[Kingpin]

The true "bullies" are those who can't seem to take no for an answer. There's nothing sexist, racist, or "toxic" about not agreeing with certain topics. Some stuff just rubs people the wrong way.

The actual bullies are the people who've suggested that sick children in a hospital would turn off their life support systems after meeting the reboot cast, and who've been saying some pretty abhorrent things in relation to Patton Oswalt's wife.

The new movie is for babies (young and old) who want to be distracted.

This movie is for a new generation of fans, not "babies who want to be distracted".

[RedWithEvil]

It's sad theres nothing "new" for the new generation - aside from remakes. I'm glad I'm an old smelly fella I guess. Does this mean people of "non new" generations aren't entitled to new content? The 80s nostalgia tank banks on this, why did they throw in the towel for GB? For the new generation? Why? Whyyyyy.

I think people take simple phrases, or ideas as something that is deep, and meaningful (when it's convenient).

And to further clarify, I didn't call anyone a "baby". I said the movie is for babies, you can make it into something it isn't, I'll be ok with it. But, for the topics sake (which people always seem to get off on). Yes, GB2016 is a gimmick, and I think it blows.

I may not be "new generation, new school, new age". But I'm not above stuffing my trousers with Ecto Cooler and seeing the original film in June. Or shall I say.. "GHOSTBUSTERS 1984" And that's another thing.. is everything about the original Ghostbusters gonna be "1984" this, "Classics" that? Whyyyy.

Another reason GB2016 is driving a wedge. They didn't seek to bring people together, they sought to drive them apart. They are sorry, not sorry.

[Kingpin]

I didn't call anyone a "baby". I said the movie is for babies

How is saying "it's a movie for babies who want to be distracted" not calling some people babies? What other meaning could it possibly have?

[RedWithEvil]

I didn't call anyone a "baby". I said the movie is for babies

How is saying "it's a movie for babies who want to be distracted" not calling some people babies? What other meaning could it possibly have?

Well it depends on context. Babies could be technically "babies", as in infants. None of which go to theaters. It could be babies, as in man babies, which there seems to be ALOT for GB2016 just as those whom don't like it. Babies could be someone whom as I mentioned wants to be distracted for a certain measure of time. Babies could be babies, like Britney Spears baby baby hit me one more time. Babies could be anyone under a certain age of those who reference others as "babies". Like for a 60 yr old, a 40 yr old could be a baby. OR according to Urban Dictionary, it could just be a term of endearment.

[Alphagaia]

With that logic calling someone an asshole is ok because while it could be interpreted negative, one also could see it as a way to relieve yourself, and feeling relieved is nice.

[RedWithEvil]

In theory.

[Raystantz Italy]

Something new for a new generation? Like the firehouse, slimer, the meeting with the major, a bumbling assistant being possessed and helping release the apocalypse, a big white puffy villain?

[Kingpin]

BackpeddliWell it depends on context. Babies could be technically "babies", as in infants. None of which go to theaters. It could be babies, as in man babies, which there seems to be ALOT for GB2016 just as those whom don't like it. Babies could be someone whom as I mentioned wants to be distracted for a certain measure of time. Babies could be babies, like Britney Spears baby baby hit me one more time. Babies could be anyone under a certain age of those who reference others as "babies". Like for a 60 yr old, a 40 yr old could be a baby. OR according to Urban Dictionary, it could just be a term of endearment.

That's definitely one of the more awkward backpedals I've read.

[RedWithEvil]

BackpeddliWell it depends on context. Babies could be technically "babies", as in infants. None of which go to theaters. It could be babies, as in man babies, which there seems to be ALOT for GB2016 just as those whom don't like it. Babies could be someone whom as I mentioned wants to be distracted for a certain measure of time. Babies could be babies, like Britney Spears baby baby hit me one more time. Babies could be anyone under a certain age of those who reference others as "babies". Like for a 60 yr old, a 40 yr old could be a baby. OR according to Urban Dictionary, it could just be a term of endearment.

That's definitely one of the more awkward backpedals I've read.

lol, excellent.

[pferreira1983]

Nope. I think you'll find it's about equal except the male ones get more attention paid to them.

A cursory glance at the action movie genre doesn't appear to support your assertion that things are "about equal", there are a lot more male-driven action films then there are women-driven ones.

Tomb Raider films: 2
Resident Evil films: 6
Underworld films: 5

Fast and the Furious films: 8
The Mummy films: 3 (4 if you include The Scorpion King)
The Transporter films: 4

The Resident Evil and Underworld franchises may be exceptions to the general rule, as I can't as easily recall many other women-led actions franchises with multiple films that come close to equalling The Fast and the Furious franchise (and I can't believe that dross has 8 films to date).

Why is that? Well more men are movie addicts than women that's why.

Are they? I'd be interested to know if a study on that's been conducted. I think I've been to some showings where there were more women in the audience than men, though the showings in question had small turnouts.

Does it have to female action movies? Really? Is that the only way women can be seen as equal? Yikes.

[pferreira1983]

With that logic calling someone an asshole is ok because while it could be interpreted negative, one also could see it as a way to relieve yourself, and feeling relieved is nice.

Oh great, that would be funny had I not used that joke already last week.

[pferreira1983]

Nope. I think you'll find it's about equal except the male ones get more attention paid to them. Why is that? Well more men are movie addicts than women that's why. If you take into account the number of films for either sex whether that sex has been portrayed properly I think you'll find it's about even.

T-t-triple post!!!

So you think it's equal already?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? The links in the OP and the dialogue link disprove yours big time so I'm quite curious why you think this and if you can back it up with numbers.

Sorry what did you just say? Still trying to take in that you compared Feig's work to avant-garde. Now I know you're either an obsessed Feig fan or a Sony leak.

[Kingpin]

Does it have to female action movies? Really? Is that the only way women can be seen as equal? Yikes.

It doesn't, but compared to other genres of film and television, action is the genre in which female leads have had the most success in film. Compared to romance, while Bridget Jones in popular, she's only now just getting her third film. In thrillers/crime, V.I. Warshawski's only gotten one film (which, by coincidence, had the Firehouse filming location in it).

Female-helmed series seem to be doing better (Body of Proof, Desperate Housewives, Sex and the City, Judging Amy to name a few, but some of these examples are going back several years, even a decade or two.

[pferreira1983]

Does it have to female action movies? Really? Is that the only way women can be seen as equal? Yikes.

It doesn't, but compared to other genres of film and television, action is the genre in which female leads have had the most success in film. Compared to romance, while Bridget Jones in popular, she's only now just getting her third film. In thrillers/crime, V.I. Warshawski's only gotten one film (which, by coincidence, had the Firehouse filming location in it).

Female-helmed series seem to be doing better (Body of Proof, Desperate Housewives, Sex and the City, Judging Amy to name a few, but some of these examples are going back several years, even a decade or two.

I really don't see it as bad as you guys do. If you take films from the past three decades into account films with women in lead roles has been pretty good. They may not have been famous films but like male lead films you have good and bad.

[Alphagaia]

T-t-triple post!!!

So you think it's equal already?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? The links in the OP and the dialogue link disprove yours big time so I'm quite curious why you think this and if you can back it up with numbers.

Sorry what did you just say? Still trying to take in that you compared Feig's work to avant-garde. Now I know you're either an obsessed Feig fan or a Sony leak.

Ha. The old dodging the answer when you know it would put you in the corner trick!

Regarding the art comparison: Someone said movies should be art and not have an political agenda (by helping females get more work). The avant garde used art to express their political views therefore art (and movies) can have an political agenda.

[SpaceBallz]

Most movies have political agendas and use the medium to deliver a message. Should this be allowed? Absolutely...as long as it's an original work and not reboot/remaking a popular franchise while simultaneously pretending the original films didn't exist to deliver your message.

[Alphagaia]

Most movies have political agendas and use the medium to deliver a message. Should this be allowed? Absolutely...as long as it's an original work and not reboot/remaking a popular franchise while simultaneously pretending the original films didn't exist to deliver your message.

You do know it's quite normal for a reboot/remake to reset the storyline? It is not done to make anyone forget about the old movies. If anything the new original GB toys, the old movie being back in theatres should show you the parties involved have not forgotten the original movies. It's not one or the other. Both movies can exist, good or bad, without being judged as a modern replacement. There will still be new things coming out for the old movies, but since the actors are old or dead, those stories might rather be animated.

[Sav C]

It's too early to tell if it's progress, since if the movie fails it could be detrimental to women in Blockbusters (and that would be unfortunate,) but if it succeeds it would make huge advancements.

Paul Feig has good intentions, even if money is influencing him. Really it could be both a gimmick and progress all at once if you think about it. Sometimes it's a bit annoying how he talks about it, only since it seems like he's preaching something to me that I can't do anything about whether I think it's right or not.

They seem to be using the fact that it has four women starring as a selling point, which doesn't grab my attention since I don't really care who is in the movie as long as I like them and they are funny. So far I really like Kristen Wiig (have you ever seen Girl Most Likely? It's pretty good and funny,) and Melissa McCarthy due to the way she's handled some of the backlash (also she was the funniest in Bridesmaids.)

[Raystantz Italy]

Let's remake The Geat Dictator with monkeys. It will not tarnish the original.

[Sav C]

Viggy, Viggy, Viggy, you have been a bad monkey!

Who wouldn't pay to see a movie starring monkeys? Like Mad Magazine says, monkeys are always funny.

[Alphagaia]

Let's remake The Geat Dictator with monkeys. It will not tarnish the original.

They did. It's Called Planet of the Apes.

[featofstrength]

Let's remake The Geat Dictator with monkeys. It will not tarnish the original.

Homer, you can't just keep hanging out with these Colobus monkeys. Somebody's gonna get parasites!

Maybe we should pitch the idea to Sorny Pictures?

[Ivo Shandor]

Man, this argument is STILL going on?

I take a few month break, and nothing has changed at all.

Look, I know what it's like to be on the minority side of an argument. I said the Ghostbusters monthly comic sucked and I could write it better, and I got heaps of abuse.

BUT....some of you railing against the new Ghostbusters need to chill out.

I'm not saying it's going to be great, or it's not going to suck.

I'm not saying I agree with a remake, reboot, or whatever the hell this is.

What I'm saying is that I have waited since June 16, 1989 for a Ghostbusters movie. And I'll take ANY Ghostbusters movie at this point, including this one.

I want to see more movies, better movies, in the future. The way for that to happen is that this one is a success. I'm not interested in waiting another decade for some possible, hypothetical reboot.

I will be there opening night. If it sucks, I will say so. But I'm buying a ticket, and I'm not wasting my time screaming about this on the internet.

P.S. The all-female thing is irrelevant. Always has been to me. Guys, girls, some combination of both, I don't care. I just want me some Ghostbusters. And now, after 25+ years, I'm finally going to get it.

[SpaceBallz]

Most movies have political agendas and use the medium to deliver a message. Should this be allowed? Absolutely...as long as it's an original work and not reboot/remaking a popular franchise while simultaneously pretending the original films didn't exist to deliver your message.

You do know it's quite normal for a reboot/remake to reset the storyline? It is not done to make anyone forget about the old movies. If anything the new original GB toys, the old movie being back in theatres should show you the parties involved have not forgotten the original movies. It's not one or the other. Both movies can exist, good or bad, without being judged as a modern replacement. There will still be new things coming out for the old movies, but since the actors are old or dead, those stories might rather be animated.

You know, most of the things you say around here would make a lot more sense as far as Paul Feig being progressive goes...except that Paul Feig and Amy Pascal went with the all-female reboot without a script or a story FIRST. THEN after greenlighting it, they wrote the story. He was quoted as not wanting to do a direct sequel as "he wouldn't know what to do with it". Not a gimmick, you say? It was from day one.

[featofstrength]

You know, most of the things you say around here would make a lot more sense as far as Paul Feig being progressive goes...except that Paul Feig and Amy Pascal went with the all-female reboot without a script or a story FIRST. THEN after greenlighting it, they wrote the story. He was quoted as not wanting to do a direct sequel as "he wouldn't know what to do with it". Not a gimmick, you say? It was from day one.

Now, now... Amy Pascal's motivations must be barred from scrutiny because they were brought to light through stolen, private emails.

[Alphagaia]

You do know it's quite normal for a reboot/remake to reset the storyline? It is not done to make anyone forget about the old movies. If anything the new original GB toys, the old movie being back in theatres should show you the parties involved have not forgotten the original movies. It's not one or the other. Both movies can exist, good or bad, without being judged as a modern replacement. There will still be new things coming out for the old movies, but since the actors are old or dead, those stories might rather be animated.

You know, most of the things you say around here would make a lot more sense as far as Paul Feig being progressive goes...except that Paul Feig and Amy Pascal went with the all-female reboot without a script or a story FIRST. THEN after greenlighting it, they wrote the story. He was quoted as not wanting to do a direct sequel as "he wouldn't know what to do with it". Not a gimmick, you say? It was from day one.

I'm not sure why that is a problem? Could you elaborate?

He has always worked with women and had to get Ivan's blessing before they transformed the pitch Feig gave into a script.

It's Hollywood 101. Shout out to directors who want to do a fresh take, they pitch, they all bargain how much money everyone gets and who can make the deadline, etc. They choose a director to talk with producer to alter pitch and incorporate new ideas (like Ivan wanting the firehouse at the end) and then they are paid and greenlit to transform the aproved parts of the pitch into script, which becomes a movie if agreed upon.

[Kingpin]

It's a problem because it can be argued that that was the whole motivation behind the reboot.

[Alphagaia]

It's a problem because it can be argued that that was the whole motivation behind the reboot.

Nehhh, reboot or passing the torch would both allow for 4 female GB. Especially if they could have gotten Venkman back for choosing from the candidates.

[Scum]

Gimmick. Unfortunately I almost completely feel that way because of the reboot aspect. If this were a passing the torch (which could have probably been accomplished in a 30 second scene) it would be a completely different situation. Now, let's be fair, we won't know for sure until the film is released, but from all accounts this is a full hard reboot, but only until the credits roll will we know for sure. Or after the credits

Feig has succeeded in making GB relevant again to the general public, but at the same time driven a massive divide in the existing GB community. It's extremely polarizing, which is very unfortunate. The mere fact that I can be labeled a misogynist for having legitimate concerns over this film is preposterous.

[Alphagaia]

People tend to like different things, but at least we all like the original. If one cannot handle a GB fan for liking or disliking GB16 that's entirely his or hers own fault. Just be respectful.