If this came out in 2012 (successor to Bridesmaids) there would be no controversy and we'd probably like it.
The fact that it came out during the gurllpower cultural """"movement"""" of 15/16 is the primary reason it's so unappealing.
If this came earlier and didn't use the female cast as a marketing gimmic, it would likely have been a natural success.
The casting is awful anyway you cut it.
There are much better actresses they could of picked.
McCarthy is Adam Sandler of female comedians, casting her would of been casting Sandler, David Spade, Chris Rock, and Rob Schneider in a male reboot.
>>71931539
>If this came out in 2012 (successor to Bridesmaids) there would be no controversy and we'd probably like it.
Incorrect.
>The fact that it came out during the gurllpower cultural """"movement"""" of 15/16 is the primary reason it's so unappealing.
Incorrect.
>If this came earlier and didn't use the female cast as a marketing gimmic, it would likely have been a natural success.
Incorrect.
>>71931539
>If this came out in 2012 (successor to Bridesmaids) there would be no controversy and we'd probably like it.
>The fact that it came out during the gurllpower cultural """"movement"""" of 15/16 is the primary reason it's so unappealing.
>If this came earlier and didn't use the female cast as a marketing gimmic, it would likely have been a natural success.
NOPE.
I wanted a passing of the torch, a sequel. And with funnier people.
I liked bridesmaids even.
But now, now I'm some asshole for not wanting it. So fuck them and their strawman marketing attacks.
>>71931539
Onfy a few MALE niggers can act
I couldn't give any less of a damn about Ghostbusters in general, I wasn't even born when the first movie came out, hell, I haven't even watched it and probably never will.
This one in particular looks very unappealing since most women comedian are not funny at all, I specially hate that fat bitch who's only gag is being fat.
>>71931539
Nope. It's a shitty reboot nobody wanted.
Yeah man, just like it doesn't seem funny.
You could replace the actresses with my own family and I'd still not want to see it.
>>71932048
Honestly, if they had just included the surviving original cast members, in their ORIGINAL ROLES, to pass the torch to the new Ghostbusters there'd probably be less of a controversy
instead they're all just in the movie as different characters to talk down to the femme ghostbusters and then die, it's incredibly mean spirited and spiteful
>>71931539
The controversy only started when manbabies started crying about how their favorite movie was going to be ruined by le evil fempire. Sure it's a marketing gimmick, but it was sexually frustrated men that caused it to be a big deal
>If this came out in 2012 (successor to Bridesmaids) there would be no controversy and we'd probably like it.
George Lucas famously got shat on for doing something like this.
When he cast Samuel L. Jackson in The Phantom Menace - everyone called it a cynical ploy to pander to minorities.
Critics levelled the exact same accusation when he released Red Tails - a project I felt he genuinely cared about.
I don't think Ghostbusters would ever escape controversy. 2012 is the year that Anita Sarkeesian launched the Feminist Frequency Kickstarter and the blacklash against Mass Effect 3 so we would all just be angry at the press. Except we'd call them pleb faggots instead of cucked SJWs.
>>71932333
>>71932267
You're right, its how condescending and arrogant they've been to both fans and skeptics that have driven me completely from watching it and wanting to see it fail instead of being apathetic to it
>>71931539
But it's not funny
>>71932480
Why does she flare her nostrils so much for the stills I've seen of her in this film?
Was that a character choice?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG83qBuQ_A8
>>71932516
She's just sniffing her own yeast-laden queefs, anon.
>>71931539
I feel really bad for Kristen Wiig.
>>71931539
The issue here is that its a shameless cashgrab hiding behind a movement they could give a fuck about and love stoking the flames because its literally free marketing. Furthermore their fuck you attitude towards people combined with an over-saturation of remakes will ultimately lead to poor ticket sales. I havent found anyone in my local area who gives a shit about this movie, and the most Ive heard in person is basically "why is this being made anyway?".
When you thought Leslie Jones couldn't get any worse
http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=apsNZMER3xc#/52;56
>>71932577
It's been a while since I've actively wanted a movie to fail.
I honestly don't give a shit about it starring women, but the fact that I'm told that's the reason any time I voice an opinion on not wanting to see this film makes me want it to collapse in on itself like a dying star.
>>71931539
Ghostbusters 3 seemed like more of a possibility back then - I think people would have been more upset over the franchise being trashed.
>>71932944
I mean technically we already got a third movie, which was pretty good too
>>71931539
You kidding tumblrina? Bridesmaid is one of the most overrated pieces of shit i've ever seen. Gets rave reviews and the only funny shit is from the canadian guy playing an american cop.
Seriously these female comedies that get absurd reviews always fall flat. None of them are comedy classics and are already forgotten. Who the fuck even talks about Bridesmaids? I've literally never seen someone quote it or even use a picture from it. Absolute garbage.
>4 whole years ago nobody could complain on the internet
what are you like 20 trying to mimic an actual adult thats been around long enough to see things change?
shut the fuck up dumb kid
>>71931539
I'd have the same basic feeling about it I do now. Kinda sorta looking forward to it, not what I'd been thinking would happen. It never happens like that anyway though. All of this flap around it has nothing to do with the movie really, though, not for me. Four years ago is the same as four years from now. I don't work at Sony so don't care. I'm glad though, I love the noise around it. People are funnier than anything writers can come up with.
>>71933164
Sometimes you should read what you post before you post it, put it into the context of the topic, as well as the specific climate of said topic. It just might prevent you from coming across as you have here, a >dumb kid
'X movie HATE' threads are marketing threads
So keep talking; keep talking about their product. That's all they care about
>If this came earlier and didn't use the female cast as a marketing gimmic
god if Hitler just hadn't been trying to conquer the world, you would have loved him. It was all just a case of bad timing.
>>71933277
Are you implying I don't love Hitler?
>>71931539
I kind of feel bad for Kristen Wiig and McKinnon. They were offered tons of cash for this and who would say no? They didn't even think this would get so much shit, they probably thought it'd be moderately well received by some and dismissed by others. Why do some people feel possessive of things in which they had no input?
>N-NO DON'T REMAKE THIS MOVIE BECAUSE I SAY SO!
What? Who gives a shit? You're suddenly learning that Hollywood does shitty remakes every fucking year? This flick is on par with Pixels, nothing more. But all the trash that's been written about it, both from retarded SJW and people who hated it the minute it was announced have made sure that Sony won. Gentle reminder that you fucking neckbeards casted the first stone, you started this. Next year? Ocean's Eleven. You made your bed, now lie in it
>>71933047
>canadian guy
Chris O'Dowd is Irish as hell.
>>71931539
Christ they should have called this Glassbusters.
In 2012 it would have been despised and forgotten like so many other shitty remakes, Conan, Total Recall, Robocop etc.
>>71933233
That's exactly what you were trying to do faggot, nobody misinterpreted you, you made a dumb statement about your perceived sudden change in social climate out of inexperience since the social media fad has been your whole life experience. now take your lashings.
>>71933392
Cause of the "Cieling"?
false premise is false.
/tv/ always hates reboots. always.
>>71933164
This
>>71933356
Mostly agrede with you, although I do hate the whole reboot thing and abstain from seeing those movies. It's just people who don't want to put effort into creating something
>>71933375
idk why I said canadian for some reason I think of him as canadian, i can't remember why though..
>>71933277
But I do love Hitler. Checkmate, feminists.
>select all images with pickup trucks
Gob bless
>>71931539
>shitty cash grab reboot of a beloved movie in order to try to create a Hollywood Franchise to suck money out of
>written and directed by Paul fucking Feig
This would've been shit with any cast.
Having an all-female cast allowed them to market this turd using MUH SOGGY KNEES, which was a very smart decision
>>71932333
>60 literally who blogs giving it 10/10
>actual critics are shitting on it
>>71933691
>>shitty cash grab reboot of a beloved movie
Nope, only history revisionist fags who weren't alive when it was released and who have a huge nostalgia boner for it(having nostalgia, for something nobody cared about earlier, most hipster thing that you can so)
> order to try to create a Hollywood Franchise to suck money out of
Was there only one movie, or why are you acting so retarded
>them jews
Yeah, I forgot that the original movies and any other movie is made with 0$ profit in mind.
>>71933879
Here's your (You)
You earned it :^)
>>71933716
>actual critics
>literal who's
Lmao, how about pirating it and uttering your own opinion instead?
>caring about movie critics
>or any critic for that matter
El oh el
>>71933896
>no arguments
>just memes
Wouldn't except anything else from a retard who thinks Ghostbusters is a 'beloved' movie.
>>71933443
No on account of all the mirrors their ugly asses broke
>>71933933
>anger that his b8 wasn't taken after he worked so hard on it
Here's one more (You) just for those dubs
>>71932333
This is a ghostbusters for people who never cared about ghostbusters
boy so they were sure wrong and should change their minds now that a bunch of grown up Harry Potter fans like it.
>>71933440
I made no such change with what I said from before, I'd said nothing before. How can you stomach the shit you say about others, given you have no fucking clue as to who you are speaking? You are nothing but a dumb kid with too much time to postulate your words. I can only imagine it comes from somewhere inside yourself. If that's the case, I feel sorry for you. But only so far as to say get some fucking help, cause you won't get it here with that worthless attitude.
>>71931539
Week I kinda agree with a half of what you said !! It has been said that a good premise can be turned into a product, has variety of face. For I care, it could've done with higher teens or elderly. So this production probably is successfully done by theoretically. DESU, I would've more thrill to see that the original casts go on to have family & make the ghostbusting business even larger. Then the new era takes off & whole new twist and turns can be dumped in. The cameos that has been said to be in a new film, even naturally make sense.
Bridesmaids was fucking garbage.
>>71932111
Great memed nigguh.
>>71932539
unrelated but when mccarthy is like possessed she has that look like she wants to peg my ass with a dick made of lard and right now i could really use that in my life.
It was an ok film
>>71932333
>but it was sexually frustrated men that caused it to be a big deal
That explains the countless women that hate this movie.
Oh wait.
>>71932333
nah the big deal started when they released that dog shit trailer and it got more dislikes than any youtube video in history. Quit being a Sony apologist, it's worst than being a virgin man baby
>>71931539
Based off of trailers I've seen on TV I don't think it looks too bad. Looks nice and the black girl is funny, my problem is the short piggy. Can't we get at least one babe? I mean I don't care about most other shit just give me some eye candy. Why could they do this? That's right because this movie is literally all about girl power.
>All the retard Liberals on Facebook unironically saying "I'm going to go see this movie just to spite the haters!"
This is how dumb they've gotten.
Paying $12 or more to spend an hour and a half watching a shitty movie created by an inept, corrupt and poorly-managed company so that very same company can be made that much richer, because it's what their Liberal dogma commands them to do.
>>71935253
I'd never go see a movie that people I didn't like hated unless it looked good to begin with. How anyone can think this movie looks good is beyond my capacity for comprehension
>>71931539
>Came out in 2012, there would be no controversy and we'd probably like it.
Nigga wat. Like two years before Harold Ramis died. If anything people would be extra mad that the original cast was getting the shaft for some gimmicky femboot by the wicked witch (Amy Pascal) and her beta faggot (Paul Feig)
Must be bait.
Kevin Smith on Ghostbusters:
>Describing the film as kid-friendly, Smith went on to reveal which star made him literally LOL during the film. He said, “You know who’s awesome? Thor...Oh my god, he’s so funny in the movie. Like, he’s got a gift for comedy. He made me laugh out loud quite a few times. Thor, go figure! God of Thunder, man. God of Chuckles, more like.”
http://comicbook.com/2016/07/12/kevin-smith-reviews-ghostbusters-reboot/
>>71931539
>The fact that it came out during the gurllpower cultural """"movement"""" of 15/16 is the primary reason it's so unappealing.
wrong. the coincidence of a bunch of literal korean hackers exposing sony's attempt to threaten bill murray with aggressive litigation is what made this so unappealing. then to have sony and everyone working on the project refuse to even address that they were ostensibly blackmailing the man to be part of it and instead choose to double down on the sexist issue to misdirect like that is the only thing going on here made it genuinely annoying.
fuck this limp-dicked hack director and his disingenuous paycheck-clawing harpy "actresses".
in hollywood "progressiveness" is a meme. it is a guise to cover up the same old cabalistic scheming and plotting as always. fuck 'em and their faux outrage over "sexists".
>>71932347
>When he cast Samuel L. Jackson in The Phantom Menace - everyone called it a cynical ploy to pander to minorities.
>Critics levelled the exact same accusation when he released Red Tails - a project I felt he genuinely cared about.
Sam J was pandering. Red Tails is inherently pandering and possibly stranger since the story had been told on film before, and was handled so fucking poorly.
Let's not forget Lucas BLEACHED a sheboon, and that this probably influenced the Red Tails fiasco.
>>71933258
>'X movie HATE' threads are marketing threads
>So keep talking; keep talking about their product. That's all they care about
Why do you keep trying to sell this meme? Are you a marketer?
>>71935253
I love watching liberals who "hate capitalism" fire up their Macbooks to tell people to buy products for a movie because it's ideologically aligned with them.
>>71936344
Wow! Elbert's Replacement tears it apart.
Guess it's pretty shit, after all.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/
>>71931539
>If this came out in 2012 (successor to Bridesmaids) there would be no controversy
Correct, because the SJW bullshit barely even had a name at that point. Let alone have any recognition beyond people familiar with Dickwolves or the MLP fandom (derpygate).
> and we'd probably like it.
The general consensus will be whatever it is now. The only advantage 2012 has is that maybe we wouldn't have been completely burned out on reboots?
>>71936454
firing up a macbook is just a means of communication. if you want to be in contact with people and current ideas on a globall scale with any kind of immediacy you need a computer and an internet connection. that is more circumstantial and slightly ironical than some damning indictment on the ideological state of modern liberalism.
that is the real indicting thing with modern liberalism is that they REFUSE to see the very close historical and allegorical ties to fascism that they are perpetrating with their language policing. they are willfully blind to their natural culpability in the human condition: that being that everyday people like you and I almost always (consciously or subconsciously) try to covet power at the expense of another.
controlling the means of discourse is still a power play. no matter how altruistic you convince yourself that your goals are. if you can't see the vicarious thrill that controlling the means of discourse affords you then you are lying to yourself.
women (and "men") have seen that with twitter boycotts and the like they can literally get people fired and change the directions of their lives and subvert their past work and goals. this turns into a constant desire and need for those who feel disenfranchised and without a personal sense of power. they covet the practice and over time the act of this liberal indignation becomes just as much if not more about recapturing that vicarious power than the initial message.
