pandering just fucking pandering!

To me this sounds pretty much like selective perception, and it goes both ways. There's one side who expects people to react negatively to the female cast, and when some do, they feel proven true. There's another side who expects people to write off the criticiscm as sexism, and when some do, they feel proven true. I wonder, does any of those sides really hope to be wrong about their prediction? And do they actually expect to find not a single comment confirming their fears, or do they instead cherrypick the first negative comments they see to cry "I knew it, so sad"?

If you look at it soberly, you can see lots of comments about the movie that don't have anything to do with the gender issue; people criticizing the trailer for lots of other things, people agreeing or disagreeing with the criticism without pulling the sexist card. And in between there are some select few but vocal idiots that actually do make sexist comments or pull the sexist card for no reason. And everyone decides for themselves on what comments they focus, what they base their perception on.

Foxhack didn't do anything else than you or others here did, and that is focus on the comments that you were hoping not to see, because they are a pet peeves of yours. But the comments that Foxhack criticized actually do exist and are worthy of criticism, just as it's valid to criticize the trailer for the reasons you and other mentioned here and that have absolutely nothing to do with gender.

Not Necessarily

Most of the original cast were SNL members and sketch comedy (SCTV ala Rick Morranis) alumni. I think that's the background of most these women. Can't speak to how funny they are because I don't watch TV, that and I'm old enough to remember when SNL was funny. The point is that they may be the bankable names in their respective spheres in comedy like when Dan and Harold and Bill were making all those movies in the eighties.

This movie looks bloody terrible though. Like goddamn I didn't think it would be this bad. Like Pixels or Paul Blart bad.

If they really wanted to, they could have made a live-action version of Extreme Ghostbusters and I think more people would have been happy.

Serenity quote; "Are we caring about this?"

In my opinion as much as I love the Ghostbusters, the time had passed. So I don't mind if they want to make a chick light comedy out of it.

I do like the actresses. Plenty of worse things have been ruined than the Ghostbusters, get used to it.

Yeah they could be making a Silent Hill pachinko machine! Oh wait.....

It's not really a pet peeve here. Feminism is a huge issue in America at the present.
I'm not sure how featuring women in a bad comedy is doing anything positive for anybody. It reinforces the idea that women aren't funny while at the same time taking something that people care about and pissing on it.

And yes, worse things have been ruined, but that's no excuse for ruining this thing.

So... reboot or sequel? Are we even making those distinctions any more?

I suggest a second reboot ready to go after the first one, just in case the first reboot doesn't do well. Then again, if the first reboot is successful, we can always re-brand the second reboot as a sequel to the new reboot and just change the titles around. They'll never notice.

And a great DERP was heard go 'round the world.

Problem being that they never develop the stories or characters long enough to establish emotion or continuity. Then they hit the reset button and go back to trying new and fresh version of the same old origin story... over and over again.

Either Hollywood has become a 90 year old with Alzheimer's, or the studio heads think that the entire movie-going public is a nation of goldfish who forget the movie they watched before they even get home from the theater.

I've lost track of the number of Superman and Fantastic Four reboots.

This movie will flop just like the fantastic four reboot with black human torch.

trailer was 9002% more entertaining than 642% of any video game; ever.

I'd sped $8-ish dollars to see it

at least i'd get to see the end...


eyes vid-ya games industry incredulously

Yes, that's a serious problem. I've lost track of all the reboots on Spiderman in recent times. And each time they do it, they feel the need to do an origin story so that the last 3 people who don't know who Spiderman is will know how he came to be.

Batman has been somewhat less of an issue as they weren't doing a reboot each time they changed actors on Batman. For the most part they were ignoring the origin, which worked a bit better.
I take it you're not going to be seeing it in the theater then.

when you say 'theater' i imagine you saying 'thunder-dome'.


do we have a disconnect in translation?