GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

johnny_ultimate

frostyjacks wrote: »

The line about cleaning the slime out of her crack made me cringe. Reading stories of a possible gay romance between two of the characters ditto. Why do they feel the need to do this? It's like someone tipexxing a big knob on the face of the Mona Lisa and expecting us to find it hilarious.

This homophobic nonsense is not welcome here. Any more ugly comments like this will not be tolerated.

FunLover18

Can someone explain what's wrong with the 'every crack' line. I didn't find it particularly funny but the original wasn't exactly high brow comedy with the keymaster and gatekeeper innuendo, and didn't Aykroyd get a blow job from a ghost?

Also I'm really curious are there any female posters in this thread (I'm really bad at following who's who) because everyone seems to be focusing on the 'misogynistic'/fanboy reactions and I'm genuinely curious to know what women think, not of the the whole casting thing but of the trailer in general.

After watching the trailer this looks so bad its not even funny, not that I'm surprised.
Terrible looking visual effects too, the original movie 30 years ago had better looking effects, better jokes and a better cast.

Corholio

faceman wrote: »

Anyone reckoning that having an all female cast is a gimmick or impacting the quality of the film is very misguided.

Bad scripts, bad acting and bad direction make for a bad movie, not genitals.

Other than that I'm slightly disappointed that we all agree how awful this looks. There's no one to argue with in this thread!

I agree of course, however not with the gimmick bit. I feel it does lean towards that a bit. It's not a gimmick JUST because it's women but it feels like it when you compare it to the original and source material. If they had made a female Ghostbusters all those years ago and it was also beloved, then I would also say the exact same thing if they had made an all male version now. You don't have to make the opposite of everything to show you're not sexist, racist etc. Things can stand on their own without being furthered.

faceman

FunLover18 wrote: »

Can someone explain what's wrong with the 'every crack' line. I didn't find it particularly funny but the original wasn't exactly high brow comedy with the keymaster and gatekeeper innuendo, and didn't Aykroyd get a blow job from a ghost?

Also I'm really curious are there any female posters in this thread (I'm really bad at following who's who) because everyone seems to be focusing on the 'misogynistic'/fanboy reactions and I'm genuinely curious to know what women think, not of the the whole casting thing but of the trailer in general.

The bedroom scene with Ray was taken from a deleted scene. Consideration had been given to havin a ghost love interest for Ray. It was deleted for pacing purposes but they used part of the footage in the montage scene

Oh and the "every crack" line is just cheap lowest common denominator humour

silverharp

S.M.B. wrote: »

I can't imagine Ivan Reitman was badgered into making a Ghostbusters reboot with an all female main cast. Is there anything to back such a claim up?

In saying that, there's nothing wrong with a bit of social pressure being placed on an establishment that has been pretty reluctant to move with the times.

Unfortunately, we live in an age where new movies are more likely to be based on existing properties, whether it be an adaptation of another media, a translation of a successful foreign movie or a plain old sequel/reboot.

We could all say that there's little need for a new Ghostbusters, or a new Star Wars or a new James Bond. Maybe they should all have had one installment and stopped there.

But when you're deciding to bring an existing property to the screen, there should be no reason not to think of whether there would be any artistic merit in questioning the gender, race or sexuality of the protagonists or antagonists. Being unwilling to do so is the very definition of entitlement in my book.

I am not suggesting a studio should go make a new version of Ghandi with a female lead. But Ghostbusters is a great example of a property where the concept isn't bound to a single gender, age, race etc.

johnny_ultimate put it so eloquently when he said

its not for me to say who motivated what exactly, but looking at the pix below this looks like they are driving this as a"feminist" movie. So cool , they can have it, but it looks like a movie there is no point taking my son to see because its essentially a chic flick

razorblunt

FunLover18 wrote: »

Can someone explain what's wrong with the 'every crack' line. I didn't find it particularly funny but the original wasn't exactly high brow comedy with the keymaster and gatekeeper innuendo, and didn't Aykroyd get a blow job from a ghost?

.

I explained why I dislike it, in an earlier post. It just goes that one step too far in that the joke is there it's obvious you don't need to go for it but they do. As someone else just said it's lowest common denominator stuff. It's the same with the "that's going to leave a mark" and "is it the hat or the wig" jokes.

The original had the "yes, it's true this man has no penis" line which is a gem.

On the girl power line, I wonder how much Wiig and McCarthy got paid compared to the other two.

Mickeroo

razorblunt wrote: »

I explained why I dislike it, in an earlier post. It just goes that one step too far in that the joke is there it's obvious you don't need to go for it but they do. As someone else just said it's lowest common denominator stuff. It's the same with the "that's going to leave a mark" and "is it the hat or the wig" jokes.

The original had the "yes, it's true this man has no penis" line which is a gem.

On the girl power line, I wonder how much Wiig and McCarthy got paid compared to the other two.

Definitely more since they're established household names outside of the US and McCarthy is a reasonably big box office draw in her own right. What's that got to do with "girl power" though? Stands to reason the more established actors get paid more surely.

Osmosis Jones

This movie will definitely find an audience, people will enjoy it, I just don't think it's a movie made for fans of the original Ghostbusters. Seems like they're just borrowing a license.

Sad Professor

Seriously, people need to chill. The geek rage over this film is beyond ridiculous. It's just a movie. So what if it's aimed mostly at women and the humour is a little vulgar. There's an audience for that. Just like there's an audience for violent, vulgar teenage boy movies like Deadpool. Reboots and remakes trade on the brand recognition of an existing property without necessarily being made for the original audience – if you haven't learned to deal with this by now then I don't what to say to you.

Personally I'm really looking forward to this if just for McKinnon, a beautiful and hysterically funny superstar in the making.

Calling out a film for cynically using real issue, regarding gender, as a marketing ploy is not geek rage.
If they recast Catniss Everdeen as a dude named Karl do you not think that we, in this forum anyway, would not call shenanigans?

It purely being done to generate publicity, nothing artistic (or feminist) about it.
They could just as easily have created a new IP about demons coming through a rift (as opposed to the ghosts) with a team of women out to stop them and seal the rift, but instead they decided to use name recognition, why was that? Because some suits fear that a bunch of women in a new IP would not be a draw?

iguana

silverharp wrote: »

but it looks like a movie there is no point taking my son to see because its essentially a chic flick

That's ridiculous. Plenty of young girls in the 80s loved the original despite there not being a female Ghostbuster and there is no reason why boys can't like this. My son loves old Spider-Woman cartoons, he enjoys his Black Widow book as much as any of the others in his Avengers set, of the DC Nation Shorts, Super BFFS (featuring Supergirl, Batgirl and Wondergirl) are his second favourite after SuperPets which he also manages to love despite him not being a dog, cat or kangaroo.

Sure kids love having a character in an action movie that they can 'be' and are more likely to prefer characters of the same gender. I always enjoyed the Batman episodes that featured Batgirl more than the ones that didn't, for example. But that doesn't mean that a child can't derive enjoyment from a silly action movie just because the leads are the opposite gender.:rolleyes:

Mickeroo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Calling out a film for cynically using real issue, regarding gender, as a marketing ploy is not geek rage.
If they recast Catniss Everdeen as a dude named Karl do you not think that we, in this forum anyway, would not call shenanigans?

That's a complete straw man and isn't really a logical comparison if you actually think about it.

Drumpot

Deleted User wrote: »

Calling out a film for cynically using real issue, regarding gender, as a marketing ploy is not geek rage.
If they recast Catniss Everdeen as a dude named Karl do you not think that we, in this forum anyway, would not call shenanigans?

It purely being done to generate publicity, nothing artistic (or feminist) about it.
They could just as easily have created a new IP about demons coming through a rift (as opposed to the ghosts) with a team of women out to stop them and seal the rift, but instead they decided to use name recognition, why was that? Because some suits fear that a bunch of women in a new IP would not be a draw?

This movie wasn't made for me and I'm ok with that because most of the top stuff is targeted for me and I'm really lucky in this regards.. Its target audience is my wife and her friends and I hope they enjoy it because there is an awful lot of crap (50 shades etc) targeted at woman that ends up very poor quality.

In saying that I do find it annoying that people are taking a with us or against us approach to discussions on gay characters in movies. For example, I don't care if Luke skywalker happens to be gay. But I don't see how it fits into the storytelling. None of the Star Wars movies have any sexual discussions and in 7 movies there are two obvious opposite sex relationships. Do we need to know if Luke is gay or not? Why not leave it ambiguous?

It's when movies start forcing agendas that have nothing to do with the entertainment that it starts getting annoying. For people who are neutral with regards to sexual preference or gender, but who enjoy the escapism of movies, it gets tiresome when a movie is intentionally making political statements to further a cause that nearly feels out of place in the movie and has zero relevance to the story being told. This movie is about ghost hunters, ah we see a "girl power" poster that now makes it more important to emphasise the fact that we have woman now instead of men. Great, that adds to the movie how exactly?

Each to their own but I goto these kinds of movies to be entertained. Will ghostbusters actually be entertaining or will it simply be supported because it's supposedly representing woman in some form?

Sad Professor

Drumpot wrote: »

It's when movies start forcing agendas that have nothing to do with the entertainment that it starts getting annoying. For people who are neutral with regards to sexual gender, but who enjoy the escapism of movies, it gets tiresome when a movie is intentionally making political statements to further a cause. This movie is about ghost hunters, ah we see a "girl power" poster that now makes it more important to emphasise the fact that we have woman now instead of men. Great, that adds to the movie how exactly?

The "girlpower" image silverharp posted isn't a poster, it's a behind-the-scenes photo tweeted by McCarthy to show the number of women working on a film in a traditionally male-dominated industry. It's not part of the marketing of the film, nor is it part of some scary feminist agenda.

FunLover18

silverharp wrote: »

its not for me to say who motivated what exactly, but looking at the pix below this looks like they are driving this as a"feminist" movie. So cool , they can have it, but it looks like a movie there is no point taking my son to see because its essentially a chic flick

This is the problem in Hollywood that needs to be fixed; there are plenty of movies with male leads for you to take your son to see, pretty much all of them. What this movie is trying to do (and fair ****s to it) is to produce female role models because god knows there are precious little of them because women are usually supporting characters and love interests in Hollywood and society needs to move away from the idea that women are here to support men and have babies. So they've taken a well known brand which had an all male cast and said 'well, women could do that too', and yes it's gimmicky but it's a step in the right direction and if they had to make that step using the crutch of a brand name I'm not going to argue. For that reason I hope this movie succeeds (and I have no doubt that it will) because girls do need more female role models .

ALSO I don't think there's anything wrong with boys having females role models and I think it would be a true shame for any child to grow up thinking all female led movies are chick flicks.

iguana

Drumpot wrote: »

In saying that I do find it annoying that people are taking a with us or against us approach to discussions on gay characters in movies. For example, I don't care if Luke skywalker happens to be gay. But I don't see how it fits into the storytelling. None of the Star Wars movies have any sexual discussions and in 7 movies there are two obvious opposite sex relationships. Do we need to know if Luke is gay or not? Why not leave it ambiguous?

What? So Han and Leia and Anakin and Padma are clearly written as heterosexual couples and that's ok. But if Luke Skywalker ends up finding love with a male character or if Poe and Finn end up in a romance with each other, they'll obviously have to sit down and discuss the dynamics of bum sex and which lube they prefer rather than just have romantic chemistry/a relationship similar to any other couple in the franchise?

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's a complete straw man and isn't really a logical comparison if you actually think about it.

Explain. You say that recasting a fairly iconic female role, with a guy, is different hiw exactly?

Mickeroo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Explain. You say that recasting a fairly iconic female role, with a guy, is different hiw exactly?

Katniss being a woman is actually important in terms of the themes explored in the story.

A more valid comparison would be making a home alone film with a little girl in the lead role, because the gender of the protagonist is completely inconsequential to what makes a Home Alone film a Home Alone film. Similarly I'd have no issues with a black James Bond.

iguana

iguana wrote: »

What? So Han and Leia and Anakin and Padma are clearly written as heterosexual couples and that's ok. But if Luke Skywalker ends up finding love with a male character or if Poe and Finn end up in a romance with each other, they'll obviously have to sit down and discuss the dynamics of bum sex and which lube they prefer rather than just have romantic chemistry/a relationship similar to any other couple in the franchise?

I would give zero ****s if Poe and Finn get together. They are new characters and their stories are only unfolding. Luke was showing as falling for Lea, however, befire the sister arc was written in.
Now it could be easily explained by saying he was not fully at terms wuth sexuality or is bi etc but why is there the need to change existing characters (it feels like pandering or at worst using real struggles for marketing purposes and I would find that offensive)

This is why I, even if it's a good film, have issue with GB. I personally feel like the studio suits are manipulating the audience by using a previously male vehicle for marketing with a gender swap.

My Hunger Games example is relevant, as the comments would be "what's the point in doing that?" or "Catniss is a girl and should be kept so, let them create a new IP"

FunLover18

They also haven't recast the characters of the original, we're not getting a female Venkman or Egon, they're new characters who happen to be female and Ghostbusters.

Mickeroo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would give zero ****s if Poe and Finn get together. They are new characters and their stories are only unfolding. Luke was showing as falling for Lea, however, befire the sister arc was written in.
Now it could be easily explained by saying he was not fully at terms wuth sexuality or is bi etc but why is there the need to change existing characters (it feels like pandering or at worst using real struggles for marketing purposes and I would find that offensive)

This is why I, even if it's a good film, have issue with GB. I personally feel like the studio suits are manipulating the audience by using a previously male vehicle for marketing with a gender swap.

My Hunger Games example is relevant, as the comments would be "what's the point in doing that?" or "Catniss is a girl and should be kept so, let them create a new IP"

He was shown to be falling for Leia because Lucas hadn't decided she was his sister yet, making him gay now would continue the long Star Wars tradition of making stuff up as they go along. Wheres all this gay Luke Skywalker stuff coming from anyway?

These Ghostbusters aren't the same characters, it's no different than if they had 4 new different male Ghostbusters taking up the mantle. Something tells me people wouldn't have been too bothered if that was the case though....

Drumpot

Sad Professor wrote: »

The "girlpower" image silverharp posted isn't a poster, it's a behind-the-scenes photo tweeted by McCarthy to show the number of women working on a film in a traditionally male-dominated industry. It's not part of the marketing of the film, nor is it part of some scary feminist agenda.

it's a public message coming from people involved in making the movie and the movie studio don't mind. By default it is now a part of the marketing.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Katniss being a woman is actually important in terms of the themes explored in the story.

A more valid comparison would be making a home alone film with a little girl in the lead role, because the gender of the protagonist is completely inconsequential to what makes a Home Alone film a Home Alone film. Similarly I'd have no issues with a black James Bond.

There is nothing in Hunger Games that would be unable to change to a male protagonist. But why on earth would yoy bother?

For your Home Alone example again "what's the point?"
Bond, AFAIK, is meant to be old Scottish money so would be a character change, nothing crazy mind but it would be. Again "Why bother?"
Had Bourne been cast as say Idris Elba, no cares whatsoever. Making Bourne a woman? Well??
It's like the move to make The Doctor in Dr Who a woman... why?


I'm a massive Trek fan, did I dislike a black captain or woman? No. Sisko was awesome and Jayneway ricked tge authority (the shiw and character had issues sure but not the female captain aspect )
Do I dislike the current Kirk? Character yeah (actor no) as they have changed the character and universe too much.

Recast Picard as a woman and again I would be what's the bloody point?

iguana

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wheres all this gay Luke Skywalker stuff coming from anyway?

A fan asked Hamill if he thought Luke could be bi and Hamill said that as Luke's sexuality is never fully explored it is completely possible and that he can be whatever the fan wants him to be. The fan thought it was a nice answer and a few websites wrote articles about it. Some fans are now up in arms about pc gone mad.:rolleyes:

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

He was shown to be falling for Leia because Lucas hadn't decided she was his sister yet, making him gay now would continue the long Star Wars tradition of making stuff up as they go along. Wheres all this gay Luke Skywalker stuff coming from anyway?

These Ghostbusters aren't the same characters, it's no different than if they had 4 new different male Ghostbusters taking up the mantle. Something tells me people wouldn't have been too bothered if that was the case though....

Hamil was saying such on Twitter apparently.
I lol at the truth of them making **** up as they go.

Drumpot

iguana wrote: »

What? So Han and Leia and Anakin and Padma are clearly written as heterosexual couples and that's ok. But if Luke Skywalker ends up finding love with a male character or if Poe and Finn end up in a romance with each other, they'll obviously have to sit down and discuss the dynamics of bum sex and which lube they prefer rather than just have romantic chemistry/a relationship similar to any other couple in the franchise?

Both relationships in the Star Wars universe thus far have yielded children at the heart of the stories. I didn't write them so don't blame me.

I don't care if Poe and Finn or Luke are gay but they don't add anything to the narrative. Some people might take Jedi being gay as a suggestion that abstinence Leads to gay. People will always take their own different take on these topics. Questions of sexuality are not needed in the Star Wars universe and have only been in it to further the story. Maybe they will find a relevant way of making a gay story part of the narrative and that's fine.

Mickeroo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is nothing in Hunger Games that would be unable to change to a male protagonist. But why on earth would yoy bother?

For your Home Alone example again "what's the point?"
Bond, AFAIK, is meant to be old Scottish money so would be a character change, nothing crazy mind but it would be. Again "Why bother?"
Had Bourne been cast as say Idris Elba, no cares whatsoever. Making Bourne a woman? Well??
It's like the move to make The Doctor in Dr Who a woman... why?


I'm a massive Trek fan, did I dislike a black captain or woman? No. Sisko was awesome and Jayneway ricked tge authority (the shiw and character had issues sure but not the female captain aspect )
Do I dislike the current Kirk? Character yeah (actor no) as they have changed the character and universe too much.

Recast Picard as a woman and again I would be what's the bloody point?

Bond is only Scottish because Fleming liked Connory in the role so much he decided to shoehorn it in after Dr No.

Again they haven't recast the characters as women, the new Ghostbusters film is no different to having different gender/race captains in different Star Trek shows.

FunLover18

Deleted User wrote: »

I would give zero ****s if Poe and Finn get together. They are new characters and their stories are only unfolding. Luke was showing as falling for Lea, however, befire the sister arc was written in.
Now it could be easily explained by saying he was not fully at terms wuth sexuality or is bi etc but why is there the need to change existing characters (it feels like pandering or at worst using real struggles for marketing purposes and I would find that offensive)

This is why I, even if it's a good film, have issue with GB. I personally feel like the studio suits are manipulating the audience by using a previously male vehicle for marketing with a gender swap.

My Hunger Games example is relevant, as the comments would be "what's the point in doing that?" or "Catniss is a girl and should be kept so, let them create a new IP"

Male films for males, female films for females, is it? That's what it sounds like.

I agree with you to some degree that there needs to be more original content orientated towards females and minorities but I really don't see what's wrong with opening up previously white male dominated properties.

Mickeroo

iguana wrote: »

A fan asked Hamill if he thought Luke could be bi and Hamill said that as Luke's sexuality is never fully explored it is completely possible and that he can be whatever the fan wants him to be. The fan thought it was a nice answer and a few websites wrote articles about it. Some fans are now up in arms about pc gone mad.:rolleyes:

Complete mountain out of a molehill then.