File: 1468285401640.jpg (1.5 MB, 1693x1074, ghostbusters-full-new-img.jpg)
No. 102498
Don't see what the big shitfest is about tbh, the trailers make it look like a regular ok-tier summer Blockbuster. I'll probably watch it eventually but not in theatres. I'm a fan of Kate McKinnon and her character looks the most entertaining, so I'm mostly watching it for her. Also I'm digging the pretty but dumb character Hemsworth is playing, we don't have enough straight male versions of that.
I'm a bit disappointed though, went to see Finding Dory this weekend and the Ghostbusters trailer in the theatre spoiled the big reveal for the movie so that was a bit shitty.
>>102492Not sure if you're joking but two are probably the biggest female comedians in film right now (Wiig and McCarthy). The other two I'll give you because they're SNL alums so if you aren't following that you won't really recognise them.
No. 102504
It's going to be so, so bad. It's written AND directed by Paul Feig so you know it's going to be terrible. The GRILL POWAH aspect is only there to help sell it better, not to make some kind of important feminist stand. I'm appalled at all the women who are excited about this even though it clearly reduces our gender to a marketing trick. But to be quite honest, the only people I've witnessed to be excited about this piece of shit are self-important male feminists trying to score brownie points. Most girls are either indifferent, going to see it for Hemsworth or believe it won't work without the original cast.
>>102472This. The original Ghostbusters was 100% about its awesome cast. It was always all about the cast. That's why they tried desperately for like 20 years to try and get Bill Murray to return for the 3rd part because they knew the movie wouldn't work without him.
>>102492Also this. I'm all for good female representation but they literally took a franchise well-known for its beloved cast, made everyone a dumb female stereotype and pretty much advertised it as a cornerstone of feminist cinema. Oh yes, I can't wait to see the sassy black mammy stereotype constantly referencing the fact that she's a sassy black mammy. And McCarthy being the token quirky fat girl? Hilarious! It's just trying to quickly cash in on both the Ghostbusters name and the feminist crowd and it doesn't even make an attempt at hiding it.
No. 102674
>>102504I was able to go to an advance screening yesterday,all in all the movie was ok had its funny parts, and the trailers for it did give away quite a bit of the movie,and all but one person from the main cast is in it.
Also, people would already know this cause the guys did talk about it.
No. 102676
>>102513How can that cast compete with a unlobotomized Hemsworth? He'd steal the show completely.
Plus the feminist producer figure needs her blood sacrifice. Well sacrifices, to be exact. This is bit of a spoiler, but the gurrl squad ends the movie by shooting a giant creeper ghost in the dick. Take that, patriarchy. Male tears, yum yum yum etc. etc.
No. 102687
>>102685Knock yourself out anon
Doubt it will top the original
No. 102688
>>102492It gives off the "buh wimmin r funny 2" impression to me. Which yes… women are funny too. I know plenty fgs. But I don't see the reason why GB had to be remade? They said "for dis generation" in an interview I saw on SKY movies featuring this pile of shit.
I'm not all about people attacking these actresses. But I just think it's pointless to remake it. Same goes for other remakes unless it's around 50/60 years old… Ghostbusters isn't even that old. I don't think so anyway.
It's like Carrie… there is two remakes of that one. The first was fine.
Glad they're not touching Back to the future. I'd cry.
No. 102693
>>102492>>102692All male ghostbusters?
Awesome! A classic. No concern here.
All female ghostbusters?
OMG FEMINAZI SJW AGENDA PUSHING!!! FUCK THIS!!!
No. 102696
>>102685All the trolls complaining about the film have underhyped it. It makes me want to go see this film.
>>102687Nothing will top the original. However, nothing tops the original. Star Wars Episode IV will never be topped by another Star War film.
No. 102731
File: 1468393227209.jpeg (24.99 KB, 236x329, image.jpeg)
>>102728I regret nothing.
No. 102735
>>102704I read alongside someone reciting the text.
SPOILERS: The trailer is about the best of the entire movie, the one guy is only there for eye candy and the ending is shit as to be expected.
No. 102753
>>102750Why so mad? I didn't say it was good, or that the outrage was completly unneccessary. And no, I don't see the same outrage about male casts, sorry.
But even if you switch the cast to a male or even mixed ones, it remains a cheap cash-in movie that wants to bank on people's nostalgia. It's a safe reboot (or remake, whatever) of a franchise adding to the tons of unoriginal content that film studios loooove to pump out constantly, that nobody really asked for. The only memorable thing is the cast gimmick. I just don't really get the enormous outrage over the casting when the whole movie is a nostalgia based, probably forgetable cash grab.
The money spend for this should have been invested into something nice and original, but nooo, Hollywood can't take any risks anymore which is why we mostly only have 3000 superhero movies and sequels, reboots and shit like that.
No. 102768
>>102705Because a female cast in an original narrative would be too dangerous. Better we just have them play roles that men have already proved to be safe.
How is this empowering again?
>>102758Someone will genuinely believe that idea is viable
No. 102778
>>102723Oh god this movie was so bad lmao. It's 2 hours long but it feels like 4 hours.
I realized from the very beginning though that they entire movie was a sex fantasy for bored women.
>10/10 hunky male lead who is always shirtless>his entire character is "wildman in the sheets, gentlemen in the streets" >Jane is the perfect vessel for women to project themselves onto, she's a pretty girl that's never done anything but Tarzan is inexplicably in love with her and her entire life consists of being pleasured and protected by him No. 102792
>>102469I've seen the trailer too many times now. The gags are dated… and seriously, a woman theoretical physicist? Please.
The movie sucks so bad it's not even funny.
No. 102794
>>102778It's interesting that you didn't notice the glaring white guilt the entire movie was glazed with.
>every white male (excluding the protagonist) is the embodiment of pure evil and sadismIt was physically painful to watch.
No. 102795
>>102787True
>>102794I did notice it and it was really cringey. But it was doubly cringey because, while peddling a massive amount of really lame white guilt, it was also peddling a massive amount of the "white liberal savior" complex ie it takes the white liberal who "understands" nature to save the poor, woeful blacks.
No. 102798
>>102753> I just don't really get the enormous outrage over the casting when the whole movie is a nostalgia based, probably forgetable cash grab. There is no enormous outrage over _the genders_ except all the marginal MRAs who piss themselves at every female character anyway. The press just used that as a scoop material to make up this "huge misogynistic outrage" to pass everyone not excited for the idea as a sexist manbaby. Most people react to it the same way they react to every other cheap reboot. The thing that sets ghostbusters apart from something like a Friday the 13th reboot though is that it got so popular because of its' cast alone and the 3rd movie was in the works for decades but was cancelled every time they tried to go somewhere. And instead of the 3rd movie with the original cast the fans got a cheap ass reboot with a cheap ass "feminist" gimmick because it's the marketing ploy of this year. THAT'S the reason why people are so particularly mad at this bullshit.
They should've just made a continuation of the story where Harold Ramis is dead but the rest of the cast is there and they're like. old and tired and their young students want to pick up where they left off. AND got Aykroyd to write it. That could've actually worked, even with an all female cast. He can write good female characters, the secretary in the original one was hilarious.
No. 103494
File: 1468778938289.jpg (10.26 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg)
>>103473This is what bothers me. It was genuinely unfunny and not a well written or directed movie, yet the sjw and far left will eat it up because 'GURL POWER!!'
That's not how it works.
No. 103501
>>103494Ideology trumps everything. Small trifles like reality won't get in the way of their beliefs.
That being said, both of us are guilty of this to some degree.
No. 103744
>>103728Yes, anon.
Am I so fucking old already there are people who have no idea who Siskel & Ebert or Roeper are?