Debate on Social Agendas/Commentaries in Movies

[Gordon Comstock]

18 hours ago, downzy said:

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?

 

Obviously movies hype their casts, but it seems like you've missed the point or chosen to ignore it.

 

Quote

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

 

No, and I never said that.

A studio or group of actors or writers feeling their script is good, despite blatant agendas, doesn't mean much. Like @MB. said on the 2nd page of this thread, it can come across as 'sesame street for adults', and that hollywood feels their diversity push is more necessary than it really is.

 

Quote

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.

 

Studios spend ridiculous amounts of money all the time. I really don't care how much Sony spent on whatever... is that seriously your argument? Are you honestly unable to see that they can hire big names and promote the hell out of it, while still making a crap movie? You're right in that they (obviously) tried to make something successful, but you seem to have missed the perspective of, they figured their stars and director, or their progressive agenda, would compensate for lack of originality or other qualities. That comes off as patronizing. It is not a new thing, but Ghostbusters is in the new wave of it.

[Angelica]

As long as this is being primarily if not entirely targeted at blockbusters - unless it’s genuinely artistically incongruous, or facile tokenism of the sort that manages to do more harm than good, diversity is great. It’s awesome.

And it’s important. It’s important for everyone to see positive representations of themselves (especially kids) and it’s also important to see positive representations of everyone else. The media shift that started in the nineties towards positive portrayals of gay people had a profound effect on public attitudes. 

Some of the implementation has been clumsy (Ghostbusters didn’t suck because women, it sucked because the script blew and it didn’t have a concept beyond the gender flip) but as it’s also generally proving profitable, it’s not likely to go backwards. 

 

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, Angelica said:

Ghostbusters didn’t suck because women, it sucked because the script blew and it didn’t have a concept beyond the gender flip

Also because it got the tone of the movie so ridiculously wrong. 

[Angelica]

22 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Also because it got the tone of the movie so ridiculously wrong. 

 

Were they trying to carry the tone through or create they’re own though? It’s such a dumpster fire, I can’t tell what was hubris and what was a fair enough fail.

[downzy]

16 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

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. 

I've disagreed with four or five people who have given me a range of responses that are either arbitrary or indefensible.  

Look, all I'm asking for are rational and consistent reasons that justify the vitriol directed towards films that includes a diverse cast.  So far justifications for such anger and disdain range from the extremely arbitrary that lack consistency (certain roles can be flipped by some can't; some film franchises can include strong female leads, others are just sad examples of political correctness doing nothing more than pander) to the asinine (women just aren't fit for certain fictional jobs in fictional movies, they're portrayal of such jobs in a film is unrealistic).  

Ultimately I think that people who take issue with Rey or a female Ghostbuster on principle are just being dishonest with themselves and everyone else.  They'll find reasons that aren't consistent or lacking rational justification.  Take your issue with Rey.  You repeatedly call her a Mary Sue because she exhibits talents and skill beyond the training portrayed in the film.  And yet you seem to happy to champion a character like Katniss in Hunger Games despite the same criticisms you level at Rey would be just as valid as Katniss.  The propaganda themes you take issue with in The Last Jedi and the Force Awakens are mirrored in the Hunger Games.  

Moreover, even if we're to conclude that Rey is a Mary Sue; so what?  Look back to all the movies over the last seventy years where the main character shows little to no flaws, always hold the upper hand, and their competencies and skill are never fully justified or explained (Luke Skywalker, James Bond, Batman in Dark Knight Rises, John Wick, Steven Sagal in almost every role he's in, the kid in Home Alone, Sherlock Holmes, etc.).  Those and other characters in popular movies show proclivities far beyond any explanation provided by the film but I don't see anyone else using it as a reasons to shit on their respective movies.

I've asked why Ghostbusters is an example of crass political pandering.  So far the answers have ranged from the movie wasn't very good and relied too much on a female cast or that females are physically incapable of being a Ghostbuster.  But no one has pointed to anything actually within the movie - quotes, storylines - that validates the criticism.  The first criticism basically makes the false assumptions that the decision to have a female cast provided the studio to phone in a shitty film; that they didn't actually have to try because SJW would come out in droves to see it; that the producers and directors got lazy with the script and execution of the film because the novelty of a female cast would be enough to get people in the theatre.  The fact that the movie proved to be not all that great they assume validates this point.  But this ignores that the studio cast some of the biggest comedic names in show business and hired a writer/director who had just notched considerable successes.   Is a studio dropping $300 million on a film the expect to do well solely because it has female Ghostbusters?   This accusation also lacks any corroborating evidence that would support the assumptions made in the way of quotations or examples in the movie.  The only proof provided was that the cast was female.  I suspect that most of those who make this criticism never actually saw it.

As I said previously, I don't doubt that there have been attempts in Hollywood to pander to certain kinds of audiences.  But I would argue that Hollywood panders to various audiences all the time.  When it's a while-male audience that gets pandered to, no one takes issue.  So even if I were to agree that the most recent Ghostbusters film was a crass attempt to pander to a female audience, I would ask why that's such a crime when there are so many other films that pander to a male audience?  

Why is it only pandering when a film's target audience is not straight-white men?   How is the Expendables not one huge circle jerk to men?  Why is every love interest in every action film involve some ridiculously hot, huge breasted woman?  Why does most Adam Sandler movies in the last ten years involve him with a significantly younger and way hotter woman?  No one calls those decisions in movies pandering to a male audience.   

But it would seem that people, white men in particular, prefer not to have a honest assessment of their opinions or engage in an actual conversation (though I do appreciate and thank everyone for responding to my posts and participating in the discussion).  Instead, rather than acknowledge the inconsistencies in their opinions they would just label those they disagree with as social justice warriors and call it a day.  I thought I'd see if there was something I was missing, that there were legitimate arguments for the critical opinions relating to the issues discussed in this thread.  So far, from what I can tell, I don't hear any solid arguments that support the frequent hysteria that rises up whenever movie studies casts against expectations.   

[Angelica]

#teamDownzy 

[downzy]

3 hours ago, Angelica said:

 

Were they trying to carry the tone through or create they’re own though? It’s such a dumpster fire, I can’t tell what was hubris and what was a fair enough fail.

I think this was ultimately the problem with that movie.  It seemed to try too hard to genuflect to the series' past instead of figuring out its own identity.  

I read somewhere Feig and Dippold decided even before writing the script or thinking of a concept for the film to wrote down all of things from the old movies that fans would expect to be in the new one.  That to me says they were too caught up with appeasing the fanbase through nostalgic overtures that it took the focus off coming up with something that stood on its own.  It was cool there was one or two cameos, but once the cameos reached five or six it started to get a bit much.  

[-W.A.R-]

Ghostbusters didn't need to be remade/rebooted in the first place.

[downzy]

1 minute ago, -W.A.R- said:

Ghostbusters didn't need to be remade/rebooted in the first place.

I won't disagree with you there.  But at the same time, I'd say most reboots aren't necessary.

[J Dog]

I don't think anyone here has a problem with diversity. Doesn't feel like anyone is saying gay or black or female characters can't have lead roles or anything. It's more about screwing with characters and franchises for no good reason that people have a problem with.

Ghostbusters. Classic characters and classic franchise that got remade for no good reason. It didn't need a reboot. And remaking it all female added much of nothing besides the fact they were female.

Fantastic Four. Classic characters and classic franchise. Gets rebooted like 5 years after the first installments. Definitely didn't need a reboot. Two characters who have been siblings for over 50 years, and one gets made black, which added nothing to the movie whatsoever.

Star Wars. I can't speak on that one since I don't mess with Star Wars.

If they rebooted Golden Girls and made it a bunch of old men I doubt it would make it through the first season.

People love franchises. People love characters. People grow to love certain characters and feel like they know them. So when that image gets totally flipped around for no good reason, I understand why people don't like that.

[J Dog]

Like I'd be pissed if the remade Rocky and made Apollo Creed white 

[DieselDaisy]

6 hours ago, Angelica said:

As long as this is being primarily if not entirely targeted at blockbusters - unless it’s genuinely artistically incongruous, or facile tokenism of the sort that manages to do more harm than good, diversity is great. It’s awesome.

And it’s important. It’s important for everyone to see positive representations of themselves (especially kids) and it’s also important to see positive representations of everyone else. The media shift that started in the nineties towards positive portrayals of gay people had a profound effect on public attitudes. 

Some of the implementation has been clumsy (Ghostbusters didn’t suck because women, it sucked because the script blew and it didn’t have a concept beyond the gender flip) but as it’s also generally proving profitable, it’s not likely to go backwards. 

 

Ehh, no it isn't. 

I, a British Caucasian, grew up on (Hong Kong) Kung Fu films. I didn't grow up on American films and stuff like Star Wars that I suspect people here grew up watching. My cinematic heroes were Gordon Liu, Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung, and the only time I ever saw a white person in those films - and this is rare as most of the plotlines concern fighting the Manchu in 17th century China - was as a ''wide eyed devil'' imperialist, and/or (in a contemporary film) a henchman who is swiftly dispatched by Jackie and co. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[downzy]

21 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Stop going on about white men this and white men that. I feel like lying and telling you I'm black just to throw it in your face lol. Some of the people who disagree with you are women and who the heck knows what races/nationalities everyone is.

Most of the objections and vitriol about these types of issues are white men.  True, two women in this thread disagree with me on Ghostbusters, but they seem to be making the same mistakes as you and others make within their arguments.

Quote

1. That's because all those characters and movies are good(except Steven Sagal, a few of his old movies are pretty good but he's a total douchebag and is known as such.) However, just like the Ghostbusters reboot the new Disney Star Wars is utter dogshit and so are the new characters like Rey. It really is that simple.

It actually isn't that simple.  You're employing the same logical fallacy that continually gets used here and elsewhere.  It goes like this: A shitty movie + a shitty character = evidence that a female or black cast member was the wrong choice.  But it's not evidence that the choice to make a character's gender or race not a white male was the wrong one.  It simply means it was a shitty movie.  If we were to employ the same logic to Batman vs. Superman, one could say that the casting of Ben Affleck is the reason the movie is shit.  The logic doesn't hold up.  He might have been a reason (I personally thought he was a good Batman), but ultimately the film failed as a result of poor execution on the part of Zack Snyder.  It was a convoluted mess, to no fault really of Ben Affleck.  The same applies to the 2016 version of Ghostbusters.    

Quote

2. I disagree with @DieselDaisy that women can't be ghostbusters. Frankly, I think he was probably taking the piss to try and rile you up lol. Demanding we quote the film is like demanding we read and quote Mein Kampf  in order to denounce Nazism, but here goes:

Again, did you actually see the film?  As for your clip, it's just quick cuts that remove all context or build up to the jokes.  You could make almost every movie look unfunny using the same methods.  

Quote

3. I don't think that's at all true to say that pandering to 'straight-white-men' doesn't garner a flurry of outrage and whining in this day and age. To answer your question though, again; because it's a soulless, unoriginal, cashgrab, rehash/rip-off.

Really?  I must have missed the mass online hysteria and freak outs when movies like the Expendables, Fast and the Furious, or The Kingsmen came out. 

As for Ghostbusters being a cash grab, well, you'd think they wouldn't have spent nearly $300 million on a movie that's sole purpose was to make money through the use of token female characters.

Quote

4. No one ever said that. Do you seriously think the original Ghostbusters is pandering to straight-white-men? I haven't seen The Expendables in a long time so can't remember if it was a circle jerk or not but I don't remember it being as shit as the Ghostbusters reboot.

Yes, kind of if we're treating things equally.  In fact, if you look at the first Ghostbusters through the lease of the political climate at the time, there are strong winks and nods to Reaganism.  The bad guy is the evil government bureaucrat at the EPA; only private-enterprise can save the day over the objections of the middling government.  There are several articles and dissertations that delve into this fact better than my brief summary, but here's one that does a good job of explaining how the first film succeeded because it played to the politics of the time while the most recent film does everything but say anything to contemporary social issues.  

Regardless of the film's politics, I still enjoyed the film and could look past the "agenda" that is prevalent throughout.  And this is ultimately my point - even if the female Ghostbusters film is putting forward the agenda of inclusion and diversity, why does that make the film impossible to enjoy for some?  Be honest - when they first announced they were doing a female Ghostbusters movie, did you reserve judgement and wait to actually watch the film before making your assessment?  Apologies if I'm wrong, but I would wager that you did not.  

It would seem that the reaction to certain films reveals more about personal bias than it does to the quality of the film.  

Again, the issue isn't whether movies like The Expendables or a female-cast Ghostbusters are shit films, but whether the response to those films are consistent and fair.  Both films are shit not necessarily because of who they cast (I know you don't like any of the females cast, but most would agree that outside of Tina Fey the actresses that were cast are some of the most successful and funny people in show business today), but because they fail for reasons already discussed.

Quote

5. Hollywood+marketing. Sharon Stone in Total Recall was ridiculously hot and she doesn't have huge breasts. Do you cry when all the male Hollywood sex symbols aren't ugly fat losers? lol.

I think you're missing the point here.  It doesn't matter whether the female love interest has big breasts, but that they are young and attractive and need saving by the male protagonist.  

And by the way, you might want to think through your example.  Do I really have to remind you of the large three-breasted mutant?  I'd wager that most people would remember that about the movie above everything else. 

Quote

6. Adam Sandler is a douchebag and he gets a lot of shit from everyone for being such a douchebag and pandering to the lowest common denominator. I recommend his film Punch Drunk Love though.

I love Punch Drunk Love, but again, you're missing the point.  I randomly selected Sandler but you could pick almost every other leading man and you'd find films that involve them and a significantly younger female love interest.  With the exception of Tom Hanks, almost every leading A-List male actor is usually paired with a significantly younger romantic counterpart.  Why is this not pandering to a male demographic that fantasizes about having romances with significantly much younger women at their present age or when they're older?  

Quote

7. Why thank us if you think so poorly of us?

 I don't think poorly of anyone in this thread, just the attempts to defend and excuse personal biases.  And that's ultimately what I'm trying to get at.  Film is an arbitrary medium; it's a highly personal relationship between the film and the viewer.   People are welcome to like or dislike whatever they want.  My only issue is when people use hypocritical rationales to explain their preferences.  

[downzy]

17 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

2. I think everything about the reboot is shit and that includes the cast, which is a big part of the movie being so shitty. The director, the cgi, the marketing, the script - literally every piece of the reboot is shit. I am a fan of the original and my favourite ghostbuster is Bill Murray. Personally, what I would have done is cast Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd alongside Tina Fey and Wanda Sykes(two female comedians who are actually good.) I would have made the other originals being absent a heartfelt integral part of the story and would give Tina and Wanda(and everyone else) good characters and dialogue and I would have called it Ghostbusters 3 and I might even make Wanda, the black one, a scientist for once. If I had to just do an all-female cast I would do that but still give them their own new story instead of shamelessly ripping-off the originals.
 

Again, I'm not arguing whether Ghostbusters is a great or even good movie.  It's not.  Proving that the film is shit is besides the point.  The issue is whether casting four women was an exercise in pandering with respect to a targeted audience.  

Quote

You have to understand that the original Ghostbusters is a universally loved classic so the poor casting and obvious feminist/SJW pandering on top of all the other bad decisions is going to garner a lot of outrage.

Take your own judgement about the actresses in the film out of the equation and consider the near universal acclaim that most of the actresses receive by critics and fans of their respective careers.  Granted, I didn't read every review out there, but the few I did read didn't lay blame of the movie's failure on the on the individual actresses.

What I'm more interested is your assertion of the obvious feminist/SJW pandering.  What examples (besides a female cast) can you provide to support that claim. I keep asking for evidence of this obvious assertion but so far, other than the fact the cast is female and a few jokes that didn't work, I'm still waiting to hear how exactly the film panders to feminists and SJW.

Quote

Don't let the $300 million figure distract you. That's normal for how Hollywood operates. If they hadn't misjudged and made the mistakes they made they would have raked in a lot more money than they spent.

The same could be said about a lot of popcorn movies.  It doesn't mean each movie is guilty of pandering.  

Quote

Interesting interpretation but the difference, other than the fact you are really reaching, is that it works, it's funny and they're the originals, so who cares? If you want to really commit and consider that a double standard/hypocritical I guess you can but it doesn't equate to me and others being raging bigots lol.

It's not reaching and you're missing the point.  There's a clear pro-conservative current that courses through the first Ghostbusters.  You're right, it's a great movie, but even though I disagree with the message the movie clearly carries, it doesn't prevent me from enjoying the film.  So again, even if I were to agree that the recent Ghostbusters includes a crass expression of feminism and diversity (which I don't), it should still be judged on the merits of how one usually evaluates a film. 

Quote

"this is ultimately my point - even if the female Ghostbusters film is putting forward the agenda of inclusion and diversity, why does that make the film impossible to enjoy for some?" Because 'inclusion and diversity' is your sugar coated way of saying it and as you know and have already admitted that is not the only issue with the film. It is the straw that broke the camel's back. The icing on that microwave ready shitcake.

You don't see how sexist your assertion is here?  That if a movie is going to fail, it better not be female cast that advocates for diversity or allowances for characters that aren't male or visible minorities?  According to you, a film that includes a diverse or female cast is already at a deficit so it better be amazing to overcome such liberal propaganda.

Quote

When they first announced it I knew it didn't bode well but I didn't launch into a rage. Then I saw the movie and my instincts were vindicated. But I went in prepared to give it a fair go. If it was good I would say it is good. 

I guess I'll take you at your word but the previous quote gives me pause.  That said, it seems unlikely that most of the people who hated the film and hated the fact that it involved female Ghostbusters were ever going to give it a fair chance.  I'll still wager that most who hate the concept of female Ghostbusters likely never saw the film.

Quote

Criticizing something like that for being cliche or boring is fair enough but I don't think that kind of thing is always necessarily sexist. If terrorists kidnapped your wife and daughter wouldn't you go after them on a kill crazy rampage?

I never said it's sexist.  My issue is the different considerations given when films involve certain elements to appeal to a certain audience over another.  Again, it seems that when something is designed to attract and endear a male audience, it's not considered pandering.  It's viewed as appealing to that audience.  When a film like Star Wars includes a female lead, it's pandering to a female or liberal audience.  See the contradiction?

Quote

I haven't really thought about that before or noticed that to the extent you're saying tbh but you might be right. I'm thinking of a few off the top of my head already. Pretty safe to say it is pandering/marketing, who told you it isn't?

Again, I'm usually not bothered by seeing older men with younger women in films and I think outside of the most sensitive liberal film critics most aren't either.  It was a parallel in how certain social constructs in film are rarely reviled by the audience at large but films that might try to expand the playing field or consider audiences that aren't just white men are labeled as sad examples of pandering.

Quote

If you occasionally remove my posts for no good reason or imply I must be a bigot I assume you hate my guts or at least think I'm an idiot lol.

I've never implied that you are a bigot or hated your posts.  I think everyone has biases, some conscious and some not.  I'm certainly not perfect and have had my views correctly questioned and shown to be wrong.  Personally, I've just tired of the same tired critiques of films that I feel are unfair.  Those who charge certain films for having an agenda often unknowingly or conveniently ignore agendas of films they do like.   As I said, I would understand the objections of changing a character's racial or sexual makeup if the character is/was a real person or the character was previously specified (like James Bond, Indiana Jones, Batman).  There are limits to what Hollywood can do before it would serve them better to create new and original characters for women and minorities.  But there's nothing inherent about a Ghostbuster that says they have to be a man just as there's no validity that Star Wars can't have a female protagonist.  Criticism that suggests a film is pandering in social agendas solely because a female protagonist is included reveals more about that person's personal bias than it does about the film itself.

[MB.]

I truly love the The Expendables and well there is a female lead in 2 and 3.  No, I do not mind the almost male cast, however it isn’t a remake of a classic either. I also didn’t mind Charlie Angels being all female. I can say something else, yes people in the US actually did complain about the expendables right away!!! That’s why a woman was added in the other ones. Haven’t seen anybody complaining about for instance Charlie Angels though. 

Seems the US is so sensitive nowadays and on both sides btw. Here in Europe we have a hard time, understanding it.

Oh and btw I am a total feminist. I just prefer the message is brought in a good way, without stepping on toes. You can’t mess with Ghostbusters, that movie is a classic. For people my age, it was part of our childhood and people are fuzzy about it, and that is just natural.  Hollywood has made in the past great female leads movies, without stepping on toes. Why was a female ghostbusters needed? It felt like it was a bit provocative to a certain group of people and only done cause of your current climate. Now that is great if the script would have made everybody shut up. If you do make it, be sure it would have silenced the critics, instead it did the opposite. Making that group feel right and that’s a shame. They shouldn’t have even touched it in the first place.

I just have a different opinion how things should be brought. In this current US climate you have to do it right and not make it seems ‘forced’. Just take a Kill Bill or Jackie Brown, Resident evil or more recently the Zookeepers wife or even Wonder woman, those are way better female leads, without stepping on toes. It doesn’t work by making the legendary Ghostbusters female with a script inferior to the orginal. 

Now this weekend I am going with my daughter to Jane a documentary about Jane Goodall. It will teach my daughter, but also everybody who has seen it a whole lot more how to be a strong and independent woman.

Edited February 6, 2018 by MB.

[DieselDaisy]

The word ''forced'' adequately explains why things like the female casting in Ghostbusters are so repugnant and something like Alien isn't. It is hard to describe but you know it when you see it; it carries with it the distinct whiff of corporate boardrooms and market research.

[downzy]

9 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

@downzy

Well, I do blame part of the movie's failure on those individual actresses. They were all horrible. If I remove my own judgement then I have nothing to say. I don't care if they have universal acclaim, it's undeserved. I never approve or disapprove of anything, ever, due to it being acclaimed or not. That goes against my entire belief system/thought process. When I was a little kid I was told how everyone used to think the Earth was flat and how they would ridicule those who claimed otherwise - from that moment on I understood it is best to not rely on the hivemind. Other people may often inform or influence me and I do not go against the grain just for the sake of it like a hipster would, I simply judge case by case. Some people twist that into somehow being arrogant but in my mind it's being humble and reasonable.

You find them horrible, but most people - or the general public - would probably say otherwise (unless you can explain how they achieved their level of success beyond their own performances).  Again, you internalize this discussion far too much.  The issue isn't whether you find them untalented and unworthy, but whether considering the level of success that most of the cast had already achieved either in films or on television that the film's producers are guilty of purposely hampering the film by the actresses inclusion.  Three of the four female Ghostbusters had achieve considerable commercial and critical success in television and film.  And despite your own feelings, most of the cast are generally considered funny and popular by a general audience.  Again, take your own views on the cast out of it and answer whether most of the cast can be objectively considered lightweights and undeserving of the roles despite their previous success in the entertainment industry.  

Quote

My assertion is if a movie is going to be utterly shit/fail and it disingenuously jumps on a political/social bandwagon then it's not doing itself any favours. I've already told you the casting decisions I would have made so you saying according to me a film that includes a diverse or female cast is already at a deficit is utter nonsense. This entire time I've only been talking about this particular movie. You're barking up the wrong tree I watch films like Amelie and I used Stepford Wives of all things as an example of a masterful film. Think of a few well-known female focused/what you consider to be diverse films and I'll tell you what I think of them. Also, I dismissed what DD said about females can't be ghostbusters by saying it must have been an attempt at humour - if he was serious then that's stupid and mean spirited.

Again, so if a movie does include a diverse cast or includes elements of a liberal agenda it better be good.  Otherwise, the casting decision and the film's consideration of diversity only compound the failure.  Again, that sounds bit sexist to me but to each their own.

Quote

I love the 1951 Disney Alice in Wonderland  I still find it highly amusing and endearing when she falls down the rabbit hole and instead of being afraid and screaming she just instantly and nonchalantly says "Goodbye, Dinah! Goodbyyyyyyye!" marching onward headstrong and curious. There are many films I consider good that happen to have female characters/female leads The Fifth Element, Paprika, Pan's Labyrinth, Spirited Away, Alien, The Wizard of Oz, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Kill Bill Vol. 2, Fargo, Misery(probably one of the best performances I've seen not just by an actress but overall.)...that's just off the top of my head I'm sure there are more.

Pointing to films with female leads is besides the point.  What is it about a Ghostbuster that makes it exclusively a male construct?  It's not called a Ghostbusterman.  Is it your contention that because Ghostbusters were first cast as men that it's now a boys club only?  Or is the problem with the new film found in the fact that all four roles were given to actresses?  

Quote

If for example a good old western or monster movie has a racist native American stereotype or the women are all useless idiots falling over spraining their ankles; that is easy to identify/isolate and I can enjoy the rest of the film comforted by the fact that those aspects are already universally condemned. I don't need to go around saying obvious things like beating women is wrong because no shit. With feminism/SJW/political correctness though it is trendy thinking and has an air of self-righteous arrogance and all their flawed thinking is hidden or protected. It is touted as how we all must think despite their movement now being a hypocritical disgrace in the west.

Feminism is trendy?  Sorry, but you're going to have to provide your own definition of feminism.  What is flawed about thinking men and women are equal with respect to their abilities to bust ghosts?

Quote

"it seems that when something is designed to attract and endear a male audience, it's not considered pandering.  It's viewed as appealing to that audience." Please give some examples of what you mean.

Again, give some examples because the Ghostbusters reboot does not expand the playing field, they just flip it around and with disastrous results no less. Also, the one black ghostbuster is again the only one who is not a scientist LOL.

I've given you countless examples in my previous posts, both respect to film franchises and elements included in films meant to appeal to a female audience.  

[downzy]

8 hours ago, MB. said:

I truly love the The Expendables and well there is a female lead in 2 and 3.  No, I do not mind the almost male cast, however it isn’t a remake of a classic either. I also didn’t mind Charlie Angels being all female. I can say something else, yes people in the US actually did complain about the expendables right away!!! That’s why a woman was added in the other ones. Haven’t seen anybody complaining about for instance Charlie Angels though. 

Seems the US is so sensitive nowadays and on both sides btw. Here in Europe we have a hard time, understanding it.

Oh and btw I am a total feminist. I just prefer the message is brought in a good way, without stepping on toes. You can’t mess with Ghostbusters, that movie is a classic. For people my age, it was part of our childhood and people are fuzzy about it, and that is just natural.  Hollywood has made in the past great female leads movies, without stepping on toes. Why was a female ghostbusters needed? It felt like it was a bit provocative to a certain group of people and only done cause of your current climate. Now that is great if the script would have made everybody shut up. If you do make it, be sure it would have silenced the critics, instead it did the opposite. Making that group feel right and that’s a shame. They shouldn’t have even touched it in the first place.

I just have a different opinion how things should be brought. In this current US climate you have to do it right and not make it seems ‘forced’. Just take a Kill Bill or Jackie Brown, Resident evil or more recently the Zookeepers wife or even Wonder woman, those are way better female leads, without stepping on toes. It doesn’t work by making the legendary Ghostbusters female with a script inferior to the orginal. 

Now this weekend I am going with my daughter to Jane a documentary about Jane Goodall. It will teach my daughter, but also everybody who has seen it a whole lot more how to be a strong and independent woman.

My issue is that I still haven't read a plausible explanation for why all-male movies are considered appealing to a certain demographic but all female films are exercises in pandering.  That having Luke Skywalker be the protagonist in the first three films was fine but a female lead in the most recent trilogy is political correctness run amuck.  

Is the answer simply that anything building off the previous work has to follow the same gender assignments and roles?  That doesn't sit well as an explanation that can be objectively validated.  There's nothing implicit within fictional characters that requires them really to be anything.  Shouldn't the consideration be on whether the writers, producers, director, and actors succeed on the merits? 

Why should women or minorities be excluded from big tentpole franchises because we don't want to step on any toes?  Who's toes?  Overly sensitive men who feel like Star Wars is theirs?  

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

1. They probably thought it would work, they made a mistake.
2. Yes, because they did an appalling job and that is not just my personal view/taste.

Again, not arguing whether the film worked.  But whether prior to the film whether it's reasonable to consider McCarthy, Wiig and McKinnon as lightweights in the entertainment industry.  Look at all the failed reboots prior to Ghostbusters (and those likely to come).  Should we consider Affleck a lightweight because Batman v. Superman failed to work?  Is Andrew Garfield any less of a star because the Spiderman reboots were less than great?  Should we now consider Tom Cruz a less than credible actor and not capable of carrying an action-adventure movie because last year's reboot of the Mummy was terrible?  Again, the rationale you're using isn't consistent in how we view entertainment properties.  

Quote

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said 'liberal agenda' I said any disingenuous agenda and I never said the film was diverse. It's not diverse. They replaced all the men with women and the one black still isn't a scientist.

So what is the disingenuous agenda of the female Ghostbusters?  What wasn't sincere about the film?  

Quote

I've literally said it's not exclusively a male construct and explained the creative and casting decisions I would make and dismissed what DD said. You're trying to put words in my mouth. The first Ghostbusters weren't just cast as men those men created it. Again, it's not diverse, they replaced all the men with all women and the one black still isn't a scientist.

I'm not putting words in your mouth.  You're asserting that the film is a terrible movie with a disingenuous agenda.  I'll agree with the first part but asking you to validate the second claim, that it's agenda is disingenuous.  What is disingenuous with casting women to play all four ghostbusters?  

Quote

Again, you're trying to create an angle and put words in my mouth. The type of feminism I'm referring to that I dislike so much is the modern incarnation commonly referred to as '3rd wave'. The one that, for example, on this very forum labels me a sexist, misogynist, rape-apologist because I refuse to believe their mentally unbalanced claims that well over 760,000,000 women living in the world today are raped and I don't believe there is a pay-gap, it confuses earnings with wages and then goes full retard by referencing skewed statistics.

And this third-wave feminism is tangible in the most recent Ghostbusters?  How so?  Where in the film is third-wave feminism overwrought and attempts to bludgeon the viewer into submission?  

Yes, there are excesses and nonsensical arguments and people within the progressive/liberal community, but I still don't see how or where any of those misplaced positions are present in the intentions of making an all female Ghostbuster movie.

Quote

Traditional/proper feminism fighting for rights like voting and being able to work and that sort of thing is just common sense to me. I don't even consider that a thing I think it's just normal logical compassionate thinking. New Zealand was the first country in the world to give women the vote which I think is pretty cool and recently I voted in a female Primeminister who so far I'm rather happy with.

Again, just so we're clear, you're fine with equal rights, female suffrage, a female PM, and even the concept of a female Ghostbuster.  But society and Hollywood goes to far if they make all Ghostbusters female in one film and/or that film turns out to be shit?  Again, I'm trying to fine the line here.  

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

P.S. Tom Cruise has proven himself, he can act. I recommend Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia. I don't particularly like Andrew Garfield or Ben Affleck.

McCarthy has been nominated for an Oscar, BAFTA, and Golden Globe.  She's won an Emmy to go along with several Emmy nominations.  She can act.  

But again, you're missing the point.  Yes, Tom Cruise can act, but so too can the members of the 2016 Ghostbusters (save for maybe Leslie Jones; I've never seen her in anything other than SNL skits and Ghostbusters).  You personally may not like the actresses they chose to cast for the film, but it's disingenuous for you to say that none of them are act or are considered untalented and unworthy of the roles by current standards or past performances.  

Quote

That they crassly replaced a beloved male cast(who were not there because they happened to be male they were there because they created the whole thing) with female-only imposters to try and prove a point and still the black one isn't a scientist which I find somewhat hypocritical.

Doesn't that kind of disprove your point.  If the film is an exercise in some sort of SJW propaganda, why make the black character the lone non-scientist?  If this was really pandering to a progressive audience, why not make the black character the boss and the most qualified?  

Quote

It's a general vibe the movie has when you acknowledge the context of the current social political trend.

I guess the simplest way of summing up my view on this is; it's not what they did it's how they did it.

That's a non answer, especially since I've yet to hear anything consistent in terms of explaining how exactly Ghostbusters (or other examples brought up in this thread) is pandering.  Moreover, even if the film were appealing to a certain demographic, why this is such a sin considering the countless other instances where films appeal to other demographics with little protest.  

[downzy]

26 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Awards like the Oscars are practically meaningless. They are entirely political, not based on merit, and so hold no artistic gravitas in my mind whatsoever.

Sorry, but another cop out here.  Talentless hacks don't get nominated for oscars, golden globes, or win Emmy awards.  Look, I know you so want to believe that you're in the majority on this one, but there's little basis other than your own personal opinion on whether the cast of the female Ghostbusters are talented, are respected in the industry, and have achieved commercial and critical success.  Those are facts, no matter how much you want to personalize matters.

Quote

It's not disingenuous of me to say that because I didn't say that. I said myself and everyone who shares my same opinion consider them untalented and unworthy.

 No one else in this thread has voiced this opinion.  I get that McCarthy, Wiig, and McKinnon may not be to everyone, but the same could be said for Ramis, Murray, and Aykroyd.    But those opinions are largely in the minority and largely only shared amongst middle aged white men who are buthurt that they let females be a Jedi or a Ghostbuster.

Quote

Do you enjoy Amy Schumer? *readies a gun and aims it at you under the table*

Not a fan of her stand up (actually saw her live by accident at the Comedy Cellar in NYC a few years ago), but I enjoyed Train Wreck.  

Quote

No, I don't think so. It could merely mean they're lazy or were solely focused on the female side of things rather than race also or the powers that be were so committed to ripping off the original films they even replicated that.

So Ivan Reitman, one of the original creators of the first Ghostbusters, was so concerned about ripping off his own work and pushing a feminist agenda that he worked on and produced this latest film.  Good lord, and you accuse me of reaching.  

Quote

I've already answered that.

Not really, and not in any satisfactory way that isn't based on highly inconsistent reasoning.  

[MB.]

12 hours ago, downzy said:

Why should women or minorities be excluded from big tent franchises because we don't want to step on any toes?  Who's toes?  Overly sensitive men who feel like Star Wars is theirs?  

I have never said women or minorities should be excluded from franchises, where did you get that from? 

People don’t like big changes and certainly not Star Wars fans, which come in every form and gender btw! Star Wars fans are indeed overly sensitive, extremely senstive actually. They do love everything kind of the same as it has always been. I actually had no problem with the new Star Wars personally, it was most certainly not the best either though. But I do understand the discussion about it. Look I like the Resident evil’s as well (yes, my taste is questionable, I know), now if they would have killed her off halfway and replaced her with a guy (or even with another women, but definately a guy), it would have extremely pissed me off. Btw this was a good example of a pretty big female movie franchise. See I don’t like big changes either. Same goes for Star Wars fans, I assume. Luke is their hero, like Alice is mine and changing that would suck. 

Oh and the last years all- male lead movies are criticized btw, you did miss the discussions.  Not that that’s a bad thing, but I personally don’t have a problem with all male, all female, all black or all gay leads in movies. All are perfectly fine to me. You really did miss the Expendables discussion after the first. See The Expendables added a female lead after all the critics on the first and I personally would love Jovovich added, they should do that if a woman has to be in it. But if they never had added a female, I wouldn’t had a problem with it as well, it didn’t make me feel offended. I happen to like Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Norris, Chan etc. and I certainly love Statham. All of them in one (well three) movies, was great. I don’t see the problem in an all-male movie, with some guns and explosions. I didn’t feel the need a woman should be added, to prove a female can shoot a gun and fight as well. Ofcourse we can, but not necessarly in this movie, there are other movies made were it is proven. However they did add a female though, it’s fine they did, but it also didn’t add that much. Again, you missed the discussion. So I disagree with your statement that all male movies are considered appealing, that’s not the case anymore. It isn’t a bad thing, but people don’t have to criticize everything.

 You made some valid points in this whole discussion and it’s not that I don’t agree with some stuff you said about movies. I just don’t agree with everything. And yeah, the answer is simple people don’t like changes in a good loved concept with established genderroles, to me there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. It’s a bit sentiment and in this current US political climat it feels often forced to many people, it polarizes at times instead of bringing people together. I personally don’t need that, I don’t live there. To me both sides in the US are overly sensitive atm and people are exxareting on both sides.

Edited February 7, 2018 by MB.

[Dazey]

First thing to say is that I'm a massive fan of the original Ghostbusters. It's the first movie I can remember seeing in a cinema back in the early eighties. I must have watched it over 100 times and I can recite the whole thing word for word so I'm not entirely unbiased here. 

My issue with the reboot is that as soon as the director was announced I thought to myself "Oh, he's going to cast Melissa McCarthy and she's going to play Melissa McCarthy and it's going to be terrible". 

Sure enough, the announcement came and in this case it did look as though the creative process went as follows:

1) Paul Feig named as director - Check

2) All female cast because that's what Paul Feig does - Check

3) Call Melissa McCarthy - Check

4) Maybe think about writing a script 

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not the fact that this was an all female cast that was the problem in itself. Rather that this seems to have been the first thought in the head of those concerned rather than making a good movie.

My other major gripe is that the whole thing was just so tonally wrong. The original Ghostbusters was really funny but it was also played completely straight. The reboot did away with good writing and believable characters in favour of slapstick and fucking qweef jokes. Seriously?

Edited February 7, 2018 by Dazey

[Len Cnut]

I guess its all about how you go about it, isn't it?  Some of the great works of art in theatre and film have had social agendas.  Does everything have to be pure fuckin' cinema in the Hitchcockian sense?  Do The Right Thing has a social agenda, American History X has a social agenda, Moliere had a social agenda frequently.  If you're looking for tact in mainstream cinema well thats sort of like going to the butchers looking to get your boots mended. 

[MB.]

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I guess its all about how you go about it, isn't it?  Some of the great works of art in theatre and film have had social agendas.  Does everything have to be pure fuckin' cinema in the Hitchcockian sense?  Do The Right Thing has a social agenda, American History X has a social agenda, Moliere had a social agenda frequently.  If you're looking for tact in mainstream cinema well thats sort of like going to the butchers looking to get your boots mended. 

Lol, are you comparing those movies and the work of Moliere to a Ghostbuster movie? 

Nothing wrong with a scripted social agenda, nobody is denying that. The best movies came out of that. There is something wrong with adding stupid roles or changing good scripts for the sake of it. It’s like doing a remake of Trainspotting, cause women can be junkies too or Lock Stock, cause ofcourse women can be criminals as well. Cut it out already. Use a new fresh script for that. Don’t change something already good for that. That’s the whole discussion.