Ghostbusters with a woman, a black man, a disabled man and a latino gets made

> Ghostbusters with a woman, a black man, a disabled man and a latino gets made
> Everybody loves it and asks for more.
> Ghostbusters with four women gets made
> Everyone fucking loses their shit
What went wrong, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

One was animated couples with that I'm pretty sure most people don't know it exists, and the other was not for starters

>What went wrong, Sup Forums?

It just wasn't funny.

Extreme Ghostbusters didn't try to replace the original.

replace all the extreme ghostbusters with all guys/all girls and it would still be fine

make the ghostbusters 2016 half guys/half girls, and it is still not funny

Women aren't funny.

But plenty of people already decided they disliked it for having four women before the movie was even released.

Was Extreme Ghostbusters made for the sake of diversity?

Was the recent Ghostbusters movie made for the sake of "why cant they be all women, huh"?

Again, just look at the cast. You can tell that it was artificially made to be as diverse as fucking possible. And everyone STILL loved it.

One is a sequel, with new characters, who learn from and respect the existing characters (Egon and Janine) and are distinguished from the originals (Real vs. Extreme Ghostbusters). The other is a reboot that ignores the old characters and replaces them with less likable characters. The Extreme Ghostbusters wasn't pushed as a better show because of diversity, it just had diversity as a side thing. The 2016 Ghostbusters only had the all women thing as a pull, and it felt shallow and like a bad parody reboot. Its like blaxploitation movies, there isn't anything good beyond the initial genderflip.

>What went wrong, Sup Forums?

The new movie spent so much time shitting on the original instead of trying to tell it's own story that it wasn't fun for older fans and the movie wasn't very funny or well-made, so it wasn't fun for new viewers either unless they were automatically willing to give it a pass because GRRRL POWER!

Pretty much. The finale was even dedicated to them realizing that they wouldn't be as good as the originals, who have since gone and done their own thing and retired happily, save for Egon... and the originals offering sage advice and telling the kids not to be bothered by them and go their own way of doing things - and the epic meeting point where new ideas and old elbow grease come together, they beat the Bermuda Triangle.

Joke's on you, I didn't bother with this show back then. It's originals or bust.
Besides the whole EXTREME look made me not interested, neither the idea of Egon being stuck on a wheelchair.

>plenty
it really wasn't that many

Sony deleted youtube comments complaining about poor CGI or comedy in the trailer. They left comments complaining about women. It made the misogynist comments badly over-represented, which is what led to the who stupid gender argument.

Really the movie just didn't look great.

>Was Extreme Ghostbusters made for the sake of diversity?
Yes, like a lot of cartoons around that time
Look at Captain Planet

Diversity isn't a bad thing to have. The problem is when it's the only thing you have

No, they simply saw the trailer

Have you ever Amy Schumer talk about her vagina?

Girls are smart and funny. Get over it.

...

I'm pretty sure user was just joking

1) because the trailers were *awful*, and comedy trailers are notoriously bad for giving away their funniest moments. if all you do is cringe at a comedy trailer its almost a sure bet the movie itself is only going to be worse

2) making matters worse, Feig went on a nerd-bashing and male-bashing binge as an excuse of how poorly the trailer was received. attacking your core audience is rarely a winning advertising

did people decide this movie wasn't for them before the movie was released? yes, thats what every single one of us do when we watch trailers and go "i want to see that" or "i dont want to see that". unless you're going to the theater to watch 100.00% of movies released, you are exercising discretion and prioritizing your movie dollars.

did people decide the movie wasn't for them because it had 4 women stars? No, you've flipped cause and effect entirely:

1) the trailer stunk
2) people replied that the trailer stunk
3) Feig declared naysayers as misogynists

Just because he said it doesn't make it true. I *wanted* this movie to be good, I like Wiig and McKinnon especially, I enjoyed Bridesmaids well enough and hoped that Ghostbusters would be at least up to that bar. But it just wasn't.

I remember that first trailer

Saying how 4 scientists saved new york and then we get told it was a reboot and not a sequel

If the movie was actually a sequel it might have actually done better if one of the ladies was say a daughter or some shit like that

It's not like this is the first time that Sony has been caught paying for fake positive reviews when they think a movie is about to bomb:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

You don't even have to make the character someone's daughter or relative. One of the female Ghostbusters could be a former student who worked with Egon Spengler and who wants to carry on his work. It would be a way to tactfully acknowledge the character even though the actor who played him is dead now.

That didn't excuse all the vitriol.

90s diversity was cringey but ultimately well-meaning. 2010s diversity is about being praised for doing good.

People have just gotten worse over time.

>Everybody loves it and asks for more
Zone is not "everybody"

Most of it was exaggerated. See

Well that was also because the trailer was awful

Didn't they also blackmail Bill Murray into working on it? They did everything wrong in this mess.

It was the same issue as 1998 Godzilla, where it has nothing to do with the originals, but wants to cash in on the name. If its a different story, different characters, and different comedy style, then call it something else. Anyone who expected the movie to be like the old ones would be disappointed, and anyone who didn't like the old ones had little reason to watch it. Same problem as the Evil Dead remake (the movie, not the TV show), who is the target audience?

He didn't want to appear in the movie, but he had to make a cameo because of contractual obligations. He looked miserable the whole time.

Hello Paul Faggot and Shitsey Jones.

>Paul Faggot
>not "Paul Fag"

>Evil Dead remake
You know, it wasn't really that bad
It was nothing like the old Evil Dead, but it a bad stand-alone movie

>He looked miserable the whole time

in fairness, that's his normal state outside of Cubs World Series wins.

>he didn't like Evil Dead remake
Preach, brother. I thought I was alone in the universe.

Usually he looks miserable funny. Or did, back when he did comedies instead of... whatever were those movies he made since 2000, aside from Zombieland. In most of those it's just miserable I guess.

obviously all women isnt as diverse as the first troupe you listed.

I went to watch it because of the Ash "cameo". BOY was I disappointed.

1998 Godzilla is a guilty pleasure of mine, though. I think it's the 90s blockbuster feel of it.

as it's own monster movie it's a pretty good "bad" movie, and I actually like Zilla's design, but it's not Godzilla.

I fucking loved the toys though. And with Rifftrax it's a pretty great movie.

>disliked it for having four women
prove it

The thing about Evil Dead is that each of the three movies in that series are a different genre from the others, so which tone do you remake?

People remember Ash's character and the mix of horror and slapstick that fit that character most fondly about the series, but the first film wasn't that, it was famous for how over the top the blood and gore was, so that's what the remake did.

It's sort of like how there's two completely different groups of Mortal Kombat fans, people interested in the story and people who only care about fatalities.

What I do appreciate about the extreme ghostbusters cartoon was the guy in the wheelchair was kind of an asshole who wasn't afraid to poke fun at his own condition.

Because the internet wasn't as ubiquitous then as it was now, especially with the rise of social media giving everyone a soap box. There were probably people pissed about it then too, but they didn't have an outlet for letting people know.

Ghostbusters 2016 was a bad movie. It was one of the most cringe inducing experiences at the theater. I was embarrassed for every actor involved.

I'm more annoyed by how hyped up the villain was and ended up being a boring female Evil Ash rehash spouting DmC-tier profanities and defeated so easily it's hard to consider it any kind of threat.

Ghostbusters was a bad movie, but it wasn't the most terrible thing in the world. It wasn't very well written or directed, but it wasn't the worst.

it's a lower than mediocre movie that suffers even more from trying to ape the original while pretending that they thought it up.

In the long run it will be forgotten, save for the people that keep bringing it up to talk about how bad it was.

Blaxploitation movies can be fun though

Maybe the fact that they were women didnt have anything to do with why it was a mediocre movie, with ATROCIOUS comedy

Bros, is it possible to get a girl into the Evil Dead these days? I need advice here.

According to Ash vs. Evil Dead, Army of Darkness is non-canon.

They referenced Ash time travelling to the middle ages in the second season. Its just that Army of Darkness is its own comic series franchise, and the show only has the rights to the Evil Dead franchise.

It's hard to tell up to which point even Evil Dead 2 is canon. Or how much of the first and how much of the second one, too.

Maybe if you start with Evil Dead 2, and then the TV show. The first isn't really a good tone setter, and AoD has a lot of flaws.

New Ghostbusters failed because it was unfunny and every character was really dumb.

Every. Fucking. Character.

Even the chinese delivery man was played really dumb.

Not of the Evil Dead films segue into the other coherently, so it makes sense that Ash vs. Evil Dead would have its continuity discrepancies. Doesn't mean AoD is non-canon, just that it has the same seguing oversights with AvsED.

I haven't seen season 2 yet, but I heard the producers paid Lionsgate or whoever owns the AoD license so they can now reference the film directly instead of alluding to it subtly like they did in season 1.

Look if she enjoys goofy horror shit, she'll love it
If she doesn't, she won't. Evil Dead is great but there's not point in pretending it isn't kind of niche

>Not of the Evil Dead films segue into the other coherently
ED1 is totally disconnected from ED2, but 2 leads directly into AoD

>but 2 leads directly into AoD

ED2 ends with Ash killing a winged Deadite and being hailed as a hero by the Medieval population.

AoD opens with Ash being attacked and taken prisoner by the knights the moment they see him, ignoring the whole final scene from ED2.

So it's not a perfect segue.

It was diverse in both designs and characters, that's why

Also I appreciate the fact that the Wheelchair guy was an asshole.

You're right, but it is close enough that you understand it's supposed to be a direct sequel

ED1 and ED2 have nothing like that.

True. I remember seeing ED2 for the first time and not getting that the first 15 minutes were a condensed remake of ED1, being totally lost.

This.

Normally the best thing would be release order to experience the evolution.

If she likes serious horror, watch 1 first, release order
If she's more into horror-comedy, watch 2 first, then Army, then 1
If she's more into comedy-adventure, watch Army first, then reverse order

2 and Army start with loose recaps of the previous films.

The show is loose enough for fresh viewers but better for those who've watched the films.

Would it be best to watch the show and if she likes it show her ED2 and AoD? I think that is going to be the plan.

Did the female ghostbusters movie bomb?

there are also several comics and games about evil dead too

Extreme Ghostbusters was good

the remake movie sucked balls, and the creator cried sexism when people pointed out the film's lack of quality

Yea Kevin went way past funny dumb to me actually worrying if he needed a special helmet and care.

And the rest were just atrocious. No real chemistry between them just all making their own jokes all the way through. The herse scene was total cringe as was McKinnon most the time.

Feig really failed when given a standing franchise. Banishing to schlock is too good for him.

He should be back to television as a bit character.

it bombed hard

Theybhad to cut characters because of copyright issues, 2 statys exactly when 1 ends right after the disjointed flashback at the beginning.
It's not a remake and ash wasn't returnng with a new girlfiend. For fuck sakes. Ive been explaining this since I was 13 and started watching horror.
If you want a version that connectsbthem nicely go see the musical, scott is the main antagonist.

>Did the female ghostbusters movie bomb?

>Budget $144mil
>Box office $229.1mil

Budget doesn't account for marketing costs and various theater/distributor cuts (overseas markets taken more than domestic in that regard).

So it's in that grey area where they say it was a success but not enough of one to qualify as worth the expense.

good

Yep, underperformed and now is best forgotten.

Some say merchandise helped it break even. But I never saw anything of it at my local stores outside of a speciality store and even then not much.

For the longest time I thought 2 was just a remake of 1.

Bombed hard, I think. In the opening day there were several tweets with photos from empty theatres.

One was good and one was not.

>But plenty of people already decided they disliked it for having four women before the movie was even released.

That's the point of trailers.

But their scorched earth marketing against men earned them no favors much less Feig using the movie account to most that #Imwithher Hillary Clinton stuff.

So yea it's not a film anyone wants to remember.

But hey Ivan Reitman is now back in control and pursuing a animated series based off concepts from the first Ghostbusters script.

WHOA what

>The studio’s animation division is planning a television series entitled “Ghostbuster: Ecto Force.” The show is being spearheaded by Ivan Reitman, the director of the original 1984 blockbuster, and will focus on a new generation of Ghostbusters. It will be set in the year 2050. The show is eyeing an early 2018 debut.

One team out of many other teams based in the future. So yea a lot like Aykroyd original script.

>a new generation
oh

I thought you meant the first Ghostbusters movie's original script.

The first episode kind of banks on you having seen the films first, some parts probably won't be as funny.

Try ED2, then episode 1. The events of Army doesn't really matter to the show apart from giving Ash his current wisecracking personality, so watch it whenever. It's also the least scary/gory, so it's the odd duck of the franchise now.

>there are also several comics and games about evil dead too

Unfortunately, the AoD comics are really, really, REALLY bad. The ED comics I haven't read; heard they were better. It's weird, since the ED movies and the AoD movie are held by different companies, they can be licensed separately, but they just cannot coexist.

The AoD comics read like fanfiction and eventually devolved into one crossover after another.

The ED video games are shovelware-tier.

They also deleted negative comments from woman.

The sexism narrative was far before the trailer though. When people were commenting that they weren't interested in a Ghostbusters movie without the original cast the sexism rants flew loose.

Sony's emails before production had already talked about using sexism as a marketing gimmick.

One was a continuation of the series. The other was a reboot that came after years of waiting for a sequel.

>When people were commenting that they weren't interested in a Ghostbusters movie without the original cast the sexism rants flew loose.

>People ask James Rolfe if he'll be reviewing the movie
>James Rolfe says the trailer looked bad, so no
>Patton Oswald calls Rolfe a sexist and rallies a hate mob against him

WTF there is no rational cohesion to that chain of events. Disliking the 2016 Ghostbusters film is apparently a thought crime, now.

Reitman being back in control feels like a Hail Mary by the studio.

Fieg said it needed 500 to warrant a sequel.

The supposed three movie plan was terrible though and no way the Russo brothers have time to make the second movie now anyway.

Sony wanted to make it a political statement. Not seeing it or not liking it meant you were sexist, that you were in the wrong. And so many idiots latched onto that.

They took arms and defended their politics over their taste. Do you really think Patton Oswalt or half these people thought it was funny or do you think they shilled it because their political views required them to?

>The IDW Ghostbusters comic will now be incorporating the 2016 movie characters into its cast

That was a good Ghostbusters comic we had there once. Ah well.

>>The IDW Ghostbusters comic will now be incorporating the 2016 movie characters into its cast

That's a joke from south park

>replace all men with women
What is this the 90ies? Do people actually think this shit is innovative or ground breaking?

>oh so diverse
An all women cast is just as diverse as an all male cast if you haven't noticed
Diversity isn't equivalent to 'removing all the white males'

>everyone loses their shit
People lost their shit over how lame the trailer was. Full of Adam Sandler style fart vomit humor, lame stereotypes, horrible CGI, camera work like in a comedy movie and boring unlikable characters. And the movie just confirmed all of these suspicions.

Calling everyone who complained about the move misogynists was a desperate attempt at damage control, which didn't help it's aggregate user ratings by the way. It's a shit movie.

yes, roooo i can't stand women in movies
it had nothing to do with it being breathtakingly unfunny, but it had those icky females in it

>AoD has a lot of flaws

Well, you're a fucking faggot who sucks pozz dick.

Bingo. The old team even teams up with the new at some point.

Ego mentored them too and was around in every episode. It helped that the cast was likable.

Most people would have been open to a passing of the torch movie I think. It certainly didn't help that so many involved push that it was better than the original.

Because there was no need to do a Ghostbuster reboot. The second is that the movie was not funny nor memorable like the original film.

I love how SJWism permeates throughout Hollywood nowadays except for the fact that the black Ghostbuster was a stereotypical loud black woman without scientific acumen. At least Winston in the original film came off as the straight man; the regular guy whose POV is meant to take a look at the paranormal stuff and the way the other Ghostbusters act with skepticism.

Fuck off, I can like a movie and still recognize it has problems.

Oh, sure.

In your original post, it sounded like it had just flaws.

Nevermind then.