Paul Feig: It's the trolls Fault Ghosts Busters Reboot flopped

Delicious tears

he should do more cardio

>>91982487
Trolls were part of it, yes. It had a lot of negative press and press about the negative press which colored the whole reception and likely caused people who might have given it a shot not to go.

However, it doesn't stop it from being a terrible movie that misunderstands everything that was good about the original in its quest for dollars.

Wrong board, sparky. You want tv.

>>91982487
was Trolls even out yet?

What does this have to do with /co/?

>>91982487

I bet it was the 4 Chan terrorsists who did it, le sigh....

:(

>>91982655
Don't you mean THE HACKER KNOWN AS 4CHAN?

We win?
Of course not
While that atrocious movie exist in any format humanity loses a bit more of his soul.

>>91982487
Not /co/ lol
I see why he'd come to that conclusion but he's still wrong.

As soon as the female-led aspect of the reboot was announced, there were a lot of people who kneejerked based on that factor alone. I mean, I was distrustful from that start on the basis that it was a reboot in general lel, but a lot of guys DID seem to have an issue with the idea of the reboot being female-led.

The issue is that Feig basically validated every one of their fears when he made the film. Feig is a terribly, terribly overrated director who's well-liked in Hollywood and sees being well-liked in that circle as a sign that he's a creative genius.

The reboot had an uphill struggle for support, sure, but pretty much all the attempts to respond to that were throwing themselves down the hill.

/co/ - Comics & Cartoons

File: 1490573611159.jpg (72KB, 600x375px)

72KB, 600x375px

>>91982574
>was Trolls even out yet?
HAHAAAAA!

>>91982487
No. He was stirring the pot as much as anyone, and the movie itself was a calculated cashgrab with a marketing scheme designed to attempt to take advantage of gender politics to rake it bucks.

Feig whining about trolls while he was shit flinging is hilarious. He encouraged it, he participated in it, he actively made it worse.

>said that a less-publicized bright side to his "Ghostbusters" casting choice is women viewers who tell him the film shaped their aspirations about pursuing science and technology.
I'll take Things That Didn't Happen for 2000, Alex. This is just more of the virtue signalling horseshit that he was throwing around before. He didn't learn a damn thing.

>>91983149

>movie itself was a calculated cashgrab

Everything is a cashgrab if they're selling it. No major studio is releasing movies to earn goodwill and trust from it's audiences.

>>91982487
Unless you want to talk about the cartoons and/or comics, go back to >>>/tv/

File: He never appologized.png (78KB, 606x145px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 606x145px

>>91982487

Every thing about the movie was toxic.

Pic related only said that the trailer looked bad so he wouldn't be watching/reviewing the movie. And fuckin mainstream media outlets tore him apart, attacked him and his wife, and treated him like he'd just killed a person all because he didn't want to see a fucking movie.

Even Hollywood celebrities like Patton Oswalt were riling up Twitter mobs against him and anyone else who didn't want to see the new Ghostbusters. Why the fuck is a shitty movie being politicized to the point where celebrities start attacking nobodies and saying that they're bad people just because they don't want to see it?

The 2016 Ghostbusters just seemed to bring out the worst in everybody who so much as mentioned it.

File: RCO024_1490235676.jpg (1MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1988x3056px

>>91982554
>>91982581
>>91983021

The 2016 reboot Ghostbusters have just been assimilated into the IDW Ghostbusters comic. So there.

Anybody read Ghostbusters 101, anyway? I read the first issue and it was as good as any other Ghostbusters comic by Burnham... up until the 2016 characters showed up.

They're so fundamentally unfunny and uninteresting, even a good writer can't salvage them. I've been reading the IDW Ghostbusters books since they started, but this may be my dropping point.

>>91983247
>Why the fuck is a shitty movie being politicized to the point where celebrities start attacking nobodies and saying that they're bad people just because they don't want to see it?

Because the left are lowlife scumbags.

>>91983326
>The 2016 reboot Ghostbusters have just been assimilated into the IDW Ghostbusters comic. So there.
Fuck you. This loophole is fucking shit. Take this garbage thread to /tv/ where it belongs.

>>91982574
Lmao

>>91982581
We were the intended audience

>>91983326

>lol he's so RANDOM!!

That comic looks fucking awful.

>>91983330

>Because the left are lowlife scumbags.

>Yes, everyone who disagrees with me is part of the extremist elements of the political parties I disagree with

>clearly this makes perfect sense

>>91982487
>https://www.cnet.com/news/paul-feig-tribeca-trolls-ghostbusters/
Writer looks like a tranny.

Both of them can go to hell.

File: Bugs1.png (180KB, 430x422px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 430x422px

>>91982487
TGT adaptation when??

>>91983149
>>said that a less-publicized bright side to his "Ghostbusters" casting choice is women viewers who tell him the film shaped their aspirations about pursuing science and technology.
>I'll take Things That Didn't Happen for 2000, Alex.
Yup, pretty much

>>91983326
>I've been reading the IDW Ghostbusters books since they started, but this may be my dropping point.
I was right there with you. I've been pulling them from day one, but I dropped it hard after the reboot characters got involved.

I'll consider picking it back up if they leave and never come back, but the damage has already been done.

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-04-30 09:03:09 Post No.91983404
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-04-30 09:03:09 Post No.91983404 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/tv/82236085