Debate on Social Agendas/Commentaries in Movies

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

I don't keep up with tons of shows or movies so I can't give you the comprehensive list you seem to be looking for, but it's not as though creativity and diversity need to be at odds. The Hunger Games is a successful franchise, Get Out was widely acclaimed, Black Panther is doing well, and I haven't cared for Marvel for some time but I don't recall Luke Cage and Jessica Jones being as prominent in that universe 15 years ago. 

Diversification for the sake of diversification, especially in the current 'hollywood climate' comes across as lazy; they've drained the creative well and instead of branching to other franchises or characters like I've mentioned, you get projects like Ghostbusters or The Force Awakens which try so hard to be socially progressive that they instead have the reverse effect (and I don't think I'm alone in that opinion).

I do agree that things are changing and that there is an effort to provide more entertainment vehicles for people other than white males.  

I also don't think white-male driven movies are going to go away anytime soon and that the inclusion of some black or female characters within those movies to make the film better representative of society as whole isn't such a terrible objective. 

It's interesting that when reboots like Starsky and Hutch, The Pink Panther, Vacation, Clash of the Titans, Arthur, Chips, Planet of the Earth (2001), and the litany of others all fail, the blame isn't usually placed on the cast but that they were just shitty movies.  As the Paul Feig noted, "If a giant tentpole starring men doesn’t do well, people don’t go, ‘oh well, we can’t have guys in movies any more.”   I'm still failing to understand why a female Ghostbusters is an example of diversification run amok instead of it just being a shitty movie?  Why are efforts to include a more diverse cast in existing film or television properties that suck treated with such disdain when no one really gives a shit about the myriad of other shitty reboots.  Is it your conclusion that only males are allowed to make shitty reboots?   Does such a conclusion not leave room for female or minorities to succeed in reboots that not only work but are perhaps better than the originals (examples off the top of my head would be Mad Max: Fury Road and the new 12 Monkeys television show).  

As much as I did not enjoy the latest Star Wars instalment, I still don't understand why having a female lead is so problematic as a concept.  You can quibble about how Rey has been constructed and presented, but what is so damaging to the Star Wars brand by allowing for a female lead hero?  It's a huge cinematic universe; this notion that there's no room for a strong female protagonist lead is absurd. 

I think there's an overall trend within the white-male cohort to view every new entertainment property as it relates to them.  Besides the strong female lead in Rey, there are all sorts of criticisms of the last three Star Wars for forcing a progressive or anti-conservative agenda.  One wonders if the original Star Wars were released today would they receive the same kind and level of criticism.  Because many of the progressive themes that support the last few instalments are just as as noticeable in episodes IV through VI.  

We've gotten to the point where a video game in which you kill Nazis is criticized for being anti-conservative and pushing a liberal agenda.  It just feels like white masculinity has become so fragile that we white men look for further proof that we're no longer on top and that women, minorities, and liberals are out to oppress us as a group.  And for me, it really comes off as weak and paranoid.  

[MB.]

You know it’s also that Hollywood makes useless movies to please everybody the last couple of years or so it seems. Like they are afraid to just make a great movie even when it means it needs a white male lead or hardly diversity. So they can please most people and even most ages, so they have as many paying customers as possible and don’t get called racist or anti feminist or whatever. But it are often not the best movies.

In the past good movies were made by Hollywood. Strong female leads as well, strong black man/female leads/roles etc. To name a few out of my head, Sophie’s choice, Silance of the lambs, Shawshank redemption, The Green Mile, a Soldier’s story, Malcolm X, Jackie Brown, Glory, Amistad etc. for instance, but I can name so many more. American History X as a great movie to protest against the racism in the US. It’s not like there were never made any. Oh and Will Smith is probably the most popular actor atm. The only group who does deserve better are gays, Philidelphia, Brokeback Mountain, Moonlight (not a Hollywood production) are one of the few movies where gays are portrayed in a non feminine way. ( yeah Will and Grace and specially Ellen where important, I can only applaud that). Anyway hardly good films made by Hollywood nowadays. They are making lots of crap, all ages diversity movies just for the sake of it, so it seems. Think that is what bothers me most. For actually great movies you have to go to independent or European movies/series now. Go watch the Zookeepers wife, talking about strong female leads btw. Moonlight, Amour (about dementia). One of the best of the last years is the Intouchables, strong black lead, A ciambra (so not political correct, but totally based on truth). Best series are Italian for sure, Gomorra, Romanzo Criminale for instance. All not afraid to adress difficult subjects, without being a crap movie like the new Ghostbusters and without being patronising. But this is my personal opinion. 

I don’t care about your politics. Ofcourse I am liberal, I am even more liberal than the US Liberals. I am European and a left winged one, which means in US eyes, I am a socialist. I don’t care, just make good series and movies again. Stop pleasing as many people and ages as possible with crap. Keep it real, stick to the story, make better ones. Don’t care what color, gender or sexual orientation the leads are, but don’t add people with useless roles to please everybody and to lecture us. Hollywood constantly seems to want to teach mostly white males,  how normal it is to be gay, to be black, to be a strong female, like people are kids to be taught, ofcourse it is normal. Stop lecturing that with silly movies (like the new Ghostbusters ) or silly changes in stories/persons, so people will not get offended or defensive. This is just not the way and misses it’s purpose totally. Just make better movies.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by MB.

[Dazey]

On 31/01/2018 at 11:52 PM, MB. said:

Lol, I didn’t even think anything bad about it. Guess that would have made people even more upset if you put it that way. 

Well if you go to historical accurancy the servents would have been (kids) slaves cause that was in fashion and a status symbol in those days, that would probably be a total no go in a kids movie. Nevermind than. Keep it like it is, I said nothing.

Sorry MB. I've read enough of your posts on here over the years to know that you don't have a racist bone in your body. I just thought your choice of words could've been better.

[MB.]

7 hours ago, Dazey said:

Sorry MB. I've read enough of your posts on here over the years to know that you don't have a racist bone in your body. I just thought your choice of words could've been better.

Lol, I know, I really didn’t thought it through. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

I am a HUGE horror fan, so I also see this "new age strong female" Leads as NOTHING new. I grew up watching SO many strong female characters, that honestly were SO much stronger than those in films today, plus they actually serve the story and plot. I've even told my daughter that I have yet to see a stronger female than either Ripley or Sarah Conner, and those characters are 30 plus years old. The ironic part is BOTH of those characters were incredibly strong, but ALSO mothers. Which as a side note, I (as well as my wife, who is a mother) find it appalling that motherhood gets ATTACKED by modern femisim as some how weak. Honestly, I can attest that parenthood in general is FAR more challenging (and rewarding) than ANYTHING the work place has to offer. But that's a topic for a different thread. 

As for strong females in films, I feel the 80s provided a TON of exceptionally strong females. Ripley, Sarah Conner, Nancy Thompson (A Nightmare on Elm Street), Laurie Strode (Halloween) and Alice Johnson (A Nightmare on Elm Streets 4 and 5) just to name a few. Which NONE of these characters were the "typical" big breasted girl that's going to get slaughtered. They found ways to out smart and defeat the antagonist. But according to some, strong female leads are SO needed in Hollywood. Which again, I remember growing up with these ladies and respecting them. So for me, strong female characters are NOTHING new at all. Having said that, outside of perhaps Katniss, I would say these "80s women" were stronger than any female characters since. Especially Rey, she is SUCH a Mary Sue, despite what Downzy tries to pretend. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Padme]

 There should be room for everything in the movie industry. Popcorn movies and movies that deal with social issues. I like Gran Torino, American History X,  G.I. Jane, Django Unchained or Suffragettes. The same way I enjoy Star Wars, Terminator, E.T. or Bachelor Party

However I also have to say I think that movies like Boyz N The Hood are just reinforcing stereotypes. That's how I see it. 

 

[J Dog]

1 hour ago, Padme said:

 There should be room for everything in the movie industry. Popcorn movies and movies that deal with social issues. I like Gran Torino, American History X,  G.I. Jane, Django Unchained or Suffragettes. The same way I enjoy Star Wars, Terminator, E.T. or Bachelor Party

However I also have to say I think that movies like Boyz N The Hood are just reinforcing stereotypes. That's how I see it. 

 

Oh my goodness I have to totally disagree about Boyz. That came out at a crucial time when the black community was absolutely getting wrecked from drugs and gang violence. If anything it brought the problem front and center to mainstream America, which at the time pretty much turned a blind eye to what was going on. I'd say the stories of Trey and Ricky go against the stereotype. They were the two main characters and neither were gang bangers or dealers or anything like that, both were straight and narrow, stand up kids. That film is much more than playing dominos and drinking 40's. Now there's been a ton of movies made since then that I would agree with you about, but Boyz isn't one of them.

[Padme]

5 minutes ago, J Dog said:

Oh my goodness I have to totally disagree about Boyz. That came out at a crucial time when the black community was absolutely getting wrecked from drugs and gang violence. If anything it brought the problem front and center to mainstream America, which at the time pretty much turned a blind eye to what was going on. I'd say the stories of Trey and Ricky go against the stereotype. They were the two main characters and neither were gang bangers or dealers or anything like that, both were straight and narrow, stand up kids. That film is much more than playing dominos and drinking 40's. Now there's been a ton of movies made since then that I would agree with you about, but Boyz isn't one of them.

But that's my point. Why drugs and violence in L.A. black communites instead of drugs and violence in white communities areas or just everywhere in America?  I'm all for movies about dugs and violence but not one sided

[MB.]

51 minutes ago, Padme said:

But that's my point. Why drugs and violence in L.A. black communites instead of drugs and violence in white communities areas or just everywhere in America?  I'm all for movies about dugs and violence but not one sided

Lol, this thread is exactly about that, cause why not one sided? Why couldn’t a movie been made about drugs and violence in a black community. There are also movies about drugs and violence in white communities, but this one is not. So you always have make movies with all sides in it, to not upset anybody? 

J Dog is right, that movie was indeed pretty important. People had to learn about what was going on, how poor those area’s where, how much violance there was. Cause those communities were left on their own in those days. It made people aware and that was needed as well. It was actually a very political movie.

Edited February 2, 2018 by MB.

[Gordon Comstock]

22 hours ago, downzy said:

I do agree that things are changing and that there is an effort to provide more entertainment vehicles for people other than white males.  

I also don't think white-male driven movies are going to go away anytime soon and that the inclusion of some black or female characters within those movies to make the film better representative of society as whole isn't such a terrible objective. 

It's interesting that when reboots like Starsky and Hutch, The Pink Panther, Vacation, Clash of the Titans, Arthur, Chips, Planet of the Earth (2001), and the litany of others all fail, the blame isn't usually placed on the cast but that they were just shitty movies.  As the Paul Feig noted, "If a giant tentpole starring men doesn’t do well, people don’t go, ‘oh well, we can’t have guys in movies any more.”   I'm still failing to understand why a female Ghostbusters is an example of diversification run amok instead of it just being a shitty movie?  Why are efforts to include a more diverse cast in existing film or television properties that suck treated with such disdain when no one really gives a shit about the myriad of other shitty reboots.  Is it your conclusion that only males are allowed to make shitty reboots?   Does such a conclusion not leave room for female or minorities to succeed in reboots that not only work but are perhaps better than the originals (examples off the top of my head would be Mad Max: Fury Road and the new 12 Monkeys television show).  

As much as I did not enjoy the latest Star Wars instalment, I still don't understand why having a female lead is so problematic as a concept.  You can quibble about how Rey has been constructed and presented, but what is so damaging to the Star Wars brand by allowing for a female lead hero?  It's a huge cinematic universe; this notion that there's no room for a strong female protagonist lead is absurd. 

I think there's an overall trend within the white-male cohort to view every new entertainment property as it relates to them.  Besides the strong female lead in Rey, there are all sorts of criticisms of the last three Star Wars for forcing a progressive or anti-conservative agenda.  One wonders if the original Star Wars were released today would they receive the same kind and level of criticism.  Because many of the progressive themes that support the last few instalments are just as as noticeable in episodes IV through VI.  

We've gotten to the point where a video game in which you kill Nazis is criticized for being anti-conservative and pushing a liberal agenda.  It just feels like white masculinity has become so fragile that we white men look for further proof that we're no longer on top and that women, minorities, and liberals are out to oppress us as a group.  And for me, it really comes off as weak and paranoid.  

 

Ghostbusters was slammed for more than just it's cast, but the blatant attempt at being progressive and hyping the cast up while still creating a shitty movie, will obviously bring extra scrutiny to the casting decisions; it comes off as 'we don't have to write a quality script because our selling point is progressiveness'. I don't know why it's so hard to see that with the Ghostbusters criticisms.

I have said several times, in fact so have others in this thread, that a strong female lead is not an issue. MB and others have expressed this better than I can, and I feel like this debate could keep circling for a while, so I will just say, again, that diversity just for it's own sake can come off the wrong way.

[Padme]

27 minutes ago, MB. said:

Lol, this thread is exactly about that, cause why not one sided? Why couldn’t a movie been made about drugs and violence in a black community. There are also movies about drugs and violence in white communities, but this one is not. So you always have make movies with all sides in it, to not upset anybody? 

J Dog is right, that movie was indeed pretty important. People had to learn about what was going on, how poor those area’s where, how much violance there was. Cause those communities were left on their own in those days. It made people aware and that was needed as well. It was actually a very political movie.

Drugs and violence is not a problem in one city and one community only. But I won't stop any producer nor director if they just want to make it about one city and one particular community. I don't find fair game but so be it

[downzy]

8 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

Ghostbusters was slammed for more than just it's cast, but the blatant attempt at being progressive and hyping the cast up while still creating a shitty movie, will obviously bring extra scrutiny to the casting decisions; it comes off as 'we don't have to write a quality script because our selling point is progressiveness'. I don't know why it's so hard to see that with the Ghostbusters criticisms.

I have said several times, in fact so have others in this thread, that a strong female lead is not an issue. MB and others have expressed this better than I can, and I feel like this debate could keep circling for a while, so I will just say, again, that diversity just for it's own sake can come off the wrong way.

Movies hype casts all the time.  Ghostbusters included some of the most talented and well known comedic actors (man or women) at the time.  Why wouldn't they hype a cast like that?

Also, do you honestly think they went into filming thinking they're working off a shitty script?

There are plenty of projects that don't work out despite the best of intentions.  Sony spent $130 million on the production plus another $130 million in marketing and budget.  If it was just about pandering, why would they hire Paul Feig to write and direct?  Feig had hit a couple of home runs with Bridesmaids and The Heat.  Sony signed on one of the hottest writers/directors at the time to write and direct the film, some of the biggest names in comedy, and spent in and around $300 million on its production and marketing.   I don't see the basis for the accusation that Sony didn't do everything they could to make the best movie they could. 

I see the criticisms unrelated to the female cast and I agree that the movie didn't end up working, but not for a lack of trying.

If Sony hired a shitty director (say Paul W.S. Anderson or Michael Bay), chose no-name and talentless women as lead roles, and skimped on the production budget but spent heavily on marketing, then I would agree that the studio was trying to use diversity for the wrong reasons.  Such a scenario would absolutely be pandering to an audience on the basis of diversity.  But that wasn't the case with the latest Ghostbusters film, regardless of the fact that it didn't work as a film for reasons other than the cast.  

[downzy]

7 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

@downzy Using Ridley Scott's pre-production casting decision to try and justify stupid casting changes to already established roles is an extremely weak argument.

That wasn't my argument.  I illustrated that fictional characters can change from male to female without doing a disservice to the film.  

8 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Especially Rey, she is SUCH a Mary Sue, despite what Downzy tries to pretend. 

Do you even know what a Mary Sue is?  

[downzy]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

That point does not work because that was before the first Alien film was even made. 

*angrily bangs fist on the table and shines a torch in your eyes* Do you mean to tell us that Melissa McCarthy and her ilk from the reboot have talent and are funny? 

It does, because Ridley decided he wanted to tell a different story using a female lead protagonist than what he originally envisioned with a male character.  The same could be said about the most recent Star Wars film where having a female play the protagonist allows for a different perspective.

It's not about justifying bad actors for the sake of diversity.  

[downzy]

3 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I disagree. That could be the only reason they were cast. My cat is funnier than Melissa McCarthy.

The decision to have female Ghostbusters was made long before the cast was decided.  For your point to be true, you'd have to find a quote or proof that the movie was made for the purpose of making McCarthy (or Wiig or the other two female leads) a Ghostbuster.  Since that's not what happened, you won't find anything to validate your claim.

You personally don't like Melissa McCarthy, but I would wager that most people would disagree.  

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

That wasn't my argument.  I illustrated that fictional characters can change from male to female without doing a disservice to the film.  

Do you even know what a Mary Sue is?  

Yes I do, I'm not sure that you do. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Being able to perform tasks WITHOUT proper training. Sounds like Rey to me...

[downzy]

3 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Do you personally like Melissa McCarthy and the others?

I'm a huge fan of McCarthy and McKinnon.  

I don't think there's another person who does a better job as host when on SNL as McCarthy.  Besides McKinnon's alien abduction sketches, McCarthy's Ham Contest sketch is one of my favourites of the last five to ten years:

I thought she was hilarious in Brides Maids (a movie I thought was good, not great), The Heat, and Identity Thief.  Wasn't a huge fan of Tammy or Spy, and felt she did the best she could in Ghostbusters considering the film was hobbled by a script that tried too hard to pay homage to the originals and not enough on forging its own thing.  

McKinnon is easily the best character on SNL right now; I'd put her in the top ten of all time for SNL.  

Wiig was good to great during her time on SNL, but she hasn't done much since leaving the show.  I think she's talented, but has lost her footing since leaving SNL (which isn't uncommon for a lot of SNL alumni).

Leslie Jones's brand of humour ain't my thing.  Always felt she was just imitating Tracey Morgan.  

[downzy]

3 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Yes I do, I'm not sure that you do. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Being able to perform tasks WITHOUT proper training. Sounds like Rey to me...

Luke had little to no training in A New Hope and yet somehow channeled the force to blow up the death star.  

When has training ever been something that's a prerequisite in Star Wars?  

Moreover, Luke made clear that both Rey and Kylo are stronger in the Force than he is.

Plus, a Mary Sue is often someone who never makes mistakes and doesn't rely on help from others.  Neither of those two criteria apply to Rey.   I've always thought Rey's journey so far has mirrored Luke's in A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back.  They both accomplish tremendous feats without very little training, both disregard the advise of their teachers, and both rush headway into mortal danger despite being warned not to do so.  Luke is only saved by his sister at the end of Empire, Rey is saved by Kylo in The Last Jedi.  

If Rey is a Mary Sue, then wouldn't that make Luke a Gary Sue?  They both show the same strengths and weaknesses.  But for some reason, you seem to want to give Luke a pass showing the same qualities as Rey.  

[Iron MikeyJ]

41 minutes ago, downzy said:

Luke had little to no training in A New Hope and yet somehow channeled the force to blow up the death star.  

When has training ever been something that's a prerequisite in Star Wars?  

Moreover, Luke made clear that both Rey and Kylo are stronger in the Force than he is.

Plus, a Mary Sue is often someone who never makes mistakes and doesn't rely on help from others.  Neither of those two criteria apply to Rey.   I've always thought Rey's journey so far has mirrored Luke's in A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back.  They both accomplish tremendous feats without very little training, both disregard the advise of their teachers, and both rush headway into mortal danger despite being warned not to do so.  Luke is only saved by his sister at the end of Empire, Rey is saved by Kylo in The Last Jedi.  

If Rey is a Mary Sue, then wouldn't that make Luke a Gary Sue?  They both show the same strengths and weaknesses.  But for some reason, you seem to want to give Luke a pass showing the same qualities as Rey.  

😃😃😃 that's some koolaid you've been drinking, huh?

For starters, did you forget when Luke said "I used to bullseye womprats"? He clearly said he was CAPABLE of doing it, even without the force. Plus let's not forget who was helping him, Obi wan Kenobi. Let's not forget Luke spent every free moment in that movie TRAINING under Obi wan. So Luke CLEARLY had some formal training. As did EVER OTHER Jedi and Sith in the HISTORY of Star Wars, except for Rey of course. Even Anakin, the freaking CHOSEN ONE had to LEARN how to use the force, it just didn't magically start working for him. Kylo Ren even had proper Jedi and Sith training, did Rey??? Let's also not forget that Rey somehow managed to over power Luke on his island for a minute. Seriously??? Rey is a MARY FREAKING SUE, case closed. 

I don't expect to change your mind on this, which is fine. You can tell yourself whatever you need to in order to NOT admit the truth. But if it smells like a Mary Sue, looks like a Mary Sue, then it's a Mary Sue. 

[downzy]

42 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

😃😃😃 that's some koolaid you've been drinking, huh?

For starters, did you forget when Luke said "I used to bullseye womprats"? He clearly said he was CAPABLE of doing it, even without the force. Plus let's not forget who was helping him, Obi wan Kenobi. Let's not forget Luke spent every free moment in that movie TRAINING under Obi wan. So Luke CLEARLY had some formal training. As did EVER OTHER Jedi and Sith in the HISTORY of Star Wars, except for Rey of course. Even Anakin, the freaking CHOSEN ONE had to LEARN how to use the force, it just didn't magically start working for him. Kylo Ren even had proper Jedi and Sith training, did Rey??? Let's also not forget that Rey somehow managed to over power Luke on his island for a minute. Seriously??? Rey is a MARY FREAKING SUE, case closed. 

I don't expect to change your mind on this, which is fine. You can tell yourself whatever you need to in order to NOT admit the truth. But if it smells like a Mary Sue, looks like a Mary Sue, then it's a Mary Sue. 

It's not Kool-aid mate, it's being objective and not being a hypocrite.  You're making excuses for characters you like criticizing others because in this case, well, gender.

So your contention here is that what seasoned Rebellion pilots who couldn't hit the target using computer assistance targeting should have trained by shooting womprats?  That shooting womprats somehow allowed Luke to hit a one in a million shot? LOL

Obi Wan's hands weren't on the flight stick.  All he did was tell Luke to "use the force."

I must a lot of A New Hope if every free moment Luke had involved training with Obi Wan.  From my recollection there's one scene of Obi Wan giving Luke his lightsaber and telling him what the Force is and one other one minute scene of training with two lines about how to feel the force.  Apparently that's all it takes to channel the force to hit a one in a million shot at the Death Star.  You accept that as believable.  But the few lines that Man gives Rey in TFA about the Force and how to feel it, that's just not in any way comparable.  

Finally, you can ignore or avoid it all you want, but Mary Sues as they have been traditionally understand also don't need help nor make mistakes.  Neither of those standards apply to Rey.  But I guess you don't care about any of that because you don't really care about your opinion making sense.  You just want to keep reiterating the same point regardless of whether it holds up to scrutiny.  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

I found the video you provided 'sliiightly' amusing. Please, give me a warning point.

P.S. Bridesmaids is horrendous. Shame on you. 

Not every film is going to win over everyone.  Myself and millions of others enjoyed Bridesmaids.  A few did not.  

[DieselDaisy]

On 2/1/2018 at 6:18 AM, downzy said:

Why wouldn't two actors be just as valid for the part?  Most roles are offered and passed on by a multitude of actors and actresses.  Why are you so certain that the best actor/actress for the job always gets the part?  

I never stated that, and as you know I'm quite a critic of modern Hollywood. It does not remove the fact that that should be the aspiration. 

On 2/1/2018 at 6:18 AM, downzy said:

Come on man, you can't be serious.  Women can somehow be nurses or firefighters in real life but wielding a proton torpedo pack would be just too cumbersome.  Most western and developed countries who don't hold retrograde views on women do allow women to fight on the front lines. 

Only recently have the United Kingdom allowed certain women on the front lines, but yes: those proton packs are cumbersome. Fighting ghosts as depicted in the original films is clearly an onerous and dangerous profession, whether it entails preventing Gozer and the apocalypse, or Vigo the Carpathian.

On 2/1/2018 at 6:18 AM, downzy said:

Here's Ridley Scott on why Ripley was changed from the original male role to one played by a female: "“I just had a thought. What would you think if Ripley was a woman? She would be the last one you would think would survive—she’s beautiful.”   Why would they be auditioning Weaver if they were still thinking the role should be a man?  Sorry, I don't think your info is correct on this one.

I do not see where this contradicts what I am saying - in fact it supports what I said about casting and directorial gut instinct. At no stage does Ridley say that he cast Weaver for pandering to politically correct audience demographics - which is what you are espousing in this whole thread.

On 2/1/2018 at 6:18 AM, downzy said:

The backlash prior to the movie's release was predominantly from angry white males who feel like any change to the sex or gender makeup of movie characters is an affront and perceived as a threat to their value as white males.  The fact that the movie wasn't great probably had more to do with with why it didn't do well financially.  Even Dan Ackroyd placed the failure of the movie on Paul Feig, the film's director, and not on the decision to have an all female cast.  

I'd argue that the reason the film was dreadful had a direct origin in the gender switch. It inherently instigated a film obsessed with post-irony and ''change just for the sake of change''. 

On 2/1/2018 at 6:18 AM, downzy said:

So a Ghostbuster is the product of their surroundings?  

Yes, rather.

[downzy]

41 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Only recently have the United Kingdom allowed certain women on the front lines, but yes: those proton packs are cumbersome. Fighting ghosts as depicted in the original films is clearly an onerous and dangerous profession, whether it entails preventing Gozer and the apocalypse, or Vigo the Carpathian.

Great for the U.K., but as in most western developed nations that don't hold retrograde and sexist views of women, frontline fighting in the military is no longer limited to men.  

So your contention here is that women shouldn't be allowed to or can't handle onerous and dangerous professions?  

What's your basis for stating unequivocally that proton packs are too cumbersome for women?  Do you know how much they weigh?  Are their electric discharge just too powerful for a woman to handle?   Are you being serious with any of these assertions because you sound ridiculous here.  

Quote

I do not see where this contradicts what I am saying - in fact it supports what I said about casting and directorial gut instinct. At no stage does Ridley say that he cast Weaver for pandering to politically correct audience demographics - which is what you are espousing in this whole thread.

You stated Weaver impressed the producers with her audition, as if to imply that her audition was the reason for the change in the character's gender (otherwise, why would you bring it up).  So yes, Scott's quotation contradicts your original point.   Why is Scott allowed to change the sex of his lead character in order to tell a story with a different dynamic while Feig with Ghostbusters is not?  What is the difference between the two movies with respect to changing a cast members' gender?  Why is one given a pass while the other is an example of pandering to politically correct audience demographics?  

And no, I'm not defending pandering for political correctness.  My issue is with white males taking issue with the race or gender of characters in certain movies but giving pass on others.  Ultimately, there doesn't seem to be any consistency to the complaints.  People will give a pass to certain examples of cast changes but not to other for reasons that seems to have everything to do whatever they've got going on inside themselves.  

Quote

I'd argue that the reason the film was dreadful had a direct origin in the gender switch. It inherently instigated a film obsessed with post-irony and ''change just for the sake of change''. 

Your sentiment seems to be saying more about you than the actual film.  From your perspective, it didn't matter how good of a movie it might have been, you were already going to hate it solely because feeble little women were doing a man's work.  That's nuts.  This forum use to have a member who decided, prior to seeing the film, that Mad Max: Fury Road was going to be terrible because Charlize Theron's character Furiousa - yes, a woman - upstaged Mad Max through parts of the movie character. 

Sorry mate, but most of your arguments here are nonsensical.  Ghostbusters are a product of their surroundings?  So does that mean only New Yorker males can be Ghostbusters?  Do you realize how insane your arguments sound?

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Great for the U.K., but as in most western developed nations that don't hold retrograde and sexist views of women, frontline fighting in the military is no longer limited to men.  

There are obvious reasons why a nation would not wish to see women on the frontline, reasons borne from diminutive physicality and the danger of rape in event of a capture. These objections have all been set forth at the highest echelons of government and command.

And yes, it seems like they were encumbered with a fair amount of heavy duty equipment,

1 hour ago, downzy said:

You stated Weaver impressed the producers with her audition, as if to imply that her audition was the reason for the change in the character's gender (otherwise, why would you bring it up).  So yes, Scott's quotation contradicts your original point.   Why is Scott allowed to change the sex of his lead character in order to tell a story with a different dynamic while Feig with Ghostbusters is not?  What is the difference between the two movies with respect to changing a cast members' gender?  Why is one given a pass while the other is an example of pandering to politically correct audience demographics?  

Sufficing to say there was a screen test and it not being overly presumptuous to believe that Ridley was suitably impressed with that screen test.

1 hour ago, downzy said:

And no, I'm not defending pandering for political correctness.  My issue is with white males taking issue with the race or gender of characters in certain movies but giving pass on others.  Ultimately, there doesn't seem to be any consistency to the complaints.  People will give a pass to certain examples of cast changes but not to other for reasons that seems to have everything to do whatever they've got going on inside themselves.

People do not like it when it is forced by the dictates of political correctness and being ''novel'' for the sake of simply being novel. Sigourney Weaver's casting was a stroke of genius, not an exercise in pandering to (so called) maligned demographics. Ghostbusters (2016) was forced to the point of obscenity, possessing all the hallmarks of a corporate diktat: ''we really need to capture feminine audience so let's do something crazy people and recast the Ghostbusters as entirely (drum roll) women''. Another example of this would be, ''let's have a black Doctor Who?'', or the ''Black Bond'' speculation which is usually thrown around when Craig has one of his post-filming rants.

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Your sentiment seems to be saying more about you than the actual film.  From your perspective, it didn't matter how good of a movie it might have been, you were already going to hate it solely because feeble little women were doing a man's work.  That's nuts.  This forum use to have a member who decided, prior to seeing the film, that Mad Max: Fury Road was going to be terrible because Charlize Theron's character Furiousa - yes, a woman - upstaged Mad Max through parts of the movie character. 

Absolute garbage, and for the record I liked Fury Road - n.b. it is not ''Mad Maxine.''

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Sorry mate, but most of your arguments here are nonsensical.  Ghostbusters are a product of their surroundings?  So does that mean only New Yorker males can be Ghostbusters?  Do you realize how insane your arguments sound?

There was a certain brand of character and humour established, with its roots in Saturday Night Live. It is not just New York humour but a certain nerdy fastidiousness epitomised by Aykroyd. I have no problems with standing by that statement. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

The fact that Downzy has spent this thread arguing with MULTIPLE individuals, and I have YET to see a single person back him up only proves how weak his stance is. But he won't admit that, he will only dig his heels in further. 

[Lio]

I'll just throw this in here. My daughter is participating in the carnival parade next weekend and she's going as a Ghostbuster. I'm sure she'll handle her proton pack all fine