Ghostbusters trailer *Brand New* (2016)

[Silver Nemesis]

But the day will come (and at the rate Disney is going, it'll be very soon) when they've gotten their fix. After that, Star Wars will be just another big film franchise in a sea of clones and competitors. Disney won't be able to get away with half-assed stories and creative poverty anymore. Sooner or later, they'll have to sink or swim.

And if their creative decisions up to now are anything to judge by, it'll be Star Wars that sinks. Disney, meanwhile, will just assume the public is over their fascination with Star Wars (partly true) and then go look for another property to crash into an iceberg.

I'm torn between this GIF...

...and this one:

Sadly both work in relation to your prophecy. And no amount of Ewoks can save us this time.

Just for fun on a "what if", now there's question! Bill Murray and Harold Ramis basically had a falling out following Groundhog's Day, correct? So WHAT IF that movie had never been made? Would we have got a GB3 during the mid-late 1990s? Would you take the gamble on that trade?

I've rated around 3,000 titles on the IMDb, and of those 3,000 I rated fewer than 100 films a perfect 10. Groundhog Day was one of the 10s. So if I had to choose between a potentially good Ghostbusters 3 or a definitely great Groundhog Day... Well, much as I love Ghostbusters and would kill for GB3, I think I'd have to stick with Team Punxsutawney.

That said, GB3 still ranks at the top of my dream movie wish list. Other films on that list include a third Michael Keaton Batman film (since Warner Bros is making a Joker film unconnected from the DCEU, a Batman Beyond movie could still happen) and a sequel to Return of the Jedi focusing on the adventures of Jedi Master Luke Skywalker (obviously that's not going to happen now, thank you very much Rian Johnson).

[The Laughing Fish]

Leslie Jones isn't taking the news of Ghostbusters 3 very well.

Leslie Jones Slams New 'Ghostbusters' Film: "It's Like Something Trump Would Do"

The actress, who starred in the all-female reboot of the franchise in 2016, tweeted her disappointment about the news earlier this week that Jason Reitman will helm a new movie that will continue the story that began with the 1984 original and its 1989 sequel.

In response to the news that Jason Reitman's new Ghostbusters project will continue the story that began with Ivan Reitman's 1984 original and its 1989 sequel, and ignore the female reboot from director Paul Feig in 2016, Leslie Jones, a cast member from the latter, has voiced her disappointment on social media.

The comedian took to Twitter on Saturday in a post that said, "So insulting. Like f*** us. We dint count. It's like something trump would do. (Trump voice) "Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with men, will be huge. Those women ain't ghostbusteeeeers" ugh so annoying. Such a dick move. And I don't give f*** I'm saying something!!"

Jones tagged her fellow Ghostbusters co-star Melissa McCarthy, along with Reitman. So far there have been no responses from anyone involved in the film, which has received backlash since the announcement of its intent. In England, a journalist wrote an "open letter to Jason Reitman," citing his missed opportunity.

Feig's Ghostbusters received mostly positive reviews upon its release (it currently sits at a 74 percent Rotten Tomatoes score) and grossed $229 million worldwide, and in particular the strong foundation of female friendship was mentioned in many reviews.

Reitman is writing the screenplay for his film in collaboration with Gil Kenan. Casting details have not yet been released, though the film is set to enter theaters in 2020.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/leslie-jones-slams-new-ghostbusters-film-like-something-trump-would-do-1177578

Here are some excerpts from another THR article still using the 2016 movie to promote their political agenda.

Less than three years after Sony's Ghostbusters reboot battled online trolls and fizzled at the box office, Tuesday's news that the property is coming back quickly sparked conversations among fans about nostalgia, toxic fandom and legacy.

Ignoring the 2016 film is a missed opportunity, Hannah Woodhead argues in a piece she wrote for the London-based film magazine Little White Lies titled "An Open Letter to Jason Reitman." She writes that while 2016's Ghostbusters wasn't an original idea, the all-female team pushed the franchise forward in an important way that may be lost in the new version.

"I think we suffer from this collective sense of nostalgia in film, where we're always looking to the past rather than the future," she tells The Hollywood Reporter. "The past is safe. The past is easy."

1984's Ghostbusters is widely considered a classic, and while the 1989 follow-up was less well-received, it does have its fans. Decades later, Feig's all-female 2016 Ghostbusters received a fresh 74 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, higher than Ghostbusters II. In addition to misogynistic trolling online, Jones faced racist attacks that caused her to leave Twitter for a period of time.

"I think it's a really entertaining movie that was doomed simply because it wasn't the film a certain very loud percentage of the audience wanted," says Drew McWeeny, co-creator of the 80s All Over podcast and longtime film critic.

Cracked contributor Chris Sutcliffe was a fan of Feig's film and grew up with Ghostbusters. He's more concerned about the direction of the new film under Reitman.

"What frustrates me about this new film, and I'm very aware that we've had very little news, is how keen they are to distance themselves from the 2016 film," says Sutcliffe. "Not only will it feel like a victory to all the wrong people, but it just feels like a creative step backwards."

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/why-is-ghostbusters-3-ignoring-all-female-reboot-1177318

I might be wrong, but I think I remember Drew McWeeny criticising Man of Steel. Well, considering there is a vocal group of nostalgic Donner Superman fans who had an axe to grind with Snyder's interpretation, I hope McWeeny now knows how it feels.

[thecolorsblend]

Leslie Jones isn't taking the news of Ghostbusters 3 very well.

Leslie Jones Slams New 'Ghostbusters' Film: "It's Like Something Trump Would Do"

The actress, who starred in the all-female reboot of the franchise in 2016, tweeted her disappointment about the news earlier this week that Jason Reitman will helm a new movie that will continue the story that began with the 1984 original and its 1989 sequel.

In response to the news that Jason Reitman's new Ghostbusters project will continue the story that began with Ivan Reitman's 1984 original and its 1989 sequel, and ignore the female reboot from director Paul Feig in 2016, Leslie Jones, a cast member from the latter, has voiced her disappointment on social media.

The comedian took to Twitter on Saturday in a post that said, "So insulting. Like f*** us. We dint count. It's like something trump would do. (Trump voice) "Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with men, will be huge. Those women ain't ghostbusteeeeers" ugh so annoying. Such a dick move. And I don't give f*** I'm saying something!!"

Jones tagged her fellow Ghostbusters co-star Melissa McCarthy, along with Reitman. So far there have been no responses from anyone involved in the film, which has received backlash since the announcement of its intent. In England, a journalist wrote an "open letter to Jason Reitman," citing his missed opportunity.

Feig's Ghostbusters received mostly positive reviews upon its release (it currently sits at a 74 percent Rotten Tomatoes score) and grossed $229 million worldwide, and in particular the strong foundation of female friendship was mentioned in many reviews.

Reitman is writing the screenplay for his film in collaboration with Gil Kenan. Casting details have not yet been released, though the film is set to enter theaters in 2020.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/leslie-jones-slams-new-ghostbusters-film-like-something-trump-would-do-1177578

Here are some excerpts from another THR article still using the 2016 movie to promote their political agenda.

Less than three years after Sony's Ghostbusters reboot battled online trolls and fizzled at the box office, Tuesday's news that the property is coming back quickly sparked conversations among fans about nostalgia, toxic fandom and legacy.

Ignoring the 2016 film is a missed opportunity, Hannah Woodhead argues in a piece she wrote for the London-based film magazine Little White Lies titled "An Open Letter to Jason Reitman." She writes that while 2016's Ghostbusters wasn't an original idea, the all-female team pushed the franchise forward in an important way that may be lost in the new version.

"I think we suffer from this collective sense of nostalgia in film, where we're always looking to the past rather than the future," she tells The Hollywood Reporter. "The past is safe. The past is easy."

1984's Ghostbusters is widely considered a classic, and while the 1989 follow-up was less well-received, it does have its fans. Decades later, Feig's all-female 2016 Ghostbusters received a fresh 74 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, higher than Ghostbusters II. In addition to misogynistic trolling online, Jones faced racist attacks that caused her to leave Twitter for a period of time.

"I think it's a really entertaining movie that was doomed simply because it wasn't the film a certain very loud percentage of the audience wanted," says Drew McWeeny, co-creator of the 80s All Over podcast and longtime film critic.

Cracked contributor Chris Sutcliffe was a fan of Feig's film and grew up with Ghostbusters. He's more concerned about the direction of the new film under Reitman.

"What frustrates me about this new film, and I'm very aware that we've had very little news, is how keen they are to distance themselves from the 2016 film," says Sutcliffe. "Not only will it feel like a victory to all the wrong people, but it just feels like a creative step backwards."

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/why-is-ghostbusters-3-ignoring-all-female-reboot-1177318

I might be wrong, but I think I remember Drew McWeeny criticising Man of Steel. Well, considering there is a vocal group of nostalgic Donner Superman fans who had an axe to grind with Snyder's interpretation, I hope McWeeny now knows how it feels.

Holy crap, the revision at play there is beyond the beyond. Scarcely a mention of how the movie tanked it at the box office. Plenty of out of context citations of the movie's worldwide box office (meaningless without the production cost sitting next to it), it's critical reception (not brought on by PC critics at all, heavens no), the Rotten Tomatoes score (only the pro critic rating; I wonder why the general audience rating was skipped?) and all that other stuff.

At the end of the day, the movie was crap and it was received by audiences as crap.

Worse, nobody is mentioning how the movie studio and marketing wonks brought the backlash upon themselves by hurling all sorts of invective at the movie's core audience.

The funny thing is that all these strong, empowered, independent wamen aren't capable of any kind of self-reflection. When their turd movie sinks like a turd, it can't possibly by their fault. Heavens no, it must be toxic white male privilege or something.

Berating the studio for going in a different direction and trying to resurrect the original franchise truly puts their screeching over the top.

McWeeny? Ah, I guess he's decided to finally use his real name. Good thing too, that "Moriarty" shtick from his AICN days was lame from the get go.

One final thing. The Internet drips abuse. I've been using it for nearly thirty years now and I've never known a time when the online discourse as mature, enlightened and rational. No, the tone of the Internet has always been a clown car next to a dumpster fire in the middle of a s**t show. If you do anything of any visibility or prominence whatsoever, you will catch grief over it. You'll catch love and affection too. But lots of grief, don't kid yourself.

Why is it, then, that the abuse that is the currency of online communication should exempt wamen simply because they're wamen? Why should Leslie Jones not get the same kind of nasty messages that literally EVERYBODY ELSE RECEIVES?

If you start a YouTube channel and it gains traction, you will be called everything in the book. Mark my words and read them back to me later. You will be on the receiving end of toxicitiy like you can't even imagine. It's how things work. I'm not saying it's a positive thing. I'm just saying it's a normal thing.

Is it right that Jones received that stuff? Maybe not. But, for better or for worse, it's normal for famous or high profile people to receive all kinds of invective in comments, tweets and everything else. If you don't believe me, check out the YouTube, Instagram and other comments of famous people. Jones wasn't treated any better or any worse. Neither was Daisy Ridley, Kelly Marie Tran or numerous others.

But for some reason, the acid bath that the Internet can be sometimes shouldn't be directed at wamen because they have girl parts or something? It's idiotic but people believe that because they're idiotic too.

[The Dark Knight]

"So insulting. Like f*** us. We dint count. It's like something trump would do. (Trump voice) "Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with men, will be huge. Those women ain't ghostbusteeeeers" ugh so annoying. Such a dick move. And I don't give f*** I'm saying something!!"

What a dumb comment. Girlbusters was the redo. The first two ORIGINAL films which ESTABLISHED the universe had a majority male cast. The all female reboot had no prior grounding in the material. That is the abberation, not the original series, and anyone who didn't get on board with it were insulted. The studio mindset (and that of the actors) truly was 'Gonna redo Ghostbusters, better with women'. They're the ones who went political, so don't whine now.

[Silver Nemesis]

What a dumb comment. Girlbusters was the redo. The first two ORIGINAL films which ESTABLISHED the universe had a majority male cast. The all female reboot had no prior grounding in the material. That is the abberation, not the original series, and anyone who didn't get on board with it were insulted. The studio mindset (and that of the actors) truly was 'Gonna redo Ghostbusters, better with women'. They're the ones who went political, so don't whine now.

Exactly. The misguided sense of entitlement displayed in her quote is hilarious. As if the 2016 movie were the original and the new film a bastardisation of the concept. The irony is that the frustration she's describing perfectly articulates how the rest of us felt back in 2016. Just change a few words, like so:

"So insulting. Like f*** us. We dint count. It's like something Amy Pascal would do. (Pascal voice) "Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with women, will be huge. Those white men ain't ghostbusteeeeers" ugh so annoying. Such a dick move. And I don't give f*** I'm saying something!!"

What we're seeing with this media backlash is pure Neo-Marxism at work. Marxism teaches people to categorise themselves into marginalised tribal subsets. The more oppressed you are, the more entitled you are to have your voice heard. Because if you're part of a marginalised group, then your experience is unique and nobody outside of that group can possibly relate to it. This empowers you to impose guilt on everyone outside of your group and demand that they listen to you. And sadly this usually results in increased tribalism and hostility between different demographics.

But you can see why this ideology appeals to young undergraduates in particular. Normally you'd have to go out into the world and actually do something with your life in order to have your opinion carry any weight. But here comes this philosophy that teaches people they already have expert knowledge simply by virtue of who they are. It also appeals to older people, as it undermines the notion of meritocracy in such a way that comforts underachievers. If someone else has done better than you in life, it's not because they're more talented, worked harder or just had better luck; no, it's because the system is rigged and they had advantages you didn't have based purely on group identity. Consequently you have a right to attack their success and demand reparative measures to redress the balance.

This same school of thought promotes the concept of moral virtue being measurable by how easily offended you are, or by the number of different demographics on whose behalf you're willing to act offended. There was a similar trend in 18th century English society where sensitivity was seen as emblematic of social and intellectual refinement, so people would constantly posture about how delicate their nerves were and go around openly weeping in public. The literature of the time is replete with sentimental novels in which the characters faint and call for their smelling salts in a glib and ostentatious manner. At the time this was seen as sophisticated. The modern day equivalent would be virtue signalling on social media about how triggered you are because you saw a six-year-old girl wearing a Moana dress on Halloween and realised it might offend someone living on an island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. This is what it means to be woke in 2019.

Identity politics also provides a great defence mechanism for people who can't take criticism. Go ahead and insult someone, and if that person insults you back simply retreat into the fortified plurality of your group identity. It wasn't you the person insulted; it was the collective. So if a man calls a woman "stupid" he didn't insult a fellow human being, he insulted all women. And the only reason anyone would do such a thing is misogyny. Now you've established that premise, you can play the victim card. Because, once again, victimhood is one of the most valued currencies in modern political discourse. And there are always male feminist white knights waiting in the wings, ready to leap to the defence of a marginalised victim in a heroic display of chivalric wokeness. Never mind that infantilising adults in this way, by acting as if they need the protection of a middle-class college-educated white man, is itself a form of sexual and racial condescension. Just so long as you score some upvotes on social media.

What's really fascinating is the way film studios have exploited identity politics, and especially victimhood culture, as a weapon against fan criticism. If your movie is encountering strong consumer resistance, then the first step to getting the press on your side is to have a female cast member make a show of quitting social media. Cite "targeted harassment" or "bullying" as the reason. Bonus points if she's a 'person of colour' or LGBT, as that makes her critics look like bigots and gives journalists a cause to fight for. Now your multimillion dollar corporate product has a victimised human face to incite sympathy amongst the press. It won't win over the fans. In fact accusing the fans of being bigots usually has the complete opposite effect and results in box office disaster. But at least you'll have journalists on your side and will significantly increase your chances of getting a 'FRESH' rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

For the record, I have an extremely low tolerance for bullying of any kind, and particularly racially-motivated bullying. My own nephew and niece, whom I love more than anything, are mixed raced. And I wouldn't tolerate anyone saying or doing anything hurtful towards them. But I also have little patience for people who use their group identity to play the victim card in situations where matters of race, gender or sexuality are irrelevant. Especially when it distracts from the real issue. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that people receive hateful comments on social media, but that's life. Millions of people use those platforms and law of averages dictates some of them will be A-holes. It's harsh, I know. But that's just the reality for people who put themselves in the public eye. You have to expect the consumer base to react to what you're feeding them, and not all of those reactions will be good. Taking a tiny sample of bigoted reactions and projecting their guilt onto everyone who says anything remotely negative about you is not a productive or honest way of dealing with such criticisms.

A culture war was fought over the 2016 Ghostbusters movie, and the studio lost. Decisively. The white knights need to accept that and move on. The main reason they lost was that they picked the wrong battlefield to begin with. I mean, why are we even having this discussion about a Ghostbusters movie? Ghostbusters is something everyone should be able to enjoy, regardless of politics. The fact I'm even posting this in a Ghostbusters thread is ridiculous. But if the media really wants another war over GB3, then bring it on. To misquote John Rambo, we'll give them a war they wont believe.

[The Laughing Fish]

For the record, I have an extremely low tolerance for bullying of any kind

That's a little rich coming from you, considering you've talked down to people and dismissed them as Burton or Snyder fanboys whenever they expressed legitimate gripes with certain things like Nolan or Superman II. You might not see it as bullying, but it sure as hell isn't very flattering, is it?

But yes, I agree that identity politics is a problem. There's nothing at all wrong with making movies starring people of diverse backgrounds, but you can't praise something just for the sake of diversity alone.

Is it right that Jones received that stuff? Maybe not. But, for better or for worse, it's normal for famous or high profile people to receive all kinds of invective in comments, tweets and everything else. If you don't believe me, check out the YouTube, Instagram and other comments of famous people. Jones wasn't treated any better or any worse. Neither was Daisy Ridley, Kelly Marie Tran or numerous others.

Very true. You only have to look at some of the demented trash some "people" (and I use the term loosely) wrote about Zack Snyder after his daughter died. No matter how bad the insults towards those actresses may have been, they're nothing compared to the vile, hateful comments I've seen degenerates write about that man's personal tragedy.

I've heard Leslie Jones is guilty of making some anti-white comments on Twitter. She's not innocent by the sound of it, but that's still not an excuse to attack her either. As a matter of fact, making racist comments against her only gives these agenda-driven people in the entertainment industry more ammunition to run this this narrative against the entire fanbase. If this article is indicative of anything to come, I expect the critics to give Ghostbusters 3 negative reviews out of spite, regardless if the movie is good or bad.

To say that I have mixed feelings about this is an understatement. On one hand, you're rewarding a white male director whose last five movies bombed (and of those, only the two starring Charlize Theron and penned by Diablo Cody received positive reviews) the keys to a hugely valuable franchise mostly because he's the son of the guy who directed those first two Ghostbusters movies. And yes, unintentional or not, you're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all-female sci-fi comedy. And yet, we have only ourselves to blame. Studios aren't charities and they tend to want movies that attract moviegoers and make money.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/01/16/jason-reitman-ghostbusters-3-sony-jumanji-star-wars-halloween-jurassic-world-box-office/

[thecolorsblend]

It's kind of interesting how critics and commentators suddenly become aware of the importance of box office returns when Diversity Almighty is under threat.

It's almost like they have a different agenda or something...

[Silver Nemesis]

It's kind of interesting how critics and commentators suddenly become aware of the importance of box office returns when Diversity Almighty is under threat.

It's almost like they have a different agenda or something...

Box office revenue is the one metric that can't be fudged. It's a poor indicator of quality, but a strong indicator of popularity. Numbers don't lie. Although that said, we have seen attempts at manipulating box office results in recent years. Take for example the celebrities who bought out theatres to try and inflate the box office performance of the romantic comedy Love, Simon (2018): https://people.com/movies/stars-buyout-theaters-love-simon/

I haven't seen that movie and I've got nothing against it. I'm just citing it as an example of industry personalities trying to fudge the box office results in order to make the film look more successful than it actually was. Did it work? Well it grossed around four to six times its production budget, so I'd say yes. But its production budget was only around $10-17 million to begin with. It would be much harder to manipulate the performance of a film with a $144 million budget like Feigbusters. The studio knows this and they know that a proper sequel featuring the original cast is a more lucrative business prospect than a sequel to the 2016 film.

At the end of the day the media can cite the critical response as proof of the 2016 movie's success, and the fans can cite the audience scores as proof of its failure. But the decision to make GB3 over a sequel to Feig's film is the final adjudication on which side is correct.

[Silver Nemesis]

I don't want to open up old wounds... but I did finally watch this movie over Christmas. I usually never trash a film unless I've actually seen it, but I made an exception for this one back in 2016 and I've felt slightly guilty about it ever since. I don't regret opposing the movie, and I stand by my objections to the concept of a hard reboot of Ghostbusters. But now that the controversy has died down, and I'm able to distance myself from Sony's heated smear campaign against the fans, I decided to try and give it an objective appraisal. It was on TV anyway, so I figured what the hell. Here's my review.

The four lead actresses bring a lot of energy to their roles and deliver spirited performances (pun intended). No one in the cast can be accused of phoning it in, except Bill Murray. But considering he was effectively blackmailed into doing it, I can't say I blame him. Sigourney Weaver also seems a bit bemused during her mid-credit cameo. But everyone else is clearly trying to make the movie a success, and there's something endearing about the enthusiasm they all bring to the project. If you had to find four comediennes to star in an ensemble of this nature, then these four ladies aren't bad picks.

The problem lies in the fact the movie itself just isn't very funny. There are one or two ok gags, like the "Please don't be the mayor from Jaws" line. But the script is weak, and you can tell a large percentage of the dialogue is improvised. Murray improvised much of his own dialogue in the 1984 film, but the results here are far less successful. The quirky improv-vibe gives the movie a light and breezy tone, but at no point during its surprisingly long runtime did I actually laugh out loud. There are also far too many scenes were the main cast start spontaneously dancing for no reason. Some people might find this funny, but I didn't. I noticed some of the more cringe-worthy moments from the trailer were absent from the finished film, but the material they left in was often just as bad.

The themes of female friendship, combined with the abundance of misandric jokes and persistent sexual objectification of Chris Hemsworth's character, make it clear that this movie is targeting a female demographic. There's nothing much in it for male viewers to enjoy. And that's odd considering the Ghostbusters fan base has always been predominantly (but not exclusively) male. But how does it compare to the original 1984 film? Well it follows many of the same plot beats as the old movie: the three academics get kicked out of college, start up their own business, recruit a fourth team member, discover a supernatural threat to the city, try to warn the mayor, inadvertently conjure a giant ghost, and finally save New York by "crossing the streams".

Within that framework they try to do a few things differently, and I give them credit for that. But it never comes together the way the 1984 film did, and the creepiness that helped define the old Ghostbusters movies and cartoon show is noticeably absent. As a kid, I found the original films scary in places, but the reboot never aspires to be anything more than a goofy lightweight comedy. The closest it comes to being spooky is a scene where Leslie Jones's character is pursued by a mannequin. But even this scene is very brief and not particularly well executed. Yes, the old Ghostbusters films and TV episodes were comedies, but they were also ghost stories. They were 'horror comedies'. By contrast, the 2016 reboot is a comedy that just happens to feature ghosts. It never rises above its own silliness, or even attempts to, and that prevents it from ever achieving the kind of atmosphere that Ghostbusters fans have come to know and love.

If this wasn't called Ghostbusters – if it was a Ghostbusters-influenced original IP, like Men in Black or Evolution – and if it had a better script, tighter editing and more disciplined direction (e.g. less improv and fewer dance scenes), then it might have worked as a cheerful diversion. But as it stands, it's a mediocre film that is neither a successful comedy, nor a good reboot of a beloved franchise. As a Ghostbusters movie, it's plain bad. And at the end of the day, that's the yardstick against which the majority of fans will be judging it. I'd compare GB16 to Sony's 2014 RoboCop reboot in so far as neither is the 'worst movie of all time' cynics might have been expecting, yet neither truly acquits itself in relation to its progenitor. They're just forgettable misfires that will ultimately serve as footnotes on the history of better films.

[thecolorsblend]

The themes of female friendship, combined with the abundance of misandric jokes and persistent sexual objectification of Chris Hemsworth's character, make it clear that this movie is targeting a female demographic.

And, seemingly, a very small and rather peculiar female demographic who (A) is aware of objectification (real or perceived) of women in much of film history (B) view that as a negative and (C) want revenge.

On that basis, I'm surprised the movie's numbers are as high as they are.

The other thing is that the OG Ghostbusters was intentionally a stylistic clash. It was shot like a 1970's New Hollywood horror film but performed as a comedy. For a lot of people, the blending of those two genres is successful. The horror never overpowers the comedy and the comedy never overpowers the horror.

2016 GB's comes off like a supernatural adventure film, and that might actually have been successful... except for the above mentioned skewed feminist approach.