A hefty film budget doesn't necessitate a cinematic failure. There are so many different directions you can go with the concept of ghost hunters. Paul Feig essentially made Ghostbusters but with a less interesting setup and four people who really felt like they didn't want to be in the same room together. Look at the Spy Who Dumped Me. I bought the friendship between Kate McKinnon and Mila Kunis and their attitude and even the premise of them becoming spies after the finale (obviously a joke ending as there's so much more to joining an intelligence organization than simply "applying"; probably couldn't even expect fieldwork for a few years).

Disney can mostly get away with their cash-grabby remakes because they have years of nostalgic faith to bet on with their following. Ghostbusters didn't have that. Two films which are cult classics are the same as Star Wars or Marvel. Here fans have waited years for some kind of follow-up and Paul Feig chose to piss on the fanbase.

As for star power, the film had Chris Hemsworth hot off Avengers Age of Ultron. Melissa McCarthy has had decent success even in action-comedies and the film had cameos from the original stars (except Harold Ramis who was dead). The problem here lies in the cashgrab nature of the film and that very message which was unwisely packaged in its marketing.

Basically, the trailers said "hey, remember Ghostbusters? Give us your money." Whereas the audience replied "how is it connected? How will the remake appeal to me?" Again, the trailers said "give us your money for a film whose jokes don't land, whose characters are not at all interested in the job, whose villain is 1-note and makes no damned sense, for cameos from actors who played characters you loved in the last film but are completely unrelated in this one... did we mention we want your money? Also women, 'cause feminism is a thing, right?" That last point, they tried to sell hard. Here's the thing about trying to market anything to "rights group" or "equalists": they will approve, but they just don't consume it. In other words money is being wasted on a group of people that otherwise doesn't give a $#!+.

Quote Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno View Post
It did poorly because it was a mediocre flick that relied way too much on running gags for its own good. You could have switched those roles with an all guy cast and it still wouldn't have saved the flick, but I believe the hype for the film would have been stronger had it been an all male cast.
Exactly. It didn't matter that this was a gender-swapped team. It was a bad movie. Most Warriors can't do the math that good movies are good movies and are praised as such no matter who's starring in it. You can't make a poorly constructed film and then blame the fans for not liking it. That's like the directors responsible for Mario Brothers claiming fans who disliked the movie are racists because John Leguizamo is of Columbian descent.

Personally, I just wished for some sort of closure for my favorite characters.