jamiebellwolf it didn't know what it was.. Was Ghostbusters 2016 a reboot or sequel? So it ended up been neither.. So that's why it kinda flopped too. It became a parody of itself.. maybe they should've gone a darker route and made it more of a comedy horror movie or even a straight scifi horror movie?

[@THEFRISKIESTDINGO]

“Throw money at a documentary group to make ‘we were ghostbusters’.” Holy shit that’s brilliant

[@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747]

Anything George says is more clever than all the executives in Hollywood.

[@Werrf1]

Make it in-universe. Interview Akroyd, Murray, and Hudson in character as Stantz, Venkman, and Zeddemore, and present it as a retrospective on the Ghostbusters on the occasion of the death of Spengler. Film some new scenes that can be presented as archive footage of the Ghostbusters in action. And use it to sound out public opinion and see if there's a market for a new film.

[@ryuhado7253]

yes like a documentary or they could have had them all retiring and passing on the job/legacy

[@tytheguy13andahalf]

I'm trying to listen, but I'm just so engrossed by that lava lamp.

[@tomsatchel6460]

I love lamp

[@ColonelBummleigh]

The Lamp is the leader of the gang.

[@theeggman1199]

My reptile brain be like: Glow nice, nice glow... me like glow.

[@ollickollick]

Yes! I was hoping the little blob joined with a bigger blob.

[@doopydoopz1737]

I'm glad someone else knows my pain.

[@harveymeek2702]

I'll be honest, when I first heard they were re"doing" Ghostbusters with an all-female cast I did sigh and shake my head. Because it felt like a gimmick. It felt like they were saying "hey look it's Ghostbusters! but oh looook, they're all women now! wow! Isn't that something? What a crazy new idea. The Ghostbusters are all women now!" Honestly though, I have no idea why the premise wasn't just a sequel where Ghostbusters had become a widespread national organisation and the new characters were just a few of many modern Ghostbuster units. Then they could've had original characters there to pass the torch. There were also a ton of things in the trailer that annoyed me from a design standpoint.

[@Denji2006]

Passing the torch would've been the only way to go about it and it should've been a little darker. Like "The Ghostbusters failed", "They lost" to the big monster they've been chasing for years at the beginning. They've already lost Egon, they're getting too old and they can't fight anymore. Have them pass it on to the new Ghostbusters. Maybe some of them would be their kids? Oscar would've had to have been there somewhere. They have what it takes to beat the monster only to find out at the end that it was only the beginning to a much bigger threat... and there you go. Franchise made, everybody would've been happy, second movie would've been a reality with only a couple of cameos reprising their original roles, but only as support for the new Ghostbusters.

[@LeeONardo]

Passing on the torch? its easy as the idea was already done. All they had to do was make Extreme Ghostbusters the film, replace Egon with Winston (Ray still working as a GB, Winston as the driver) Janine still in the office. You still get your female character (Kylie) you can have Janine actually bust as well AND throw in Oscar from GB2 as an older kid. You then have your "older" team of four with the four Extreme 'busters. Simple. A bunch of fans already came up with this idea, why Sony were so retarded not to notice it I do not know.

[@jasonfields7058]

FUCKING YES!!!! This would have been an excellent way to be all inclusive without actually gutting the damn franchise.

[@williammason3229]

Fire Dragon K wouldn't Oscar be in his 30s?

[@LeeONardo]

I suppose so, maybe "kid" was a little stretch lol. But still Oscar, Janine, Ray and Winston being one team and then the Extreme crew being the second team would have worked. It could have been two separate busts with large ghosts and then those two ghosts could have merged to be an ultimate threat drawing the eight busters together or a third target could appear. There's lots of ways they could have got it to work rather than the mess that was made.

[@johncrafton8319]

Why did it fail? It's simple: The filmmakers didn't understand what made the original Ghostbusters work. It wasn't the fact that there was a cast of comedians. It wasn't the comedy. It wasn't the ghosts. It wasn't the special effects. So what was it? It was lightning in a bottle. Marketing: Before it came out, Ray Parker's "Ghostbusters" music video hit MTV, and his song hit the radio waves. All we knew of the movie was from the trailer, but after that video came out and dominated the channel, the song started dominating the charts as well. The studio capitalized on it with an intense marketing push, and people were genuinely excited to watch the movie. Writing: Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd were comedy writers from a different era. At that time, the comedy still had the wackiness, the slapstick, the mean-spiritedness, the dryness, and the absurdity as comedy has now. The thing is, it was never a one-liner after a one-liner. It was instead "three irreverent friends in over their heads", where the humor flowed organically. Acting: Dan Aykroyd was a genius with his own timing, mannerisms, cadence, and delivery. Harold Ramis was amazing as a wry, clever, and dry - a quirky straight man. Bill Murray understood very well how to portray an overconfident con-man out of his league - he'd done it often at that point. Ernie Hudson was great as the regular Joe trying to cope with his new job. Then there was the stunt casting, with Ellen Ripley from Alien portraying the icy-turned-smoldering high-society artiste. The biggest surprise? Rick Moranis! The man was all the right kind of nerd-next-door, with great comedic timing. These people were far more than jokesters - they were bona-fide actors, with the big three having amazing chemistry. Tone: In the end, it's all about tone, and this is the biggest part of the whole thing. The movie felt real. Oh, sure, it was absurd on every level, but it was a type of absurdity that seemed to fit our own reality. It was grounded. The way people went about their business, the way New York looked like New York, the interactions between everyone - all of it kept the movie grounded. The effects were silly, but at no point did it feel like four guys shooting proton beams at tennis balls in front of a green screen. The comedy was silly, but at no point did it feel like four comedians spouting off lines for laughs. The filmmakers got it. They understood it. Ivan Reitman was a master at grounded, realistic comedy, regardless of the setting. The new movie had NONE of that. The writers, the director, the actors - they simply didn't get it. It felt like they were going down a list of bullet points without having actually watched the original. I didn't watch it until it hit home video, and even then I waited until I got it for free on a promotion. Why? As a fan of the original (I was 12 when it came out), I understood from the trailer that the filmmakers simply didn't understand Ghostbusters. After watching it, it was evident that the only person in the movie that seemed comfortable enough to actually make it work was Chris Hemsworth. The rest of the cast seemed on-edge, like they were bouncing from one set-up to another, hoping the jokes would land, hoping the green-screen work would look right, unsure of their own product. The director himself seemed less comfortable than he was in Bridesmaids or The Heat. While it was better than the trailer made it look, it was still no more than a mediocre movie on its own. Compared to the original, it was a sad attempt made by people that simply didn't understand why the original was so well loved.

[@jambott5520]

John Crafton actually, the comedy played a part, having way too much of it and having it be disconnected rather than intertwined with it. You can make comedy just from how rediculous a situation is, and that happened a couple times in the original ghost busters, where it was fucking hilarious of a biproduct of whatever was happening being a serious thing in the story, you are laughing like the characters would looking back on the events. In the new ghost busters, you have the serious scene, oh and were gonna split off for a second so we can puke in ya face. No meshing of the comedy and action, splitting it up into 3 parts, action, comedy, action. Don't do that.

[@JohnMoseley]

On the writing: Jonathan Lynn's excellent book 'Comedy Rules' talks about 'punching up' - using the Ramis script 'Groundhog Day' as an example - the process of going through a script and taking out the one-liner gags in favour of 'relational gags,' which are about character interactions. The new Ghostbusters demonstrated a total failure to understand this principle within the first minute.

[@jrag1000]

Exactly, and it was about substance, (the orig. Ghost Busters 1986) The 2016 version was overtly female in tone. It was feminist, how many times did they fire the proton blaster from their crotches, like they were holding a big dick in their hands? Look at the scene when Bill Murray was attacked by slimer the first time (orig. 1986 ver.), did he run around screaming actually yeah, was he a dude? Well yeah, but here's the difference, he yelled in horror and it was done right, that same scene with the feminist Ghost Busters would have had Melissa McCarthy probably shaking a fist at the Slimer daring it to come closer and fucking up her hair... Then flipping the bird as she proton blasts it, screaming, "I ain't afraid o no fucking ghosts! Bitch!"

[@haileymac9040]

Very well said, and I couldn't agree more. This was really enjoyable to read.

[@daveyjones5702]

no, it failed because the makers were fucking COCAINE JUNKIES who cared more about nonsensical social justice horseshit and insulting the entire male gender then they cared about making a good movie. POLITICS and COCAINE are what ruined this fucking movie.

[@kutulukutu]

According to Aykroyd, Ghostbusters the Video Game WAS Ghostbusters 3. They should have just left it at that. It was unique to experience a third story exclusively in the medium of gaming, and that really should have left well enough alone, after that.

[@lennymosca7077]

Boy did I love that game Ghostbusters and Playstation 3 I hope they release it on PS4 now that would be sweet and make it longer two but you're right Ghostbusters video game on PlayStation 3 was Ghostbusters 3 I agree absolutely and what was fun you got the tag along with the Ghostbusters as a rookie the game was in genius but the one thing that the Ghostbusters game didn't need to fix is repetitive music they couldn't use more music from the the movie Ghostbusters but other than that it was a beautiful game but was too damn short

[@garystinten9339]

hey guess what. new teaser for ghostbusters 2020..

[@boomstickcritique902]

Lol Well now were getting actual Ghostbusters 3.

[@Typheus]

That game was fucking great

[@dbkwk9]

I love that game. To be honest I still boot up my Xbox 360 To play it

[@abark]

1. No one wanted it. 2. Attempting to bully people into paying you is usually called extortion, and isn't an effective way to sell a film to audiences.

[@ab8588]

Like Chick Fill A, Hobby lobby and My Pillow

[@OnYourSquare]

"Bully"? "Extortion"? That is disguised rhetoric from people upset it was a female lead movie. Like most adults, if the movie isn't appealing, you simply skip it. But you had grown men embarrassing themselves over a reboot of a 30 year old franchise. Who gives a fuck?

[@abark]

@@OnYourSquare Your comment displays a serious lack of self awareness, and exemplifies my point clearly.

[@OnYourSquare]

@@abark Self awareness is exactly what you and the neck beards seem to lack. Ghostbusters 2016 was a bad film. And for 95% of movie viewing public, myself included, either skipped the film or disliked it and moved on. For you: "...it was EXTORTION!!" and ".....I felt BULLIED into watching it!!". I'm reading the comments like WTF!? It is you, who lacks self awareness. You were triggered by this film and you don't even understand why! (lol)

[@abark]

@@OnYourSquare Either you are a troll, or lacking in reading ability.

[@noless]

It flopped because it's a bad film. And yes, I've seen it. Poor script, uninteresting villain, one dimensional characters and it's not funny.

[@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342]

Thor was kind of funny lol.

[@amanonplanetearth78]

The Master Grief Collection He was the only minutely likeable character in the movie

[@Bairinde]

He delivered one of the 2 lines I genuinely laughed at while watching it. "An aquarium is a submarine for fish."

[@dracobengali]

@Bairinde I laughed just reading that...thank you.

[@ArguablyTheWorst]

Thors lines, all improvised btw

[@MrKvitbjorn]

It was one big SNL- sketch ( many of the SNL cast were in it ) which fell flat on both humor and storytelling. The neon version of Disneys haunted house didnt fit the universe at all. Back in the day i found Ghostbusters kinda scary, but i doubt kids of today will do the same. Its really a shame!

[@MisterLepton]

Asbjørn Neergaard yeah, ghostbusters scared the shit out of me when I was a kid. But I still wanted to keep watching it over and over.

[@theblocksays]

You should have seen the mid-90s animated Extreme Ghostbusters series, they looked like something out of Hellraiser in that one. This reboot they looked like they came straight out of the Disney ride Haunted Mansion.

[@TheStraatjutter]

Blues Brothers was a SNL sketch.

[@fanofgodjimindiva2497]

I still cant get over the dance numbers and Mcarthy's stupid ass, unfunny jokes. That ¨joke¨ with the chinese soup that kept going on forever..my god what were these cunts thinking.

[@SynthCool]

I can't tell if that lava lamp is close or if it's really big

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

I hurt my back getting it on the desk. It's the weight of a small man.

[@SynthCool]

It looks stylish

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

Thanks. I just have to remember to wipe the fingerprints off it everytime I do a video.

[@leokrupp4442]

I love lava lamps, but I hate waiting 12hrs for them to warm up.

[@randomanimallover3196]

Reminds me of Father Ted explaining perspective to Dougal by holding a toy cow: "These cows are really small but the ones out there are far away"

[@eleanorgreywolfe5142]

James Rolfe was slammed for that aswell by some of the media, all because he didn't want to see it because he wasn't interested.

[@TraeDSmith]

at least he was HONEST, but you know how real hollywood and the medis is

[@velocilevon]

The man gives literally the most polite "I don't want to watch it" in the existence, media cucks still manage to find something "offensive". Jeez, what a bunch of clowns, lol.

[@eval_is_evil]

how dare you not see a movie you're not interested in

[@eval_is_evil]

@@velocilevon agreed

[@shelbyvillerules9962]

He simply said "I have no interest in watching a remake of one of my favorite movies" and he was automatically labelled a misogynist for saying that despite he didn't even _mention_ the fact that the new cast were women.

[@robdcollector2808]

"We were Ghostbusters" documentary ....now thats a brilliant idea for 80s fans!!!

[@mrhitisnumberone]

I didn't see the film nor will I every for the following reasons: 1) Trailer looked awful 2) Sony and the cast reaction to the hate that said this looked awful.

[@theceng]

yeah i remember the whole "you're sexist or a trump supporter if you don't like it"

[@darson100]

My take on this movie now the dust has settled: The script was terrible, nothing made sense even in a fantasy world. The whole movie seemed like a very overtly long SNL skit. The characters were allowed to adlib (out of character) way to much. After a while I stopped even thinking for them as their screen names and just thought, oh Melissa McCarthy is doing her usual think again. Every male in the movie was either a douche bag or a moron. Feig's direction was woeful, you won't see him back a Sony any time ever. The cast dumping on the very nerd audience that this movie should have been made for was a catastrophic mistake.

[@JW...-oj5iw]

darson100 ... Read and correct your comment.

[@xenxander]

there was barely a script to begin with. You say they were allowed to improvisation and adlib.. that's an understatement. A movie without a proper script is bound to fail.

[@weeabootrash329]

darson100 - Yeah, unfortunately the whole "Make the male characters look like fucking idiots" thing kind of makes me think that this film was written by a bunch of cock chopping feminists.

[@TirarADeguello]

I think the main reason for Ghostbusters 2016 failing was for the same reason Batman vs Superman failed, and why Man of Steel failed with audiences. They went back and told a long, drawn out origin story we have seen in other movies for the umpteeth time. Ghostbuster's 2016 slogged through how they came together when it should have just picked up with the girls being the next generation and went right into action. It was boring to an old Ghostbuster fan to sit through 3/4 of an origin story AGAIN!

[@vinny142]

" They went back and told a long, drawn out origin story " So you never saw the original movies, did you? The original first movie WAS the backstory, and the 2016 version told that same story word-for-word. Only the main villain was changed, probably because it involves an explosion in a skyscraper and some audiences don't like that post 9/11.

[@DragoBeam]

@@vinny142 he just said that he already seen it in the og movie. And he rather like to skip it in this film. Ore skim over it more. So as in your explanation: he not wanted to see the same story again

[@Jesse__H]

That's a good point OP.

[@eval_is_evil]

also absolutely lame jokes ... dont forget how bad the jokes were in Ghostbusters 2016. If the delivery of the jokes was top notch then perhaps it wouldnt bomb as much. Big IF.

[@eval_is_evil]

@@vinny142 did you decide not to read the comment in its entirety? Kind of hypocritical considering what you wrote.

[@hafstrat]

It flopped because the original film is iconic genius. Can't be beaten. The cast. The time. The music.

[@davidwinters8325]

It had a terrible trailer. The PR and marketing that followed made it worse. The Director calling people who didn't like it sexist fan boy trolls. Sony started to delete critical comments. Plus, the film is terrible, and it's simply not funny. I know comedy is subjective. Great video.

[@Dargonhuman]

They only deleted the comments that had legitimate gripes and complaints about the trailer but left all the obvious sexist troll comments to set up their excuse that the misogynist man-children killed the movie.

[@Lawful_Rebel]

Isaac Baranoff You really appear to have a vested interest in that shit film.. Calm yourself. It was bad movie by any stretch of even the dullest imagination.. The script was moronic, the 'starring' cast was wildly unsuitable (not being funny should have precluded them immediately), the characters were childishly developed (even for a PG movie) and the Direction was unsubtle and mediocre at best. There was nothing redeeming about the 'Ghostbusters (2016)' movie.. It shouldn't have been made.

[@Dargonhuman]

Isaac Baranoff I've seen it, it's terrible. And yes, Paul Feig is on record many times calling critics of the movie misogynistic trolls, among other childish playground insults. That's irrefutable fact. The Sony email leaks later on confirmed that the only reason GB2016 was even made was to piss off fans of the franchise for no other reason than they thought most of the fans were men and they wanted to troll them.

[@Shiirow]

+Dargonhuman Yeah the movie itself really wasnt a feminist thing but motivation behind it sure was. So they could gloat that they took something from the horrible cis white men and made it theirs.

[@Lawful_Rebel]

Isaac Baranoff Who gives a shit what that tit Feig's a fan off.. Furthermore, The souless, talentless, moronic wanker obviously hates cinema. I detest the clown.. With any luck he'll never get another script to direct, ever again.

[@carlford5287]

I spent the ENTIRE video staring at the Lava Lamp!!!

[@quietcorner293]

me too

[@danijelandroid]

I only stared half the time.

[@johnnyblack4261]

Lol

[@subspacesausage5918]

all hail the lava lamp

[@existenceisrelative]

I think... I think that's why it's there.

[@Tacom4ster]

Let this franchise die. Also giving girls pop culture leftovers is just insulting to them, let old franchises die and move on.

[@jw9737]

Agreed. Pandering isn't a viable substitute for creativity

[@jonahabenhaim1223]

Adrian Dezendegui Ghostbusters Afterlife is coming

[@Jared7873]

@@jonahabenhaim1223 Why Sony?

[@Drilbit]

@@Jared7873 well it actually seems like it's a real sequel and has the original survivng cast coming back aside from Rick moranis.

[@pottered_popo9455]

Id like your comment but its at nice levels

[@miwoj]

it was aggresively, insultingly unfunny

[@randygelion]

Michał Wojteczek it was trying way too hard to be funny.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

There's that, but there's also the idiotic decision to make all the leads women. As well as the fact that this movie didn't come out until after Harold Ramis had already died, preventing him from having one last turn as Egon.

[@martinsmolik2449]

I don't think that making leads women is intrinsically a bad decision. What was a bad decision is not tying it into the established franchise (e.g. the girls being the original cast's students/daughters).

[@cybermasterdza]

I also don't think making the leads women was a bad decision, but making it a political stunt was.

[@JW...-oj5iw]

Michał Wojteczek ... Awesome comment. Brief and incisive.

[@IronheadOfScroteus]

When I heard it was going to be a female cast, my vision was to have Dan Ackroyd as an aging Dr. Stantz being the uncle or father of one of the women. A need arises to reestablish the ghostbuster business and he recruits his niece first, who gets her friends to join. Stantz pretty much stays at headquarters and invents new ghostbusting gadgets and talks to clients while the girls take care of business. I was fine with women being the new crew, but lost all interest when I found it was a complete reboot. Just as I would have lost interest if it was a reboot with an all male cast. I don't care for reboots at all. Total Recall and Spiderman, for example.

[@RantingBrummie]

IronheadOfScroteus That would have worked so much better ... then they hired Paul Feig ...

[@Riceball01]

+IronheadOfScroteus I agree, if they had this movie more of a soft reboot and a passing of the torch sort of movie it would have been so much better, it would have at least calmed the fans of the originals and actually got them to see it. It still might have wound a crap movie but at least it would have been one that respected the originals and pleased most fans.

[@gjtrue]

I agree 100%!

[@miyagiFTNS]

This is exactly what should have happened with perhaps Dan Ackroyd living in the fire station but having to, as you said re-establish and mentor his niece and her friends to be ghostbusters and save New York. In fact this was what they happened in the extreme ghostbusters which had a more diverse cast of characters.

[@calbear105]

IronheadOfScroteus I

[@Werrf1]

Having now seen the film, I can categorically state what was wrong with it: It wasn't a Ghostbusters film. It was a _parody_ of a Ghostbusters film. Which isn't surprising. That's what Paul Feig is good at; it's what Melissa McCarthy is good at. And there's nothing inherently wrong with making a parody of Ghostbusters. The trouble is that a) it wasn't funny, a fairly important point when you're making a parody, b) it was presented as a straight entry into the series, and c) there was no market for a Ghostbusters parody. Ghostbusters fans wanted another entry into the series. Non-fans weren't familiar enough with Ghostbusters to enjoy a parody. There just wansn't an audience for a Ghostbusters parody.

[@garou1911]

Thing is, Ghostbusters itself was somewhat of a parody of all the supernatural films dominating the box office in it's own contemporary time (Exorcist, The Shining, Poltergeist, etc). "What about a paranormal film, but about exterminators who have to clean it up like they were catching rats in the kitchen of a restaurant?" That's part of what makes the original work on the level it does, it's a ghost movie but in the scenes where the protagonists would normally be terrified, they're deadpan, sarcastic, or silly. It's a clash of tone that punctuates the comedic lines and delivery, and it subverts audience expectation because they've seen these similar scenes in other movies, but the reaction is different than they've seen This movie leans way too hard into the comedy while forgetting that the originals worked hard through tone and atmosphere to create a sense of suspense and tension, so when the joke or slapstick finally hits, it's not just funny but also a release of that tension. What you ended up with instead is a 2 hour long SNL skit about Ghostbusters instead of a film continuation, and it works about as well as any SNL skit longer than 2 minutes works (nevermind the fact that apparently the lead actors were fighting with the writers to work in more and more of their own jokes, and there was apparent infighting about who got more punchlines etc) Male, female, giraffe, space alien, nothing about this was designed in a way that would work from the start, and I have my own tin-foil hat suspicions that the studio themselves were working to make the controversy bigger, louder, and more vitriolic because they knew they needed every ounce of free publicity they could drum up

[@Werrf1]

@@garou1911 Yes; and now suppose that it had been billed as a sequel or reboot of The Exorcist, and fans of the Exorcist came into it with that expectation. How well would that have gone down?

[@Ironcabbit]

If it was to be a parody, then it should have taken shots at every horror trope of the 2010’s.

[@theworldofnexttuesday2802]

The commentary on "trolling" is reversed. Basically, it looked like another hollywood nostalgia reboot cash grab CGI fest, and people called it out for that. Then these criticisms were called some kind of veiled misogyny by the cast and crew because... reasons. Then there was criticism of poisoning the well to cop out of a genuine response to what people were saying about the trailer. From there it devolved into the whole crapshow it became where the film took a ride in the back seat of a toxic swirl of pre-existing controversy. The people who injected feminism into it were people from the film who made hot takes on social media without going through publicity. It wasn't in any of the marketing, it was asinine twitter drama that turned what should have been a forgetable by the numbers reboot into an idiotic social politics debacle.

[@yarpenzigrin1893]

No, a lot of people did have issues with the cast. And they had every right to. Calling your potential customers misogynists because they don't like your product is the real problem.

[@carrier2659]

It was called mysogyny and racism due to the vast amount of racist and sexist hate comments sent to the actresses, as well as the vast amount of white guys crying due to the film being gender-flipped, and claiming that women are not funny, that the "feminists" and "sjws" are ruining films, etc, etc. To pretend people only cared about the merits of the movie and ONLY because a group of toxic nitwits AFTER people called out bigotry you claim did not exist, then you are ignoring basic facts.

[@noless]

@@carrier2659 Not exactly true. This movie basically had activists who were attacking anyone that didn't like it. Even professional reviewers such as Richard Roeper. He gave the movie a one star and explained why he didn't like it. He was still called a sexist, against equality and so on. You can find an article about it if you search for it. This stuff made other reviewers scared of being honest about it.

[@RasputinReview]

"Why Ghostbusters 2016 Flopped" it was shit

[@theceng]

exactly

[@altrightknight7661]

ABSOLUTE Shit. Boring, mindless, vulgar, unimaginative, BORING. SJW Reheated Feminist SHIT.

[@jamiefernekees5041]

And people say Ghostbusters 2 was bad, I never thought 2 was too bad. I liked Ghostbusters 2, but I must say that nothing can ever beat the classic and real Ghostbusters(well, season 1 of the Real Ghostbusters).

[@I_like_turtles_67]

It was really really really bad. The one part that made me laugh was Bill Murray being the ghost speculator. That's honestly the only thing that made me laugh a lil bit.

[@stunningandbrave7475]

Rasputin Varez 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@joshuapatrick682]

Well, it flopped because it wasn’t funny, engaging or scary at all.

[@kenzieversace9337]

It was better than doctor strange for me

[@relextyon1966]

@@kenzieversace9337 most people would disagree with you

[@marthapozo4881]

@@relextyon1966 OMG yes they would, wtf!

[@wolfieinu]

Re: China, pretty sure Ghostbusters didn't play there because there's a government moratorium on stories featuring ghosts. Anti-superstition laws or something to that effect.

[@DonnaCPunk]

That’s exactly why.

[@TraeDSmith]

@@DonnaCPunk sarcasm?

[@daleksupreme922]

Not true. The Chinese film industry makes ghost horror movies based on Chinese folklore.

[@wolfieinu]

@@daleksupreme922 Oh, I thought that was a difference between HK and mainland.

[@dyveira]

@@daleksupreme922 Wrong. It's a bit more complex than that. "The Film Bureau objects to films with distinctly spiritual content, because they “promote cults or superstition” in violation of the Communist Party’s secular principles-a major problem for a movie chock-full of ghosts." From: www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/10/no-ghosts-allowed/411940/

[@rexmundi3108]

It was a "buddy movie" where the personal interactions were more important than plot. But the "buddies" were boring and not funny. Considering the movie it was a reboot of it was a disaster from day one.

[@Trollificusv2]

In truth, Feig, for some fucking reason, didn't give them any more direction than the script gave them funny lines. Resulting in the mess that was "Answer the Call". He's said he just put them on the set and backed off and let the genius improv flow. I've seen behind-the-scenes video of people laughing at totally unfunny shit on the sets of Kevin James and Adam Sandler movies. Something similar must have happened on this movie.

[@svetlanarodriguez7429]

We never asked for it, I didn't care for the cast, I didn't need to see it to feel good about myself. I know who I am. I like the original.

[@terraformthesun2896]

Here's an idea: how about we make a movie with an original story that stars a female cast? Why can't we just do that? I guess it's easier to leech off an already existing franchise instead of being original.

[@chadofisher947]

Demonsplaining Sure Alien Busters, with women lead, ;).

[@rodster6campingprepper]

Exactly. Why can't they create original and interesting female or ethnic heroes rather than give the message that woman and ethnic minorities are only interesting if they take on traditionally white male roles.

[@sallylee4924]

Because we live in a world where an all-female cast will inevitably be branded a "chick flick."

[@killslay]

Or just make the film good. If it was a decent film that just happened to star some women nobody would of cared

[@aliquidcow]

Annihilation had an all-female cast of characters, all but one working in STEM fields, one of them gay, without making any kind of deal about their gender or sexuality. It didn't do this as a gimmick, it was just written that way. Nobody seemed to pay any notice. Yeh it was a much weirder and less accessible film, but it does seem to show that when films actually get stuff right, it's invisible.

[@St_AngusYoung]

It flopped because it was garbage.

[@thalesanastacio760]

Transformers is garbage but didnt flop.

[@billkasperdotcom]

This should really be only only comment on this video.

[@AMpufnstuf]

this is as long as it takes to explain it

[@johnnyblack4261]

It flopped cause of feminists. They wanted to implement women this women that women women women empowerment crap that they ended up flopping the entire movie.

[@lyleevans8567]

Garbage movies make money all the time

[@duhbghaill9306]

The 'all female' casting was critic armor. This way, when the film is called out for be just bad, those involved can jerk a knee and scream 'Misogyny!'

[@heavysystemsinc.]

I think it was convenient, but it certainly wasn't planned that way. And to be fair, a lot of backlash was pretty fucking misogynistic. It just sucked that these assholes painted the entire body of complaints of the movie as such. Once you deal with 20 comments in a 30 comment section of 'why are these women out of the kitchen', it's hard to not see people trying to usher in the same sentiment in different, more undercover language, which made up the other half of the misogyny block of the backlash. I will say there was a large overlap of gamergate folks and the ghostbusters reboot garbage, some of those people also flocked over to chase women off of twitter in the Star Wars sequel trilogy. There's shitty people in the world and they all have a microphone called their phone and computer hooked up to a comment section like this one. It's unfortunate, but people seem to think democratizing public communications is a good thing despite the fact that there's a lot of people who don't like the internet experience specifically for this kind of thing. I don't think Ghostbusters reboot had anything to do with drumming up all of this nonsense. It was already there and the franchise putting women in the lead roles as a 'fun gender flip' just ended up being a perfect target for the extremely loud but pea brained portion of the internet that loves to claim 'SJW's ruin everything whilst doing what they claim SJW's are doing, which is ruining everything.

[@heavysystemsinc.]

@The Shield Responses like yours here constantly make me feel like Joe Average in Idiocracy.

[@heavysystemsinc.]

@The Shield Well then it appears you are the one that sounds butthurt. How much of your childhood was ruined by Ghostbusters? Did you suddenly have new memories of being sexually and physically abused by your drunk dad? Did the original Ghostbusters get erased out of existence? No? Well, good job at unnecessary hyperbole. And yes, gender swapping happens all the fucking time as a gimmick. You're just too stupid to realize it which isn't my problem.

[@wolfieinu]

​@@heavysystemsinc. Well that's not toxic at all. Goddammit, a pox on both your houses, you weird internet people.

[@heavysystemsinc.]

​@The Shield Nice freudian slip. As well, I never said you were those things either. I merely said bitching about them missing the big picture that this is nothing new in fiction, has been done well and poorly throughout history. Cherry picking it as a reason why x thing doesn't work typically doesn't count as valid critique because nothing backs up that point of view. As pointed out in this video, "An all male cast might have worked...if the writing was better." I've not applied anything to your opinion and once again, I teach you the words infer and imply. I did not imply anything you inferred from my comment. If you're reading too far into what I wrote, that is not my problem. The reader has responsibility to the writer to do their part to inquire if they don't understand anything. Apparently you believe because I pointed out there were, in actuality, mysoginist and racist people mixed in with the people with genuine gripes about the movie, you INFERRED that I called all critiques and criticisms of the movie's quality were of that nature. I explicitly stated they tarnished the conversation. I IMPLIED no such concept of 'if you don't like GB 2016, you're racist and/or mysoginist. This is why you didn't 'school' anyone because you never bothered reading what I wrote, and instead just reacted to words you recognized outside the context (read: sentences) they were used. You know, these words don't exist solely to call you out, right? They exist whether you do or not. The fact you were so quick to defend yourself from an attack that doesn't exist is both hilarious and possibly telling in terms of your actual views. Either way, I really don't give a crap because you've dragged this little thread into the territory of whining on your own behalf instead of contributing to the damn discussion, which was about whether the cast was specifically put there as critic armor or not. Again, I point out historically gender swapping of stories has been going on since forever and a half ago and it's not likely this was anything considered when making the decision in terms of 'critical armor'. Further more, these folks did get the rights to the damn movie and if they want to make the ghostbusters a piece of paper, a severed penis, a chicken sandwich and a bag of weed, if that was within the contract to obtaining the rights, they can do it. They don't owe you or me jack shit to 'treat the property' any specific way. When *you* pay for the rights to the IP, then *you* can make those decisions. Otherwise, just don't watch the movie and wait for the next reboot because hollywood has no original ideas and they'll circle back around to it again.

[@kapa1611]

you forgot the shameless product placement, it was obnoxious.

[@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747]

Like how you cannot take the first ghost encounter seriously (a pivotal moment in the original as it is indeed, the first time the characters encounter a ghost) because the "weirdo" chick is eating from a very noticeable can of Pringle's?

[@randmiller88]

Any self-respecting New Yorker would not order Papa John's pizza. You might as well go full Michael Scott and hit up Sbarros.

[@xKynOx]

Have you seen the original ghostbusters ? There is so many coke adverts its unbelievable.

[@ABonafideSkeleton]

My reasons for not seeing it (and I still refuse to see it) were three-fold: 1: It looked like a cynical, gimmicky cash in on a popular franchise that should have been left alone. 2: The cast, director and producer's reaction to the criticism they received for that abysmal trailer (yeah no, i'm not going to go see your film if you call me a misogynistic bigot for criticising your film). 3: I hated the casting. Melissa Mcarthy is painfully un-funny and cannot act to save her life, Kate McKinnon is a so-so comedy sketch actor and Leslie Jones is just loud and obnoxious. Kristen Wiig is the only fairly likeable actor out of the main cast (along with Chris Hemsworth).

[@Trollificusv2]

I'm not perfectly sure what the word 'winsome' means, but I'm almost certain Kristen Wiig is it.

[@bobbobson110]

4: You're a skeleton.

[@imperfectxennial3008]

A Skeleton I originally intended not to watch it but a friend of mine wanted to so bad. Turns out after just over an hour we walked out of the theater without finishing the movie, first and so far the only time I ever did that. He turned to me and said you were right, it was crap.

[@DJ_Force]

The casting was all wrong. Nothing against the actors, but when 3/4 of your leads are right out of SNL, you have to scratch your head. It looked like it would be a big budget SNL script, like if Bryan Singer did Duce Bigalow or Night at the Roxbury.

[@LFC-Star]

They left it too long between sequels.. That's the problem.. They should've made GB3 two or 3 yrs after GB2. To conclude it.

[@Runicen]

Good catch on the tonal shift. For my money, that was the biggest idiot demerit the production earned. The original was dry and almost a sci-fi flick that happened to be very funny. This dropped the sci-fi and went for a slapstick approach, which didn't suit the material. The premise is ludicrous enough on its own, but when you have a movie taking it almost absurdly seriously, something in the formula works. I can't help the feeling that the folks behind this would be clueless enough to try doing a remake of Dr. Strangelove with fart jokes. It's not about the female cast. It's about major movie studios along with their writers, actors, and producers adopting a lowest common denominator approach to everything they touch - as if every audience member had suffered severe head trauma five minutes before sitting down in the theater. Oh yeah, and being called a misogynist or woman hater for not being interested in a movie is obnoxious as hell. Also, for anyone who actually does give a legitimate crap about the well-being of women, it's a pretty odious move to use women as a meat shield for your rubbish product.

[@steelheart4148]

The four female leads lacked charisma and appeal. The fact that all the men in the movie were evil or stupid didn't help.

[@michaelmcdonnell3905]

Also the actresses where like playing generic male types that don't quite translate to women very well and just feels awkward and clunky.

[@michaelmcdonnell3905]

Actresses lacking charisma and appeal probably because especially Melissa McCarthy where anything I've seen her on the cover I'm not interested in the film at all or just don't care about her maybe because she's loud and probably a superficial thing that she's overweight and looks cringing.

[@pyroromancer]

Ghostbusters 2016 was aimed at a demographic that's known for being excessively loud on social media, but notorious for lack of consumerism.

[@gabrielp9646]

Do you mean the anti-feminists..?? :S:S

[@kreature6618]

W O M E N !!!!! hahaha yes.

[@Subterranean-iu7sv]

@@kreature6618 *wah-men

[@ForeverLaxx]

Thus is the coinage of the phrase "get woke, go broke." Catering to a vocal minority that never had interest in your product and only wants to see it fail will never work out financially.

[@TraeDSmith]

@Mc Fireballs yea, they usual just put out propaganda for free

[@tcdahn7]

I couldn't make it through the whole film. My 12 year old daughter asked to leave half way through.

[@dsadik666]

tcdahn7 your kid has common sense.

[@AnyMe223]

I think this comment summarizes PERFECTLY the movie. A 12 y-o girl, which should have been the prime (or close second behind nostalgic nerds as myself) demographic for the movie, asked to leave the cinema half way through the feature

[@da3daluz]

tcdahn7 n

[@revivedfears]

/thathappened

[@Aetrion]

I feel like people always ignore the main reason why the whole "Let's make an all female version of this" thing actually pisses people off. It's not because they hate women or anything like that, but because it always gets used to deflect criticism that has nothing to do with the casting choice as misogynist ravings. It's the idea that if something was made with a focus on women in any way it becomes heretical to dislike it that really pisses people off and pointing this out only gets labeled as more irrational hate. In a society that practices true equality you have to be able to find a movie terrible without being accused of prejudice based on the identity of the cast members.

[@OmegaPoint042]

Racism, misogyny = Disagreeing with a black, Asian or woman on something.

[@Mysteriouso100]

I agree with most of your points and I'd like to add one more: Ghostbusters (1984) BELIEVED in ghosts! It took ghosts and the paranormal seriously. This created the groundwork for the comedy. If the ghosts are merely cartoons, why am I going to bother to invest myself in them as antagonists? They have no weight.

[@Ken-fh4jc]

Exactly. Totally different tone.

[@pummisher1186]

I think it failed because of bad press and fans didn't want it. I think the only people who wanted it were Sony execs who were assuming everyone was going to lap it up. I have a feeling that even the stars in the movie were not wanting it.

[@theceng]

definitely not bill murray. His reaction on an interview with the cast of the reboot and original makes that clear. I heard the only reason he was in the reboot was because Sony threatened him with a lawsuit if he didn't star in the movie

[@ShadowFox178]

I agree with your points however the drama was very much blown out there of proportion. They also chastised and attacked James Rolfe for his opinion of not wanting a Ghostbusters 3, as to him it wouldn't live up to his expectations. So he simply chose to ignore it and carry on with his life. The only reason he made that video was due to him directly answering his fans who knew how much he loves ghostbusters. Then the director whoever he is, I forget. He says publicly some general mean spirited things towards the fans of the original and the trolls escalating things further. But truthfully we live in an era of outrage culture. If we aren't outraged at something we need to be armed for whatever someone is about to say. Everything is becoming a powder keg, a powder keg that constantly is refilling and preparing to ignite. The drama of ghostbusters is 100% down to the embraced outrage culture of today.

[@ergogray3143]

The reason it failed is because the industry disrespected not the original film but the audience that it was intended for. Veteran fans and newcomers, both had an industry agenda shoved down their throat when they are tired of the propaganda onslaught.

[@ssjup81]

I still feel that they should've stuck with a continuation. They could've had them pass the torch to the new cast. That's what I wanted. That blonde lady could've been Igon and Janine's kid if we ignore the Louis x Janine stuff. They could've gone along the route of Extreme Ghostbusters. I think quite a bit could've been done. I know for me, I really wanted it to have a pass the torch thing. Also should've kept the original director from the original films. The trailer turned me off from wanting to see it.

[@Trollificusv2]

Venkman's daughter could have tried to set it up as a scam, only to be shocked to run into actual real ghosts.

[@michaelhoule2134]

@@Trollificusv2 that i might of gone to see....ill never watch gb2016....ever.

[@CrashRaindog]

I was still at school when I went to see Ghostbusters, I'm 50 now. Anyone in their 40s that's a fan probably wasn't in that cinema.

[@rajnirvan3336]

I love the originals. I went to see them when they were out in 1984 and 89 when I was 7 and 12 years old respectively

[@ReanimatorsMutilations]

What does that mean

[@ChristyOFaghan]

i first learnt of a Ghostbusters reboot about a year before release, when the all female cast were photographed visiting a hospital ward full of terminally ill children i had heard nothing of a new film in the making before that, and the idea of actors visiting severely ill children dressed as characters from a movie which none of the kids had ever seen, seemed more like a publicity stunt rather than a well-intentioned gesture on the part of anyone involved what's more, several of the children in the background of these shots appeared to be in physical distress, and the mugging ghostbusters; oblivious to their pain those images were disturbing for the sheer detachment toward human suffering which both the actors and marketing strategists displayed in contriving such a photoshoot that's why i didn't go see the film

[@joshstorms3953]

Dude that is really messed up! I strongly don't think that was the case. If this was such a Blatent/disrespectful publicity stunt, why did they not market it like mad. I remember leading up to the movie only hearing bits pieces about hospital visit. So I think it was not entirely just for publicity. Also if you watch the footage of them walking into the room, many of the kids did get excited, because they knew they were the Ghostbusters.

[@Holammer]

For anyone curious about this event, read the KYM article on the hospital visit. knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/ghostbusters-hospital-visit

[@dsadik666]

I thought torture was it legal in the usa?

[@walterhicks5520]

You're a moron.

[@Stothehighest]

You were doing pretty good until the bigotry had to jump in. Just curious, is that part of your vocabulary because you don't know other words... or do you just have no sense of filter?

[@oh-totoro]

Oh come on! When the entire female cast and crew start posting photos in front of a huge banner that says "Girl Power", that's clearly a feminist statement. And that doesn't bother me, but it was they that made it divisive by saying that anybody that dared to dislike an easily dis-likeable trailer were misogynists. Oh, and yes, the film was absolutely awful. I've watched funnier WW2 documentaries.

[@ElOchentero]

I heard that the "girl power" banner was made after the backlash on the trailer, so chicken and the egg to some degree

[@ReallyEpicPerson]

Well, not necessarily. A big issue is that the trailer wasn't good. The jokes weren't funny, and the effects didn't look right. There was also no Bill Murray. And no one wanted a sequel or remake. Yes, everyone including myself mentioned the female cast. But, I think it's kind of like this, Someone you know is ugly, but you're not the type of person that hates ugly people and calls them names. Then, all the sudden, this ugly person keys your car and spits at you. You might then find yourself yelling "You're an ugly jerk!". When you hate the person enough, you start mentioning flaws in them you wouldn't normally mention. And having all females is sort of a middle finger to the original movie. Anyways, a big problem was that the first thing the actors thought we hated it was that we were sexist. Star Wars has had two big hits, both with female protagonists. So, clearly society isn't sexist on the mean.

[@djangofett4879]

The divide was obviously already there, dude. This country is insanely divided. The movie wasn't purposely divisive, it was just personalities around the movie (yes, Feig is an overrated asshole and a total fucking choir boy) that drove the drama and there were MANY MANY MANY youtube sensationalists ready to get clicks from the drama. Why are people still arguing about it? It just proves how easily sensationalized Americans are. We seem programmed to respond to sensationalism and its making us all stupid. Its really sad.

[@ElOchentero]

Raise your hands does who think that Isaac Baranoff is actually Paul Feig

[@beanstheclown]

To be fair, I saw the film and, while I wouldn't go straight to feminazi, it is very clearly man hating.

[@halfdemonprince]

8:10 Thank you! I kept asking myself, “why didn’t they just make the main cast of the new Ghostbusters the daughters of the original Ghostbuster?” It would’ve explained their motivation to hunt ghosts and why they'd want to work together. They could’ve even had the daughter of Harold Ramis’s character be the main character and have her want to continue his legacy by assembling the team and proving to the world that ghosts exist. There also could’ve been a theme of the pressure/burden of having big shoes to fill and seeking approval from your elders.

[@Marveryn]

i agreed if the cast was all male and the male part were all female.. it still would be a terrible script

[@samarthdubey7]

There was also an all-male ghostbuster script and suppose to directed by Russo brothers and they left the project to do CA civil war and Avengers 3 and 4.

[@GameFreak7744]

I really agree with the gimmick thing. I'd personally even say it will go down as an example of attempting to make 'femmesploitation' film. A hamfisted attempt to appeal to a feminist audience as some executives had heard that feminism is in vogue.

[@AnyMe223]

If they had made a good product out of it, at least, the movie could've both been interesting and served as a projection of a new society. But it wasn't a good product. At all. Not only overextents the alleged feminism (it's not feminist, it's just bad) depicting every single male as a piece of shit loser, but it doesn't do any good for the female characters either; they are just bland and flat (not too mention, as big pigs as the male characters)

[@PungiFungi]

"Femmesploitation". I like that! I will use that term from now on describing messes that are the recent Star Wars movie and Ocean 8.

[@Dudebrotheguy]

@@AnyMe223 Nope all feminism is bad feminism Fighting for equality while focusing on only one gender is an oxymoron

[@AnyMe223]

@@Dudebrotheguy I completely agree, I never said there was good and bad feminism, I just said that's not even feminism to begin with. Every chauvinistic extreme is bad, and so are overcorrections. Let's take it out of genders for a second, let's get to politics and religion. If you do a quick newspaper titles research, from the the early years of the XXIst century, Al Qaeda is composed by Islam extremists, and in the name of Allah they bomb people. If you look back to the XIIth century, Catholics burned people because they were "witches," which means they had some physical/mental condition, they didn't want to sleep with the governor, they had goods/riches the government wanted, or they neighbours envied them for whatever reason. If you give a fanatic chauvinist power, people will die. It doesn't matter which flavour their chauvinism comes in, be it gender, race, religion, even sports. And politically correct overcorections, that those the so-called feminists encourage, are entirely out of place, as well. Let's say a company has a rule that says at least 35% of their employees have to be women, then that rule is wrong, and it should be that there needs to be at least 35% men and at least 35% women, or it defies its own purpose, by doing what it allegedly wants to prevent. You can see it in movies and TV as well, why do pre-established characters can turn black, for example? Why can't they turn ginger, which is the heaviest minority and doomed to disappear soon? Because they have lighter skin? Because they originate from Europe? Why is it ok one way, but entirely wrong the other way? Because the great-grandfather of the black dude was a slave? That's overcorrecting, and every overcorrection is entirely out of place. Hell, in some cases this crap doesn't even make sense, as with the "femicide" several countries included in their penal codes. Homicide means "the killing of one human being by another." The word comes from Latin 'homicidium' homo = human (as in homo sapiens), -cidium = the act of killing. So... if you perform a femicide, does that mean what you killed isn't a human being (and I said 'what' and not 'whom' because who/whom is used for human beings)? If you killed a human being, no matter the circumstances, it's a homicide. If the court says it's not homicide, then by definition you haven't killed a human being.

[@LAHegarty]

One of the best films I've ever seen... ... Said no one ever.

[@petern1938]

Is it because it is an unnecessary, and largely unwanted, reboot that bought nothing new to the party other than changing to an all female cast because...reasons? If I were a feminist, I'd be outraged that the only 'female led' films Hollywood will make are just gender rebrands of successful previously 'male led' films. You want a film with an all female cast (BTW - same goes for an all BAME cast or changing the gender/race of an established character - Bond, Holmes & yes Dr Who)? Fine go make one, don't defecate on an established work/character, make something original that reflects the demographic you want.

[@catnium]

Hollow wood be like : what ... make something original... you mean not leech of other people's work and imagination done decades ago ? you mean actually ..w..work... for my money ? HELL NO here have a he-man reboot with an all black female cast except for skeletor he's still a bony white dude.

[@Trollificusv2]

Well, the unoriginality of simply gender/race-swapping an existing (popular) IP is certainly offensive. And it doesn't lift up the "underrepresented" groups the pandering is aimed at. But what's WORSE, and really offensive, is when they absolutely HAVE to demean and emasculate all the men in the movie. I'm getting f'ing tired of it because it's becoming, beyond the offensiveness, the most boring, by-the-numbers cliche that's ever been in movies.

[@TraeDSmith]

Feminist don't think that deep Peter

[@NotDuncan]

Doctor Who becoming a female isn’t a problem, they did foreshadow it for some time. The problem was the dramatic change in tone and method of story telling

[@hunter692007]

China there is a strict law that you can't have movies featuring any sort of supernatural aspect. With the Ghostbusters there was no way to edit your way around it like they do with other films. The other issue was Sony and the Director. Sony let the director be too vocal about his personal views and backed him on it rather than running damage control. The Director said some stuff that he wasn't making a movie that the old ghostbusters fans would want, and if they couldn't deal with the movie then they were misogynists. The marketing of if you don't like X then you are a misogynist had the opposite affect. It was a form of peer pressure marketing that backfired horribly. It's like saying you have a pencil dick if you don't use our product beer, smokes, etc that worked on generations and prior.

[@jylee9980]

I'm an expat in China and being Asian American, I've seen many Chinese movies that had Ghosts and Supernatural themes. I think I have to say China just has a choice of rejecting Ghost & Supernatural themed from Foreign (American) movies since they are not interested at all in seeing them. China in general still believes in superstition and believes in the supernatural brought up from their own culture. It just doesn't makes sense trying to introduce new ghost to China.

[@krystalphillips4984]

I think they do the right thing, I think their Ghost and Asian cultural is way, way scarier in concept. I can't imagine that western ghost tales would not be very interesting considering the Western World is younger than Asian World, culturally western is a long watered down version of the same thing. Why hear/see a copy when you can have the original.

[@krystalphillips4984]

hmm, okay sound reasonable, I am one of the oddballs I guess, my peeps are rarely depicted culturally so I don't pay much attention to cinema or movies much. I have heard the comedians but pretty much audio, while I do other things. I figure life has people who do, and people who watch others do, the latter being more prone to falling into a herd and making choices based on shallow things such as ethnicity or even language barriers.

[@hunter692007]

Yeah the world is interesting when you start looking at different governments and cultures. More issues than you would actually think there would be, but every country has their issues. Another issue is that in the west we have somewhat homogenized Asia as one country. China possibly holds some of the longest ongoing grudges with their Asian neighbors. Mongolia in the 12th century had conflict with china which to this day the country tries to get Mongolia "one of the poorest countries in the world", to pay for damages that can not be accurately calculated due to the time and government/currency changes. They have a long standing grudge towards Japan over WWII. Recently they had some strong words with Japan at a UN conference; where Japan was protesting the building of new Nuclear arms. China said that Japan needs to "stop acting like a victim they weren't nuked for no reason" (read up on unit 731). Tibet wouldn't surrender and accept Chinese rule, and Laos, Thailand, the Philippines, and South Korea over fighting against communism in the Vietnam war. So when we cast "for example" a Japanese actor as a Chinese character it is viewed as if you cast someone who looked like Saddam Hussein as Jesus Christ. As well they only view Chinese born as Chinese. If you are Chinese born in America then you are American. A lot of other countries tend not to view the whole ethnic mix (I'm Irish/German, I'm Italian born in queens, etc" background that Americans use. If you have Chinese parents, but are born in America, then you are American is how the country views it. This is why the main actors that they like are ones that were born in China. The citizens don't have as much reference because they can only watch the films that Big Brother says that they can watch, which are the films that star Chinese born actors.

[@fanofgodjimindiva2497]

China is communist only in name. They're capitalistic as fuck, they resemble a fascist, capitalistic regime like nazi germany more than any communist regime ever. China is the main example of state capitalism in our current world.

[@CaesarBest]

The 'trolling' only started after the makers of the movie started bashing people that disliked the trailer

[@essaboselin5252]

Exactly. Calling every single person who disliked the trailer a sexist, racist idiot is not how you market a movie. A trailer is supposed to show the best parts of the movie, and that first trailer was horrible. Sony turned off a lot of potential viewers with that stupidity. It showed they couldn't respond logically or factually to the complaints, which meant they were valid complaints.

[@weeabootrash329]

Essa Boselin - Hmm interesting! Now I'm certain that this film was made by a bunch of man hating feminist cock choppers.

[@MegaZeta]

Completely false. You don't have to make shit up to explain why this movie failed.

[@MegaZeta]

@@weeabootrash329

[@AndrooUK]

They fueled the fire, and got more people on board to bash it by highlighting the SJW overtones that we are all so vigilant for these days. Forcing an all female cast, instead of a believable mix, or all male (as it is believable that men would take a dangerous and physical job, but not that women would), screams PC/SJW/NPC. It is being tried over and over to the same failure.

[@zeronova1484]

"Handing off the reins" so to speak was probably the best way this kind of movie would have been successful. It kind of annoyed me that they had cameos of such important people and did pretty much nothing with them. Oh well, at least the series can (hopefully) rest in piece after this.

[@rodjacksonx]

I'm sure they'll try again in a decade or two. No bad idea ever stays dead long in Hollywood. I'm still expecting a reboot of Back to the Future within my lifetime.

[@NavySharkz]

Then you better hope that Robert Zemeckis passes before you because he owns the rights and said that Back To The Future would never be remade while he is alive.

[@SeekerLancer]

BTTF would go to Zemeckis' estate who can continue to make sure no sequel or reboot is made at least until it becomes public domain in the far, far future if we even have public domain laws by then (Disney has fought tooth and nail to have the government keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to works entering the public domain thanks to Steamboat Willy). The major difference with Lucas is he wanted Star Wars to continue. Zemeckis is adamant that BTTF does not.

[@pearljam619]

What annoyed me was males who said they didn’t like it were called “Sexist,” “Racist,” “Bullies” just because we didn’t like it. We are just middle aged men who were clinging on to cherished childhood memories in which we sang the song and blasted ghosts in our childhood homes and gardens. It wasn’t because it was women. I’m just tired of reboots and remakes.

[@Tacom4ster]

I dislike Last Jedi for academic reasons, smarter than these alt right retards

[@ab8588]

Sort of how Chick fill A buying their food makes you a "good Christian" .

[@ItsSpecialHands]

In fairness a lot of men did make sexist and racist comments about it in the lead up to release. I thought the film was fairly dogshit myself but I don't really think that's down to the cast

[@Maltesfilm]

ItsSpecialHands No that’ not fair, a minority made some comments and basically everyone who disliked the movie movie was bashed has people who hate women.

[@ItsSpecialHands]

@@Maltesfilm right but by minority you mean literally tens of thousands of people, which I appreciate is still a minority but it's a fucking huge amount of visible, vocal people.

[@Jimboola]

The film could have been a huge palate for creativity within a well-loved franchise. Instead they decided to get in Melissa McCarthy and make it largely a McCarthy movie with the gimmick that they are all female. Lazy lazy lazy!

[@mollycromb6933]

Jimboola Yep!!! I'm glad someone said it. Im fine with movies with an all female cast or strong female leads, but why can't they make these movies with original plots and characters? It's so uninteresting and feels way too easy. It would be a lot better to see completely new, original strong female lead characters.

[@GnarledStaff]

Exactly! If they didn’t cast her and did nothing else different it would at least be watchable. They had a good underlying theme of trying to prove they were doing legitimate science from what I saw. (I only god a half hour in) But that comedian only plays trashy obnoxious characters who make piss and fart jokes all day.

[@WobblesandBean]

Giving everyone in Thailand a cheeseburger would have been a way better use of that money.

[@andrewescocia2707]

you would have a whole country eating out of your hand :)

[@chongtak]

The Thais are already eating enough junk food, buy them a salad or something healthier than the shit they eat nowadays.

[@Hanshottwice]

Someone send this vid to Paul Feig's twitter ASAP!!

[@monserratvasquezvillegas8717]

YES!

[@gulorful8488]

I don't think it will do any good. There are other videos that do a better job explaining this than him.

[@profshad3429]

No its right on.

[@Enruler]

I'd like to talk more about one of your points; I think you missed something on the internet trolls part of the video. The trolls and blatant sexists had no influence on my opinion of the movie, the trailer did all the damage, it was awful, the special effects looked dated, nothing was gritty. However with that being said I would have still been open to watching it. What really turned me off from ever seeing it was the studio's response to the trolls. I absolutely refuse to support anything that will label me as a sexist man-baby just because I don't like their product. Trying to convince everyone that only trolls and misogynists hated the movie turns away a lot of people, myself included. You can't just hurl insults at people because you don't agree with their opinion, it's a good way to alienate the fan base, and create a divide. I plan on never watching the movie because of this. It's funny too because I was called a sexist at one point for expressing my disdain of the movie, but they had absolutely no rebuttal when I mentioned one of my favourite movies is Annihilation. It's not a female problem, it's a script problem.

[@Trollificusv2]

That was a movie with female scientists who acted like scientists. Too bad it bombed. It was pretty good, actually.

[@asnekboi7232]

I hate when films become political

[@pretorious700]

You do sound like an apologetic femboy.

[@Enruler]

@@pretorious700 Wow, what an astute observation. It contributes so much to the discussion.

[@trebot9292266]

100% Annihilation was amazing. As hard as people try to claim it's some "they did it because Girl power" bull arguments. Not a single one of them can hold up. "why did a group of women make it but no men?" Is a legit argument people tried to make with Annihilation even though it's shown that a number of groups of men and women had made it there at that point. Only 1 Man had come back thus far. Every character felt like they were respected.

[@therider04]

Have to blame Amy Pascal on scrapping Ghostbusters 3 which Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd was working on. She wanted her own film made, not what the fans wanted. She hired Paul Feig. Emails were leaked from the Sony hack confirmed it. It's all on the Midnight'sEdge video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gl6Zh3-rr5xor9k

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

Also there's this link here, which is Paul Feig writing to Pascal. It reveals a fair bit, especially the expectation that the reboot would be the first of a series of new movies. www.reddit.com/r/RedLetterMedia/comments/4w6zxe/heres_the_leaked_email_from_scientist_mans_video/

[@zeedeejay242]

therider04 she got booted off the board after that turd of hers.... her feminist view as with Fiegs male feminist attitudes did that film in... if something has been preset like GhostBusters, don't throw your politics into it... nor insult the fan base... And being racist didn't help either....

[@mdredheadguy1979]

CheeZyZee Thank God for small favors then!

[@Rensune]

CheeZyZee I don't doubt feminism had a fair amount to do with it (and I'm not defending feminism, I despise it) but I think a Lot of the casting was due to laziness: Feig had worked with most of them before, so he thought he could make another movie with friends.

[@Coffeebean1985]

Rensune you ever talked to a women before then If you despise them so much?

[@thisithis]

Someone here didn't read the Amy Pascal emails over at wikileaks. Lest just say she said things that she can never take back, ever. Like the last part where she wanted to take the original cast to curt if they refuse to guess star. Or where she keep calling Ivan Reitman a sexist pig for no reason. But, that only lead to a twitter fight with one of two daughters of Ivan Reitman. Where Amy Pascal called Reitman's daughter a sexist pig. And not forgetting the racist things Amy Pascal called President Obama, as well the nasty things she called Angelina Jolie. Amy Pascal was shortly fired from Sony after the emails came out. She had already finished her work on GhostBusters when she was canned and replaced by Tom Rothmen. The guy that screwed up the X-men franchise, Alien vs Predator, and Fantastic Four.

[@LUCKO2022]

Amy Pascal wasn't fired from Sony, only demoted. She is very much still with Sony and now they are working with Marvel on Spider-Man Homecoming, and she is still doing her glass ceiling film which is Black Cat and Silver Sable from the Spider-Man universe. I wish Amy Pascal was fired but Sony is run by dipshits apparently.

[@mac1991seth]

+Pixar The Great Actually Pascal's current situation is a bit unclear. She's merely a producer hired by Sony specifically for the Spiderverse. Producers are a lot like directors - they come and go. So technically she was fired, I guess? I am surprised that they kept her for a project this big especially after the series of failures and Emoji Movie on the horizon. Makes me question who's running the asylum.

[@Objection010]

Agreed on all points. This movie was one no one wanted.

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

Yep.... Yep.

[@citycrusher9308]

Hey Greg, everyone loves Ripley from the aliens franchise. No one wants an alien movie with a male Ripley. And if they tried the gender swap, people would have a problem with it. The apologetics of "The gender does not matter, the story and writing does" wouldn't work.

[@anthonyhalloway7353]

Yeah, but, I wouldn't have a problem with an Alien movie with a male lead.

[@citycrusher9308]

The blow back is coming from an effort recently to erase male characters like you see in Marvel super hero comics and films like the newest Mad Max installment. People haven't complained about sex swaps in the past so you know something is up.

[@AlexMoscow9mmpr]

I wanted it.

[@thegardenofeatin5965]

How I reacted as the new Ghostbusters unfolded: 1. Heard there was going to be a new Ghostbusters movie being made. I groaned. Here we go again, another old franchise they're putting through the wringer. Ghostbusters especially is an IP that had one good movie in it. And in the twenty-teens, it was just going to be another recognizable brand to slap a bunch of overwrought CGI onto like it's the goddamn Marvel Cinematic Universe. 2. Heard it had an all-female cast. That right there proved to me it couldn't be a good film; it could go in several directions, none of them good. It could be "Ghostbusters the gender studies lecture," it could be a freshman film student's first homework assignment with stunt casting as a gimmick. 3. The trailer came out. I watched it. I laughed at one gag, the "shelf of heads and the last one is a cast member" gag from Young Frankenstein. Because it reminded me of Young Frankenstein. 4. I had this conversation with a lot of my female friends. "Are you going to see it?" "No, I don't think so." "Why not?" "Looks like it's gonna be crap." "See, I knew you were misogynist." "I haven't seen a movie in the theatres since Zombieland because they all look like lazy cynical crap, and this is no different." "Whatever, you just hate that it's got women in it." One even tried to tell me that "It's better than if they cast some dudebros like Seth Rogan." "A. I've only sat through one Seth Rogan film, Zach and Miri Make A Porno, and that's because you showed it to me, and B. How are four comediennes I've never heard of a greater guarantee of quality?" 5. I effectively had the same conversation with the filmmakers themselves. No less than Sony Entertainment called me a patriarchal fuckboy for having other plans on opening night. 6. The movie comes out. Most of the dialog is ad-libbed babble, there are a couple of cameos by the original cast for the "see, they're on board with this also SQUEE IT'S DAN AYKROYD" factor, there's lots of awkward product placement, and the hilarious wonton soup subplot. It's not a good film. It wasn't made because someone had a story they wanted to tell, it was made because someone had an intellectual property they wanted to monetize. In conclusion, I'd rather watch Young Frankenstein.

[@Trollificusv2]

IF I wanted to see something that provided this visual experience, I go wave my camera around while walking down Glitter Gulch. I mean, if I want to see neon, I'll go find some neon to look at. It looked awful.

[@extremenatureandfriends]

Girls being hired didn't bother me the ACTORS them selves bothered me

[@a0040pc]

That was very insightful, I personally didn't watch the film because how Sony and the people behind the film called people who spoke out against it women haters.

[@TheZXKUQYB]

Bingo, soon as Sony & Such starting attacking the fans because people were not holding it as the next greatest movie and implying people were bigots toward women. That was like a 10 yo lashing out at the fans. There will always be movies that miss the mark, it is the name of the game.

[@portercmt]

Hollywood never seems to learn its lesson on reboots. They reboot Nightmare on Elm Street, Total Recall, etc and they're meh, but they keep on doing it 'for the next generation'. Sometimes you can't remake a classic because there was something back in the day that made those movies awesome. The actors, the writing, the times. What's next, they reboot Back to the Future for the millenials and completely fuck it up with us gen x'ers who made those movies popular. Hollywood needs to leave well enough alone.

[@LFC-Star]

it used to be every 30+ yrs a reboot would be made.. Now that window has shortened.. For example.. Conan The Barbarian was rebooted ironically was more like Conan from the stories than the one Arnie did. The latest is that Arnie is gonna come back as an old King Conan. As a sequel to the 1984 movie ignoring Conan The Destroyer the sequel.

[@tralfazz7579]

Melissa McCarthy. Saw her name in the lineup and said nope.

[@chrisdavis8830]

I think a lot of people were upset because it was a reboot vs a sequel. Had they done a continuation story like Creed was for Rocky had maybe the team was taken over by the daughter of Ray or Egon or something like that it would have gotten less hate. The trailer was also very bad. It made the movie look like a bad SNL skit

[@psychodrummer1567]

You know, they could have made one of characters Kylie Griffin, who is actually a well respected character within GB fandom and the first female Ghostbuster.

[@noless]

I would have preferred them to be their daughters as well but the director and writer Paul Feig was completely against that idea. They would have to change actors as well since these are too old to be their kids. The original ghostbusters didn't have any children in the first two movies.

[@LFC-Star]

@@noless they didn't have kids.. They we know of.. However just because they weren't mentioned doesn't mean they couldn't be born out of wedlock? Such as with Creed. Venkman flirted a lot with women whose to say he didn't have a kid with one of them or have a kid with Barrett afterall?

[@jaydr0id568]

Hey, at least the trailer was accurate.

[@LFC-Star]

@@jaydr0id568 yep the trailer depicted how crap the movie was..

[@juliamavroidi8601]

Ghostbusters didn't run in China, because you can't really "do" ghosts in China, that's a cultural taboo. It's the same reason they had to retheme the whole Haunted Mansion at Disneyland Shanghai. I for one am glad they actually had the balls to do a concept that does not work internationally in this day and age. Of course it's unfortunate that it wasn't shown at all, but that's something the studio had little influence on. I wouldn't want movies to be so bland and boring that every culture enjoys them equally. I'd rather have every country doing their own movies that are relevant to THEM rather than every foreign studio trying to be American, while Hollywood tries desperately to be international. I see that in Germany where I live: More and more movies and shows turn out to be cheap Hollywood imitations. I wish it would be the way it used to be: Someone watching a foreign movie and actually gaining something from this cultural exchange.

[@TOAOM123]

Julia Mavroidi ? Is this a real thing? Arent ghost films like ridiculously popular in China, Korea, and Japan?

[@Riceball01]

+TOAOM123 Yes and no. Yes, it wouldn't work in China, not because ghosts are taboo in China but more because the Chinese, and Asian, concept of ghosts are vastly different from that of the US and the rest of the West. So it's more a cultural difference more than anything, this is why big action movies like Transformers do well overseas, big explosions translate well into any language and culture.

[@spectr__]

it's not only taboo, ghosts are censored.

[@lexfacitregem]

Julia Mavroidi is absolutely correct! That's why I found this omission so bizarre when this critic was talking about it not being shown in China. It had nothing to do with lack of brand recognition... it has to do with the fact that the Chinese censorship board outright prohibits any film that references the occult or supernatural, including ghosts. Even if the reboot of Ghostbusters was the greatest film ever made, China would not allow it to be shown. That's why I'm a bit shocked as to why this commentator failed to mention this obvious fact. In fact... I defy anyone to give me the name of any movie involving ghosts that have ever been permitted to be shown in Chinese theatres!

[@charlieni645]

It's not cultural taboo. Chinese culture features plenty of urban legends and stories about ghost and supernatural all the way back to the 16th century. It's the censorship coming from the communist government that wants to force all superstition out of people's minds.

[@mar10ssj1]

The movie sucked because women aren't funny. I'm kidding, there are funny women out there just not in the new Ghostbusters movie. There were two of them who were almost identical in style and character, another one who was an over-the-top prop comedian the likes of carrot top, and one that was a racial stereotype. Of course the chemistry would fail. The original movie had a man-child, a science guy, a con-man, and an everyman. There is room for chemistry in that combination.

[@mariusmglestue1234]

Mar10 i got to give props to carrot top though, he's kind of a funny guy.

[@Ponyboy_Curtis]

Panzer Vögel eyyo

[@ETBrooD]

No shame in speaking the truth. Men tend to be a lot more funny than women. There's even research behind it.

[@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342]

Pamela adlon and Tracy ulman. Now those are some funny ladies.

[@mariabrown6926]

Very Serious thats true but there are some genuinely funny ladies out there

[@charity6372]

"It was a gimmick". Exactly. That's why I didn't bother.

[@MacAisling]

From the trailers, it looked more like a Paul Fieg genre spoof than a real Ghostbusters film and deserved no more box office than his other films. As for the f/x, it looked like Beetlejuice threw up all over The Frighteners. From the angle of SNL sketch comedies brought to the big screen, this was probably better than Coneheads, but still nothing I would ever want to watch.

[@tommy1138]

I will never watch this movie, even on Netflix. Life is too short to waste on insulting and unnecessary reboots and remakes. Ghostbusters 2016 looked like a big shit sandwich from the very first trailer, why would I want to take a bite?

[@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342]

It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be or how everyone was making it out to be....... But it is bad lol. About a 4 out of 10. Not a 0 or a 1 like some people were giving it. So yeah... You're not missing much lol.

[@FiercelyGold]

As with all comedies, you really have to take a chance on many films to find ones that you treasure. While I may find ________ to be hilarious, you may see it as trash. I think it's important to remember that when you're looking at comedies and judging them based on what other people told you. When it comes to the trailer, It's literally someone telling you what they think are the best parts in the movie. Unfortunately often enough the trailer just can't do it justice because they're not setting up the jokes right. Like I personally thought the 22 Jump Street trailer was stupid as shit, but after watching it, it's one of my favorite sequels. I also wasn't interested in Ghostbusters 2016 based on it's trailers but after being pushed into watching it by my husband, we enjoyed it. I do agree that tonewise it doesn't match the originals. I also agree a real sequel instead of a reboot would probably have worked out better. And personally I like my horror comedies scary and there's nothing scary about this movie. But in spite of all that I find this movie has rewatch value and some really funny jokes. I really can't expect too much in a comedy other than that. Anything else is just icing on the cake. If you do ever choose to watch Ghostbusters 2016 I think it could, to you, be a waste of time or it could be a good lesson in looking beyond trailers and gossip to see the actual personal value of a piece of entertainment/art.

Umm no one cares

[@adelucas4824]

It really isn't that bad. It is very watchable. A lot of the worst parts ended up on the cutting room floor. Melissa was given permission to adlib and play up throughout the movie and they cut out most of the unfunny stuff. The trouble is she isn't as good as Jim Carrey or Robin Williams at random adlibs so watching all the cut scenes on the extras was painful. The 3D is excellent and a lot better than some other more successful movies.

[@cybermasterdza]

Agreed. So many options out there and even re-watch the classics is available. No need to hold your nose for anything nowadays, you just ignore it.

[@johnterpack3940]

It just didn't need to be a reboot. That is the biggest reason. "Alien", "Resident Evil", and "Terminator" clearly show audiences in "male" genres don't have a problem with female leads. But attacking the fanbase is a problem.

[@andrewthorne3570]

13:23 "It wasn't dishonest" apart from at the start of the trailer where it says "30 years ago...four scientists (Winston wasn't a scientist) saved New York" implying that it was a continuation of the originals

[@joseftrumpeldor6240]

Dude, I just discovered your channel and I LOVE it! You are articulate, well-spoken, funny, acerbic and intelligent. Did I miss any more complimentary adjectives? It's a pleasure to see you and listen to you as most of the reviewers on youtube are poorly-dressed and punctuate their sentences with "you know" and "umm" and "sort of" and "kinda" and all sorts of hip-hoppy, teenage valley-girl speak. Keep up the great work!

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

Wow, thanks Josef that's very kind of you! I mean, er, you know, like totally rad! I think "rad" just gave away my age.

[@kagenotatsumaki]

"I don't know if it was a Woman thing or a Black thing but either way I'm pissed!" An actual line from the movie. "Not progressive or feminist at all, it's a gimmick" no, I'm not convinced.

[@scarletgonzales840]

Exactly Hollyweird experiment that went wrong .

[@adrianrosenlund-hudson8789]

It flopped because it is ANOTHER lazy Hollywood remake. Oh, and it's rubbish

[@Trollificusv2]

I was really surprised that Feige's lame "just roll the cameras and let the cast be hilarious" technique worked so poorly. All of those gals have done good work before, and if this movie contained their best improv...wow. Must've been an off 4 months for them. All.

[@vacri54]

So many scenes were "characters run in to what is obviously a set, and deliver lines like they're in an SNL skit". It wasn't so a much a movie as a series of skits.

[@irisfailsafe]

They were all women but they kept the racial stereotypes. plus cameos are for bad movies they always distract you from paying attention to the story

[@ghenulo]

Yeah, everyone keeps mentioning that the 30+-year-old movie is less racist than the "current year" one.

[@mdredheadguy1979]

irisfailsafe Your ignoring the fact that the story itself was shit!

[@irisfailsafe]

That is a given but it wasn't the only factor

[@irisfailsafe]

I did see it and I don't know why the African merican woman couldn't be a scientist, I would prefer if she worked in the subway because she had to drop out of college but still kept learning...

[@TheNejD]

i think you will find that bill murry usually makes the best cameos.

[@fruzsi8318]

I'm 21 and I know who Columbo is. I used to watch it with my mom when I was little and I loved it.

[@Jehannum2000]

@William Drake Cheers me up to hear that.

[@SethPostal]

It was unrelatable to the nostalgic audience by featuring female stars. That's a starting point for how the reboot was ruined.

[@RoodeMenon]

Amy Pascal is a name that comes up a lot when it comes to messing up good ideas like Pixels or valuable property like Spider-man and Ghostbusters.

[@wayne7055]

Isaac Baranoff well I thank her for that at least

[@68SSCAM]

Here's another reason it flopped, one that people are probably scared to say these days. It had 4 women in it, when the original was all men. 4 women in a reboot during a time when "equality" is shoved down our throats. And that's the problem, it's forced down our throats like this film, and they were the ones that choked on it. I don't understand why studios can't make films with original ideas (or not reboots with female recasting) that have female protagonists that we'll enjoy watching. Eg: Alien, Kill Bill, Thelma and Louise, Hunger Games, Hanna, Leon, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. All enjoyable movies with brilliant female lead or support roles.

[@oz1902]

As a child of the 1970s, I love the lava lamp. Do you want to sell. I have cash. As for the film, who bloody cares.

[@flair541]

Another problem is the humor. Even ignoring the characters, a lot of the humor was just "We're gonna stand here rambling about nothing for just long enough for it to become annoying instead of funny at all." That and it just wasn't written as well as the first two movies. I marathoned them over a three day period, so I can say this with utmost clarity: the 2016 flick just wasn't written as well as the originals. You can't really poke any holes in their narratives but 2016 may as well be a kitchen sponge for how porous it is by comparison.

[@ATM180]

I love your videos so much, you're funny, informative and your tone and style are so relaxing. The was your script and delivery style feels like you're a good friend sitting down, having a drink and engaging in a conversation with me. Keep up the good work!

[@Irondrone4]

I feel a spin-off series of smaller-budget Ghostbusters movies would have worked far better. Maybe establish that the Ghostbusters is a national (maybe even an international) franchise in the modern day, and instead of following the founding Ghostbusters, we followed teams in other parts of the US (or the world). Use this as a way to perhaps parody modern horror tropes; imagine what a good team of writers could do with a new team of Ghostbusters finding themselves in the middle of a Paranormal Activity rip-off.

[@Nowhereman10]

The original actors could make the cameos and have done the whole hand off the franchise to a new generation thing since it could be shown that because the Ghostbusters company is so big that they are occupied for the most part running it as CEO and board of directors and overseeing the other spin-off franchises, etc. The original characters can then get a last hoorah by having them go back in action to help out against the Big Bad. Have some of the new characters be the children of the original characters, etc.

[@LFC-Star]

what Ghostbusters needs to be is a TV series.. That could have more scope.. They could have Ghostbuster teams in different countries that coordinate with each other.. put it on Netflix or Amazon Prime.

[@Ponyboy_Curtis]

Documentary film called "we were ghost busters " . A good idea. I would of seem that. Great channel

[@Brentsfriend]

Leslie Jones should 'LEARN HOW TO CODE"!

[@yadidimeanmaine]

I know! Let's remake Back to the Future with a female Marty and Doc in Prius time machine! We should throw $200 million at it (I should be working for Sony)!

[@ConvergenceMedia]

Bite your tongue. Some imbecile might actually think that's a good idea.

[@KitteridgeStudios]

Some kind of reboot of Back to the future actually is one of my worst nightmares. Its my all-time favourite movie, it I don't want it to be ruined like that...

[@Bairinde]

I don't think it will happen, because IIRC Zemeckis holds the rights and never said he never wants another sequel.

[@TheRocco96]

They should remake only the 2nd movie. because 2015 is now in the past.

[@shepd3]

Nahh, Tesla! Think of the FUTURE!!!

[@wakemore27]

It flopped because it sucked. I watched 20 mins of it last night and it was terrible. Bad writing, bad story, and cartoonish comedy and ghosts... It missed the point of the first movie and did not retain any of the original Ghostbusters charm, wit, or jenesequa... It went in the silly direction of Ghostbusters 2, which was also pretty bad. The franchise is dead. Give up the ghost, please. Should have been a solo film in the first place. No reboot or remake or sequel or reimagining needed.

[@Match25]

if anything this film did one good thing. GB2 is no longer seen as the worst ghostbusters film

[@wakemore27]

amateur match​ Ain't that the truth.. They should have put the idea to rest after Harold died..

[@GenerationX1984]

People keep saying Ghostbusters 2 was bad but me and most of my friends like Ghostbusters 2.

[@Dargonhuman]

"Give up the ghost, please." I see what you did there, that's punny.

[@wakemore27]

+Isaac Baranoff You only need to watch 20 minutes of a film to decide whether or not it's a film worth watching. I don't doubt that some people liked it. Opinions vary. My opinion is that it wasn't a good film experience. I'm not going to suffer thru more than 20 minutes if in that 20 minutes I found nothing entertaining.

[@sarahtaylor4264]

I passed on it for the following reasons: 1. You're right, the trailer wasn't good. It was silly, over the top, and made the story look generic. The originals were not afraid to be over top either and used a lot of comedy, but they balanced it with truly serious moments, creepy effects, and actors who had weight on screen. It also probably helped that some of the best comedians of all time were involved in the project. 2. As a fan of the 1980s films I was scared it would be disrespectful and completely bash the legacy of its predecessors. Most reboots read like effortless cash-grabs that end up being insultingly bad compared to the original. I haven't watched it, so I can't say how founded this turned out to be for Ghostbusters 2016 though. 3. The marketing pushed the our leads are all female and feminism is great agenda. I don't care what sex or gender they are as long as the movie is good. I find that when movies and/or their marketing relies on a single political idea/social cause they end up being very superficial about it and make no effort to explore the idea with subtlety nor complexity. It makes me want to vomit. 4. I never felt like the originals needed a remake. I might have been interested if this movie was a sequel about the original Ghostbusters' children and/or nieces. You could do a lot with the legacy while having a completely different story focusing on different personalities. You could have cameos from the old cast that meant something. I don't understand why they said let's just do a genderflipped Ghostbusters that just retreads old ideas and plot beats. The movie doesn't add anything new or interesting to the franchise as far as I can tell. EDIT: Forgot about this until I saw the other comments. I also didn't like how the producers and other people involved in the film dealt with criticism. Calling everyone who offers the slightest criticism for the trailer and movie, as well as those who chose not to see it because it didn't appeal to them, sexist bigots is wrong. You don't like the feedback, so you throw a tantrum like a small child and behave like a bully towards people who don't say what you want them to. Please stop. Take responsibility for your work, including the concept that it may not in fact be perfect, and accept criticism with grace. You don't have like it, agree with, or plan to do anything with it in the future, but my gosh you are a freaking adult in an industry where everyone has a different opinion. If you are looking for endless praise for everything you do you should not be in it. Don't blame everyone else for your failures. I think if Hollywood ever realizes that most people want good movies with depth, a sophisticated discussion of issues, and complex characters they would still find a way to blame whoever they don't like for movies that solely exist to push an agenda bombing. I don't want to give my money to people who insult others for having a different, but valid, and well-articulated opinion. If that makes me sexist (ironic as a female myself) and anti-feminist (I'm not) to them so be it.

[@TheUncleRuckus]

👏👏👏

[@NASkeywest]

10:47 “It’s like doing an all black production of Hamlet.” Fast forward a couple years and we have an all black performance of “Hamilton.”

[@Shamelesscritique1]

People miss the point...it's not the choice to cast women that pissed people off. it was the reasons WHY? why it was made and why they made the film an all women cast...they were obvious, transparent and terrible reasons, reasons that had nothing to do with a good script or a creative and interesting idea for a movie. It was obviously a soulless cynical attempt to cash in on nostalgia by a soulless cynical corporation who in conjunction with soulless cynical hollywood thought they could make a hip fashionable social statement...but it turned out they drastically misjudged the market, both mainstream audiences and long term fans, the majority of whom don't actually share the same tastes and opinions, especially not all the progressive political and social ones so common in the media and entertainment industry, the people had spoken and they didn't want it so when they released that terrible trailer and stirred up what was a overwhelmingly disdainful response they decided to double down and push a mainstream media narrative of misogyny sexism and internet trolls further fanning the drama, controversy the anger hatred and backlash. Rule number 1 that's so obvious it shouldn't have to be stated...in business you don't insult demean, bully, shame or attempt to browbeat your potential customers and definitely don't lash out at criticism publicly for the whole world to see...marketing and media forgot that they don't dominate and control the narrative any more, we're living in the age of the internet...and on the internet the mobs of millions of faceless basement dwelling "nerds" and "trolls" can decide what the narrative is.

[@erisi236]

they should have just made Extreme Ghostbusters into a movie, that cartoon was awesome

[@Match25]

This is so what i was hoping for when i heard of the reboot. A new team taught by one of the members of the first now they are too old. Would have so loved to see a live action Kylie. For a woman hater as they portrayed me as for disliking the trailer its funny that she is my favorite Ghostbuster. Not to mention it would have mostly shut up the SJWs (even though i am convinced they will never be satisfied) A "diverse" cast with a handicapped guy, a smart black guy, a hispanic and a smart woman who was the leader.

[@collectingmythoughts991]

Yes, that would have been a much better idea. I would have loved to see that instead. With the death of Harold Ramis, they could have swapped out Egon for Ray as the mentor. They could have done a type of story where Ray is living like a hermit closed off from everything. Maybe bitter that everyone went separate ways or maybe Egon's death divided everyone and he blames himself or something...... The new team tries to get him to help them with a growing threat. They try on they're own to fight some spirit force and the climax could have Ray finally show up with his gear on to help them at a crucial time. This could then lead to sequels with him as they're mentor as they become full fledged Ghostbuster reviving the business and team.

[@straker454]

The movie itself might not be disrespectful but the way the film was made was. Amy Pascal and Paul Feig both treated Ivan Reitman like GARBAGE behind the scenes, pushing him out of the picture to gain control of the project so Amy Pascal could force her own agenda into the film in terms of feminist propaganda and identity politics. It's something most people seem to ignore more than any other critique of this film but it's one that still bugs me to this day. It's the reason I can't watch the new film as it's the product of all that behind the scenes disrespect.

[@jonathanhenly99]

People ignore it because it didn't happen.

[@larryphilby4918]

The Critical Drinker and Mr. Plinkett have both shown, by scene by scene comparisons, what was wrong with it.