[Commander_Jim]

I think this "fans know best" thing came about because of the Star Wars prequels. That was an extreme, unusual case.

I think it has more to do with the superhero films. It used to be the case that fans were totally ignored when it came to making them, the movie studios just did whatever they wanted with the characters and stories, whatever would sell the most toys. But then as geek culture became more mainstream and websites like aintitcool.com started actually influencing how movies were received, movies started actually trying to be faithful to the source material and movies like The Dark Knight Trilogy and the X-Men series started being made and now we have the Marvel series which is now straight out adapting stories and character arcs from the comics. A movie like Guardians of the Galaxy, a property that was unknown outside of fans, would never have been made not so long ago.

I also think Lord of the Rings was a big part of it. Those books had an insanely huge fanbase as far as book-only properties went. They HAD to make fans like those movies, it would have been a disaster otherwise. And thats carried on through other adaptations of books with big fanbases, through Harry Potter and up to Game of Thrones.

Fans have their biases, just like anyone else, that can color their perspective. And many of them aren't writers themselves, or aren't really familiar with the film making process or the business. And certainly they aren't always aware of the manipulation that goes into advertising and hype.

Thats absolutely true. You cant tailor a movie for fans. And theres always going to be a vocal group of malcontents complaining because it doesnt match their ideal version or expecting unreasonable things from the medium (like all those LOTR fans complaining about the lack of the Scouring of the Shire scenes in the last film, which might have been faithful to the books but ruined the film). And nobody wants fanservice, that doesnt make for a good film, thats just cheap. It needs to be a middle ground.

[RichardLess]

I think this "fans know best" thing came about because of the Star Wars prequels. That was an extreme, unusual case.

I think it has more to do with the superhero films. It used to be the case that fans were totally ignored when it came to making them, the movie studios just did whatever they wanted with the characters and stories, whatever would sell the most toys. But then as geek culture became more mainstream and websites like aintitcool.com started actually influencing how movies were received, movies started actually trying to be faithful to the source material and movies like The Dark Knight Trilogy and the X-Men series started being made and now we have the Marvel series which is now straight out adapting stories and character arcs from the comics. A movie like Guardians of the Galaxy, a property that was unknown outside of fans, would never have been made not so long ago.

I also think Lord of the Rings was a big part of it. Those books had an insanely huge fanbase as far as book-only properties went. They HAD to make fans like those movies, it would have been a disaster otherwise. And thats carried on through other adaptations of books with big fanbases, through Harry Potter and up to Game of Thrones.

Fans have their biases, just like anyone else, that can color their perspective. And many of them aren't writers themselves, or aren't really familiar with the film making process or the business. And certainly they aren't always aware of the manipulation that goes into advertising and hype.

Thats absolutely true. You cant tailor a movie for fans. And theres always going to be a vocal group of malcontents complaining because it doesnt match their ideal version or expecting unreasonable things from the medium (like all those LOTR fans complaining about the lack of the Scouring of the Shire scenes in the last film, which might have been faithful to the books but ruined the film). And nobody wants fanservice, that doesnt make for a good film, thats just cheap. It needs to be a middle ground.

Great post. Totally on the money. God can you imagine ROTK with the Scouring of the Shire? People complain about that movie having too many endings as is, put the Scouring of the Shire in there and it completely makes the success with the ring a moot point. Even in the book I felt that ending was a mistake. They do all that to save the world and the shire only to come back and find the Shire has been taken over?

[JurorNo.2]

I think it has more to do with the superhero films. It used to be the case that fans were totally ignored when it came to making them, the movie studios just did whatever they wanted with the characters and stories, whatever would sell the most toys. But then as geek culture became more mainstream and websites like aintitcool.com started actually influencing how movies were received, movies started actually trying to be faithful to the source material and movies like The Dark Knight Trilogy and the X-Men series started being made and now we have the Marvel series which is now straight out adapting stories and character arcs from the comics. A movie like Guardians of the Galaxy, a property that was unknown outside of fans, would never have been made not so long ago.

I also think Lord of the Rings was a big part of it. Those books had an insanely huge fanbase as far as book-only properties went. They HAD to make fans like those movies, it would have been a disaster otherwise. And thats carried on through other adaptations of books with big fanbases, through Harry Potter and up to Game of Thrones.



Thats absolutely true. You cant tailor a movie for fans. And theres always going to be a vocal group of malcontents complaining because it doesnt match their ideal version or expecting unreasonable things from the medium (like all those LOTR fans complaining about the lack of the Scouring of the Shire scenes in the last film, which might have been faithful to the books but ruined the film). And nobody wants fanservice, that doesnt make for a good film, thats just cheap. It needs to be a middle ground.

Great post. Totally on the money. God can you imagine ROTK with the Scouring of the Shire? People complain about that movie having too many endings as is, put the Scouring of the Shire in there and it completely makes the success with the ring a moot point. Even in the book I felt that ending was a mistake. They do all that to save the world and the shire only to come back and find the Shire has been taken over?

Well it's hard to say. I think Scouring of the Shire is a brilliant stroke in the book. But in the book it's made more clear just how narrow minded and closed most Hobbits are, and we know they kinda deserve to have their complacency shattered. And Frodo is so shell shocked, he can't bring himself to contribute to a violent revolt against Saruman, hence the Hobbits will never remember him as a hero, even though he had just literally saved the world. It all serves to parallel Tolkien's experiences in WWI, and the isolation of the Lost Generation. Amazing chapter. But the movie doesn't delve into these themes enough in the first place to make it resonate at the end. Jackson spent too much time idealizing the Shire and not enough time exploring Frodo's disillusion with it.

Plus, as you guys indicated, while the Scouring works in the book, it might have come across anti climatic in movie form.

I was a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings while in college, but the flaws are more evident to me in recent years. I honestly think Bakshi's Lord of the Rings could have pulled off the Scouring quite well (if more campy!). But in any case, adaptations are tricky, and you're right, fans don't always understand that some scenes just can't translate. That doesn't mean the movie is "unfaithful."

[Commander_Jim]

Thats why I kind of always think of LOTR being a great example of an adaptation. They needed to distill a very long, tonally inconsistent book that didn't have a normal story structure into something that worked in movie format with a straightforward narrative that non-fans could understand but also something that was respectful and faithful enough to the source material that fans could also get on board with. And I think they nailed it.

Can you imagine what might have been? The original plan was only two movies, with the entirety of Followship and The Two Towers condensed into one movie with the majority of what happened in TTT cut out or squeezed into when the Fellowship are together. Fans would really have had reason to complain then. But as an adaptation it wouldnt have been unusual at all, butchering source material was par for the course until fairly recently.

Getting back to fans, the film X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a good example of a movie that just wouldn't be made now because of the influence of fans. Its probably one of the key movies that have changed studios attitudes. Absurdly making Deadpool, a character known for his humor and one liners above all else, a character nicknamed "the Merc with a Mouth" into a mute zombie with literally no mouth just wouldnt happen now. Its because of fans that movie studios are now treating their characters seriously. And thats a good thing.

[JurorNo.2]

Thats why I kind of always think of LOTR being a great example of an adaptation. They needed to distill a very long, tonally inconsistant book that didnt have a normal story structure into something that worked in movie format with a straightforward narrative that non-fans could understand but also something that was respectful and faithful enough to the source material that fans could also get on board with. And I think they nailed it.

Can you imagine what might have been? The original plan was only two movies, with the entirety of Followship and The Two Towers condensed into one movie with the majority of what happened in TTT cut out or squeezed into when the Fellowship are together. Fans would really have had reason to complain then. But as an adaptation it wouldnt have been unusual at all, butchering source material was par for the course until fairly recently.

You're right, the studios could have insisted on major rewrites that no fan would have been happy with. I shutter to think, lol. Sure, I don't want to back seat drive on this, I get that Jackson & Co. had a very difficult task. Lord of the Rings is an incredible book, but didn't follow the usual narrative rules at all, hence making a conventional adaptation quite difficult. Jackson was right to fight for three movies. I just think there were themes and character arcs Jackson and his writing team either didn't understand or thought they had to simplify for non-Tolkien fans. Maybe they were right, except that I think Bakshi, and even freakin Rankin/Bass did a better job in that area, lol. So clearly it wasn't impossible. But I'm sure Jackson was also told, "We need the huge battle sequences, give plenty of time to those!"

[tylergfoster]

You guys can believe what you want to believe. I'm clear on my stance, which is that studios are aware of fans as a demographic with strong opinions, that there is no downside to having fans in their corner, but that fans are not particularly relevant in terms of a movie's actual financial performance.

To say that movies that pleased fans succeeded and movies that disappointed them did not is nonsense. Look up the press for any one of the flops and I'm sure you'll find the cast and crew explaining how much work they did to honor their source material, and yeah, while you try and brush them away with "there are exceptions", there are legitimate exceptions that really render that reasoning invalid. The Star Wars prequels were brought up, all of which were massive. X3 also comes to mind, the most successful of the original three, both in the US (#2 behind Deadpool!) and globally. The Dark Knight Rises seems to have been disappointing overall but handily beat its predecessor globally. The scale on which these sorts of movies defy that reasoning is pretty relevant.

[Commander_Jim]

Its about more than the one-off box office success of a singular movie and more about the on-going success and sustainability of a franchise. X3 may have been the biggest X-Men movie and yet it practically killed the franchise until it was saved by soft-rebooting it with a movie that was tailored to fans. Arguably the franchise still hasnt recovered from X3. The Star Wars Prequels (which only existed in the first place because there was still such a huge SW fanbase) made billions yet left fans so disengaged from the franchise that they had to re-start it with a fan-friendly remake of the original film that ignored every single thing from the previous three movies to win them back. Spider-Man 3 made a fortune at the box office, yet it killed the franchise. Star Trek wouldnt have existed past Season 2 of TOS without fans. On the other hand we have movies that failed at the box office yet were loved by fans which have or are getting sequels.

And the influence of fans on movies isnt hard to see. TMNT being re-shot after fans reacted badly to Shredder not being Japanese, the Russo Brothers stated that they waited until Winter Soldier was released to begin writing Civil War because they wanted to study the fan reaction. Die Another Day was the biggest Bond movie of all time - and the most hated by fans. Coincidence that it was followed up by a reboot that was what fans had been calling for for years - a return to Ian Fleming's Bond? Star Trek Beyond, despite being a good ST movie, has flopped despite the massive success of Into Darkness, and all signs point to the fan response to Into Darkness being a major factor in the turn in fortunes of the new ST movies.
To bring it back to Ghostbusters, what were the constant references, cameos and call-outs to the original film about if not trying to bring fans on-side?

The evidence of fans having huge influence on film is everywhere. To deny it is just wrong. And the desire for financial success is the only reason for it, movie studios arent doing it just to make people happy.

[tylergfoster]

To bring it back to Ghostbusters, what were the constant references, cameos and call-outs to the original film about if not trying to bring fans on-side?

Again, the studio is conscious of making decisions that appeal to the fans. However, the cameos and references (with the notable exception of Slimer) weren't put in the movie so that it would make money, because they were supposed to be a surprise.

I'm not denying that fans have some level of influence. But again, literally, in terms of plain math, fans just don't have enough sway to make-or-break a blockbuster.

[HunterCC]

I'm not denying that fans have some level of influence. But again, literally, in terms of plain math, fans just don't have enough sway to make-or-break a blockbuster.

I thought fans carried the entire Star Wars Prequels to make tons of money, even after they were disappointed as fans with the first, and really weren't expecting the films to get better. The fan base still supported the movies, continued to cosplay and hype the movies. That kind of word-of-mouth advertising is supposed to be absolutely critical to any movie after its opening weekend. Seems like any movie with Star Wars in its name would make tons of money back then.

Likewise, Ryan Reynolds and others have strong opinions that the Marvel fanbase absolutely helped get Deadpool made, as well as make a killing in the box office.

Harry Potter, Star Trek, Hunger Games, all had a strong fanbase carry them through their series, even if some movies were better than others.

[pferreira1983]

I thought fans carried the entire Star Wars Prequels to make tons of money, even after they were disappointed as fans with the first, and really weren't expecting the films to get better. The fan base still supported the movies, continued to cosplay and hype the movies. That kind of word-of-mouth advertising is supposed to be absolutely critical to any movie after its opening weekend. Seems like any movie with Star Wars in its name would make tons of money back then.

To an extent yes. Ironically the best film Revenge of the Sith came too late to be appreciated as everyone by that point had low expectations and didn't care much thanks to the previous two prequel movies.

[Skyknight]

To an extent yes. Ironically the best film Revenge of the Sith came too late to be appreciated as everyone by that point had low expectations and didn't care much thanks to the previous two prequel movies.

I think the best thing about Revenge of the Sith was that it cemented the thought in my mind that the prequels take place in an alternate universe from the originals. Because in the original universe Padme(who did not even have a name back then) did not die at birth! She gave Luke to Obi Wan(who gave him to his brother, yes uncle Owen was Obi Wan's brother in the original universe) and took Leia with her to Alderaan, where she died some years later and the Organa family adopted her after that! This was all in the original books George Lucas wrote and also in several versions of the Official Guide to the Star Wars Universe(which got only changed after EP II came out)! I think GL was a genius when he created that universe, but he must have been on drugs to change so many crucial facts about it more than 20 years after he established it cough midichlorians cough!

[Sav C]

That's some interesting trivia I hadn't heard before. Weren't there two Star wars films where they created Darth Vader? I remember it in Revenge of the Sith, but I swear that I saw it happen differently in a Star Wars film on cable. The only other thing I remember about it was that everything was CGI except for the actor's faces, even the costumes weren't real.

[Skyknight]

I don't know any other film about the origins of Darth Vader, but I took a long pause from Star Wars after the disappointment that were the prequels. I didn't even know that the Official Guide was changed after the prequels until a few years ago. I don't like it when the history and official canon of a fictional world gets changed years after its creation. That's why I tell people the original story, whenever it comes up. I can back it up with this pearl from the 90's SW CCG :

This Post Contains Spoilers

I can tell you that this card is not photoshopped, because I own a physical copy of it! And if this was canon back then, none of the events in the prequels could've happened the way they did! Thus alternate universe, even if GL now says the prequels are canon!

[JurorNo.2]

I don't know any other film about the origins of Darth Vader, but I took a long pause from Star Wars after the disappointment that were the prequels. I didn't even know that the Official Guide was changed after the prequels until a few years ago. I don't like it when the history and official canon of a fictional world gets changed years after its creation. That's why I tell people the original story, whenever it comes up. I can back it up with this pearl from the 90's SW CCG :

This Post Contains Spoilers

I can tell you that this card is not photoshopped, because I own a physical copy of it! And if this was canon back then, none of the events in the prequels could've happened the way they did! Thus alternate universe, even if GL now says the prequels are canon!

Well this is why I don't invest myself in canon too much, because there is so much potential for over sights and abuse, you end up driving yourself crazy, lol.

[Sav C]

The prequels definitely distanced me from Star Wars for awhile. I don't think I'll watch them again. That card is pretty cool, it's odd that they would let such a big discrepancy like that go unnoticed.

As for Vader, I'll guess that my memory is just playing tricks on me.

[Commander_Jim]

I don't know any other film about the origins of Darth Vader, but I took a long pause from Star Wars after the disappointment that were the prequels. I didn't even know that the Official Guide was changed after the prequels until a few years ago. I don't like it when the history and official canon of a fictional world gets changed years after its creation. That's why I tell people the original story, whenever it comes up. I can back it up with this pearl from the 90's SW CCG :

This Post Contains Spoilers

I can tell you that this card is not photoshopped, because I own a physical copy of it! And if this was canon back then, none of the events in the prequels could've happened the way they did! Thus alternate universe, even if GL now says the prequels are canon!

Star Wars canon has always been changing with every movie, the original trilogy especially. So much of what was canon after the first film came out wasnt by the time Return of the Jedi ended.

[Skyknight]

I wasn't really around when the original trilogy was made, but I grew up with it. And changing all the things that were established in it more than 20 years after it ended, and that everyone who not only watched the films but also read the books knew, feels way off!

[SpaceBallz]

Is that why you liked Ghostbusters? I liked the actors for their talent, not for something they just happened to be born with.

I'm just going to stop you right there without reading the following paragraph you wrote afterwards: this film PURPOSELY flipped the gender roles and made it into a political statement about how females get treated in Hollywood. They PURPOSELY used the negativity surrounding the project to push their angle during marketing. Feig PURPOSELY rebooted/remade it from scratch so he can get women in lead roles instead of it being a soft reboot/sequel (because god forbid there were men that started the GB franchise). I hate being one of those people that have to point all of that out, but I'm not blind. And neither was anybody else according to the box office numbers.

Nobody wanted to see a GB movie without the original characters and nobody wanted to be called a sexist if you didn't support it. Loss of money, lukewarm response..so yes, Sony screwed up big time. But they were left to polish a turd after Amy Pascal (the one that arranged the project from the ground up) stepped down.

Blaming the fans (which, according to the director and cast members, were only a small percentage) for how the film failed is getting pretty tiresome. At this point, it was just about everybody that didn't care for it. Not just loud mouthed fans with twitter accounts.

[Sav C]

Jeez, is it a requirement or something that every thread dissolve into this?

[JurorNo.2]

without reading the following paragraph you wrote afterwards

So I'm wasting my time responding to you, lol. At least we're being honest.

I'm just going to stop you right there without reading the following paragraph you wrote afterwards: this film PURPOSELY flipped the gender roles and made it into a political statement about how females get treated in Hollywood.

I'm going to stop you right there. "Ghostbuster" is not a gender role, lol.

Anyway, as I've said a billion times already (but apparently you're not tired of hearing it), if the "political statement" had been "Trust Scientology," I might agree with you. But "Women Exist Too" isn't going to offend me. Now, I hate political correctness, but that's not what fanboys (and some girls) were angry about. They bought into this YouTube-inspired paranoia that "women exist too" actually means "women are superior." But in fact, the final film doesn't bang you over the head with girl power in any shape or form. You guys need to move on from these pre-movie narratives at this point. And you would know that if you'd read my entire post.

Nobody wanted to see a GB movie without the original characters and nobody wanted to be called a sexist if you didn't support it. Loss of money, lukewarm response

You really should have led with this instead. I agree, general audiences just didn't like the trailers. I can understand that, they certainly didn't capture what I enjoyed about the movie. And as you say, they didn't like that it was a reboot (the marketing should have made a bigger deal about the cameos and the various tributes to the original). However, IMO, GB16 could have still gotten a boost if fanboys/girls had helped create hype for it. But instead, they ran with the narrative that this was an evil movie erasing their childhoods (See, in Aleppo, bombs erase childhoods. In America, it's movies). What happened this year was not normal reboot hate.

In any case, I'm not going to take comments like "failed" and "just about everybody didn't care for it" seriously. Labyrinth opened at #8 in 1986, and dropped to #13 the next weekend. That is failure, lol. And even Labyrinth went on to be a cult classic in time. Arts and entertainment aren't like sports matches where "2nd place is still losing." Audience reception epps and flows. Hits are forgotten years later and flops can find new life.

Again, not sure if SpaceBallz is even reading this, lol, but everyone else is free to reply. If you aren't already sick of these discussions. I know I am.

[Razorgeist]

Nobody wanted to see a GB movie without the original characters

Actually at this point I did.

What happened this year was not normal reboot hate.

Yeah thats been my point too.

[Sav C]

I'm just going to stop you right there without reading the following paragraph you wrote afterwards: this film PURPOSELY flipped the gender roles and made it into a political statement about how females get treated in Hollywood.

I'm going to stop you right there. "Ghostbuster" is not a gender role, lol.

“There wasn’t even a thought about gender. It was just, ‘These guys are all funny. We’re going to do it.’ I never thought it was male-exclusive. None of us did.” ~ Ivan Reitman

if the "political statement" had been "Trust Scientology," I might agree with you.

Not to knock anybody's religion, but... (Finally, I get to quote Help! )

[JurorNo.2]

I'm going to stop you right there. "Ghostbuster" is not a gender role, lol.

“There wasn’t even a thought about gender. It was just, ‘These guys are all funny. We’re going to do it.’ I never thought it was male-exclusive. None of us did.” ~ Ivan Reitman

if the "political statement" had been "Trust Scientology," I might agree with you.

Not to knock anybody's religion, but... (Finally, I get to quote Help! )

Looove that scene in Help!, lol.

And yeah, while obviously Reitman and Co. would have preferred doing a GB3, I doubt any of them had these weird hang ups about female characters.

[Sav C]

Looove that scene in Help!, lol.

And yeah, while obviously Reitman and Co. would have preferred doing a GB3, I doubt any of them had these weird hang ups about female characters.

It's my third favorite film, and one of the few that I think captures the spirit (pun intended) that both Ghostbusters did. All three are so much fun, and the camaraderie among the Ghostbusters largely resembles that between the Beatles. Not to mention all three are really well made, they mix humor and seriousness nicely (I have always liked films that include all types of humor, from dry to slapstick,) the cinematography is gorgeous, and editing/pacing-wise they all feel really natural.

There's no doubt in my mind that they had no problem with the cast being female. Like the Sony leaks indicate, the odds are they were initially upset about it being a reboot, but it's understandable considering all of the work they must have put into GBIII over the years.

[JakeJipqrs]

it probably wasn't considered a screw-up by Sony as it was a financial casualty of their regime change. Critically its not a screw-up because it was well-received by critics and the intended audience. Personally i was surprised how hyper-masculine the movie was. The original ghost-busters didn't blast ghosts with shotguns and chainsaws while a hot drum beat played. kinda shocked they went the transformers route with consequence free violence but then again im getting old

[HunterCC]

In any case, I'm not going to take comments like "failed" and "just about everybody didn't care for it" seriously. Labyrinth opened at #8 in 1986, and dropped to #13 the next weekend. That is failure, lol. And even Labyrinth went on to be a cult classic in time. Arts and entertainment aren't like sports matches where "2nd place is still losing." Audience reception epps and flows. Hits are forgotten years later and flops can find new life.

Again, not sure if SpaceBallz is even reading this, lol, but everyone else is free to reply. If you aren't already sick of these discussions. I know I am.

Well, it's impossible to deny that both GB16 and Labyrinth failed. That Feig, Sony, and the cast responded negatively to criticism as an extremely stupid marketing campaign strategy. And the media and other supporters of GB16 went overboard in falsely accusing critics (Like Roeper and Rolfe) of misogyny.

Blame for the toxicity surrounding GB16 has to be laid at least partially at the feet of its creators, since they helped fuel it. Contrast Reitman's statements about the fanbase, and Disney's response to criticism for example, that Rey was a "Mary Sue" (hint, it's tough to find any response). So it's pretty unavoidable in a prolonged discussion of GB16. The makers of GB16 and supporters in the media made it that way. It's part of GB16. And that may have been Sony's biggest screw -up with this movie.

[JurorNo.2]

Feig, Sony, and the cast responded negatively to criticism as an extremely stupid marketing campaign strategy.

Well we've been over this, we simply have very different points of view on this subject (which is fine). I have no problem with trolls being brought out into the light and taken to task, which is exactly what Feig and Jones did. Maybe it was painful for some fans to see, and maybe it turned them off from the movie. But in long run, I believe it was necessary. We are losing the Internet, and geek culture in general, to this creeps. And it has to stop.

Contrast Reitman's statements about the fanbase

Yes, he acknowledged that most fans are not trolls. I already knew that, and I'm not sure why some fans needed such a reassurance. And even after getting that reassurance, they still stayed away. Which I'm sure didn't thrill Reitman as he was a Producer. So what exactly was gained from making nice with the fans?

Disney's response to criticism for example

I'm guessing Disney knows Star Wars is the franchise too big to fail. Fans hated the prequels and yet made sure they were all hits. So why pay any attention to their criticism of Force Awakens? Disney understands fans better than fans understand themselves.

And the media and other supporters of GB16 went overboard in falsely accusing critics (Like Roeper and Rolfe) of misogyny.

I can safely say I criticized them for reasons other than misogyny.

[pferreira1983]

I think the best thing about Revenge of the Sith was that it cemented the thought in my mind that the prequels take place in an alternate universe from the originals.

Nah, The Force Awakens takes place in a parallel universe. It has to, it makes less sense than the prequels and is a disappointing continuation of Star Wars.

Anyway, as I've said a billion times already (but apparently you're not tired of hearing it), if the "political statement" had been "Trust Scientology," I might agree with you. But "Women Exist Too" isn't going to offend me. Now, I hate political correctness, but that's not what fanboys (and some girls) were angry about. They bought into this YouTube-inspired paranoia that "women exist too" actually means "women are superior." But in fact, the final film doesn't bang you over the head with girl power in any shape or form. You guys need to move on from these pre-movie narratives at this point. And you would know that if you'd read my entire post.

Not sure about this YT paranoia you're going on about. Me personally I saw Amy Pascal and Paul Feig making a Ghostbusters movie with women just for the hell of it. Forget the script, that can come later. What's important is we have four hilarious (wow, that ended up being the understatement of the year) women in a Ghostbusters film. It was done on purpose, it wasn't organic. If they had done a Ghostbusters sequel with four women in the lead role and their intentions was just to mix things up a bit I wouldn't care one bit. The fact is they did it on purpose for their own selfish reasons. I mean Paul Feig is a feminist while Pascal was so desperate to have actresses with equal pay she decided to say "ah what the hell, last thing I'm going to do in charge is greenlight a Ghostbusters film with women in the lead role is women can get equal pay". Commendable but for the Ghostbusters franchise at this point not the correct thing to do. The sad part of all of this is that Feig and Pascal genuinely thought they were doing us a favour by bringing back the franchise revolving around women in the lead role. It's as though they thought this film would teach us something but we didn't need teaching about strong female characters. We know strong female characters when we see them, we just wanted a good Ghostbusters movie. Unfortunately the former took precedence when it didn't need to due to selfishness. They shouldn't be seen as villains but they were totally misguided.

In any case, I'm not going to take comments like "failed" and "just about everybody didn't care for it" seriously. Labyrinth opened at #8 in 1986, and dropped to #13 the next weekend. That is failure, lol. And even Labyrinth went on to be a cult classic in time. Arts and entertainment aren't like sports matches where "2nd place is still losing." Audience reception epps and flows. Hits are forgotten years later and flops can find new life.

That's true, we'll have to wait and see. Labyrinth was a better movie though. It had better imagination, better humour and better acting from the lead role.

[JurorNo.2]

The fact is they did it on purpose for their own selfish reasons.

If you're referring to them wanting a reboot instead of a sequel, I might agree. But wanting women leads, I'm sorry but I don't look at that as something negative like "selfish."

We know strong female characters when we see them, we just wanted a good Ghostbusters movie.

And again, the final film isn't the feminist nightmare fans kept predicting. That's a pre-movie narrative at this point. IMO, fans are far too involved in what they think is insider information these days, to the point where it prevents them from judging the movie itself.

Oh yes, Labyrinth is a better movie. Most 80s movies are better than anything we get these days.

I gave your post a Like though, because we see eye to eye on Force Awakens, lol. And you know, I don't know why GB fans can't just decide GB16 takes place in a parallel universe and call it a day. Enough of the "my movie was erased" silliness.

[pferreira1983]

If you're referring to them wanting a reboot instead of a sequel, I might agree. But wanting women leads, I'm sorry but I don't look at that as something negative like "selfish."

They never saw a story in their minds. They just saw four women in the lead role and then quickly put together a story around them. It was a bad mistake. It's like I want to have Jackie Chan in a spy movie so we create a paper thin plot around his martial arts skills to basically say he's put on a suit that gives him martial arts skills. That film was called The Tuxedo. Now a lot of films are like this. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made a life off this way of making movies however for Ghostbusters it wasn't needed this time.

And again, the final film isn't the feminist nightmare fans kept predicting. That's a pre-movie narrative at this point. IMO, fans are far too involved in what think is insider information these days, to the point where it prevents them from judging the movie itself.

It isn't a feminist nightmare, however it's not for me a good movie at all and feels contrived in the worst possible way. I understand you want me to distance myself from the behind the scenes stuff so I judge the film on it's own merits but when the film production takes so many bad turns the fans end up scrambling to see what went wrong. It's human nature for some people to investigate if something crazy has occurred for a film.

Oh yes, Labyrinth is a better movie. Most 80s movies are better than anything we get these days.

Can't argue there, truer words have never been spoken.

I gave your post a Like though, because we see eye to eye on Force Awakens, lol. And you know, I don't know why GB fans can't just decide GB16 takes place in a parallel universe and call it a day. Enough of the "my movie was erased" silliness.

I totally get the new film is set in a parallel universe I just feel this wasn't the right time to do this movie, I think we should have got a continuation free from the politics going on at Sony. Well if it helps I don't see the new movie as erasing the old one, perhaps tainting slightly overall good memories of the entire franchise but not erasing, that's just silly talk.