Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Options
1…4243454748…64

Comments

  • Options
    #1322
    S.M.B.
    Registered Users Posts: 9,373 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    What's antagonising about that picture though? It was posted on some cast members twitter feed from what I remember.


  • Options
    #1323
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    That such an innocuous cast/crew photo was seen as even remotely objectionable I think says plenty about how farcically delicate some people are.

    Anyway, hopefully the film is a success not to piss off the crazies (that's just an added bonus) but to allow for a sequel that doesn't feel so much like a cover version of the original. The Force Awakens is a vastly superior film, but I think shares the same issue - the studio-mandated need to set up the new characters and pay homage to what came before means there's good reason to believe a sequel won't feel anywhere near as constrained. And while I don't think a Sony-produced Ghostbusters sequel is ever going to be anything truly remarkable, the cast here generate more than enough goodwill and charm that it feels like they deserve a second go that doesn't feel the need to nod at the original every few minutes.


  • Options
    #1324
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    S.M.B. wrote: »
    What's antagonising about that picture though? It was posted on some cast members twitter feed from what I remember.

    Not sure if it is antagonising but why couldn't they just make a Ghostbusters movie that just happens to have an all female cast instead of making a big song and dance about it and basically insult anybody (male) that criticised the trailers.

    Glad it seems to be better received than expected though.


  • Options
    #1325
    ShakerMaker91
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭ShakerMaker91


    smash wrote: »
    It's actually phenomenal that the entirety of this movie's publicity has an 'us vs them' theme, coming from every angle. I don't think anything like this has happened on this scale before.

    They attached a feminist agenda to Ghostbusters for no real reason. They then tried bullying people with the "if you hate women you wont go see this" type of angle to guilt people to go and see it. Pretty despicable behaviour from Sony in my opinion. Why couldn't the Ghostbusters have been a mix of men and women?


  • Options
    #1326
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    py2006 wrote: »
    Not sure if it is antagonising but why couldn't they just make a Ghostbusters movie that just happens to have an all female cast instead of making a big song and dance about it and basically insult anybody (male) that criticised the trailers.

    How in the name of god is it insulting you? It's a harmless picture of the female cast & crew - still a pretty rare thing in Hollywood! - having a good time together and celebrating that fact. If anybody takes offense or issue with it, IMO the problem is not with the picture.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1327
    ShakerMaker91
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭ShakerMaker91


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    How in the name of god is it insulting you? It's a harmless picture of the female cast & crew - still a pretty rare thing in Hollywood! - having a good time together and celebrating that fact. If anybody takes offense or issue with it, IMO the problem is not with the picture.

    There shouldn't be any agenda behind a movie like Ghostbusters. Would have been the same if a picture of an all male reboot cast were holding a sign saying men are better than women. I'd be wondering why there's a clear agenda behind a film like Ghostbusters?


  • Options
    #1328
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    S.M.B. wrote: »
    What's antagonising about that picture though?

    It doesn't antagonise me, but for a movie which claims to have no associated misandrist agenda it's a bit silly. It sort of reminds me of the scenario where a child's face is covered in chocolate but they outright deny eating any cake.


  • Options
    #1329
    Meangadh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,963 ✭✭✭Meangadh


    ShakerMaker91 wrote: »
    There shouldn't be any agenda behind a movie like Ghostbusters. Would have been the same if a picture of an all male reboot cast were holding a sign saying men are better than women. People would be saying why have an agenda behind a film like Ghostbusters?

    There's a difference between having an agenda and simply being proud of the fact that so many women were involved, particularly in an industry that is still so male dominated. An all male reboot cast wouldn't need to say "men power" on a sign. They already have the power in Hollywood. That's like asking why there are gay pride marches and saying there must be some sort of "gay agenda".

    There's no agenda. There's simply pride in mixing it up from what's been the norm in the past. Anyone who thinks that's a bad thing needs to stop being so fragile.


  • Options
    #1330
    ShakerMaker91
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭ShakerMaker91


    Meangadh wrote: »
    There's a difference between having an agenda and simply being proud of the fact that so many women were involved, particularly in an industry that is still so male dominated. An all male reboot cast wouldn't need to say "men power" on a sign. They already have the power in Hollywood. That's like asking why there are gay pride marches and saying there must be some sort of "gay agenda".

    There's no agenda. There's simply pride in mixing it up from what's been the norm in the past. Anyone who thinks that's a bad thing needs to stop being so fragile.

    So men cant be Ghostbusters anymore so?? Its just women from now on?


  • Options
    #1331
    S.M.B.
    Registered Users Posts: 9,373 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    py2006 wrote: »
    Not sure if it is antagonising but why couldn't they just make a Ghostbusters movie that just happens to have an all female cast instead of making a big song and dance about it and basically insult anybody (male) that criticised the trailers.

    Glad it seems to be better received than expected though.
    Sounds like it has antagonised you though. I'm not sure why else you would bring it up the way you did.

    It's a simple photo showcasing the pride of a group of people.

    Not a tool to amplify some sort of 'us vs them' agemda as you insinuated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1332
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    How in the name of god is it insulting you?

    It isn't


  • Options
    #1333
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    S.M.B. wrote: »
    Sounds like it has antagonised you though. I'm not sure why else you would bring it up the way you did.

    I was just pointing out that when that pic came out it seemed to start off the whole 'backlash' or may be it started before that?


  • Options
    #1334
    Meangadh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,963 ✭✭✭Meangadh


    ShakerMaker91 wrote: »
    So men cant be Ghostbusters anymore so?? Its just women from now on?

    Oh ffs. That is absolutely not being said and you know it.

    It's saying ANYONE can be a Ghostbuster. ANYONE can be a director. ANYONE can have leading role. ANYONE can kick ass in a movie instead of simply being the token female hero or the love interest of the male hero. ANYONE can be a producer. ANYONE can enjoy a film.

    It's not even *about* friggin Ghostbusters! It's saying that the industry is opening up more to roles that have always been closed off to women. Ghosbusters just happens to be the platform used to try and get that message accross. A message that has clearly been lost on some people.


  • Options
    #1335
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    ShakerMaker91 wrote:
    So men cant be Ghostbusters anymore so?? Its just women from now on?

    What are you talking about!? He said nothing like that.

    AFAIK Sony are working on a male spin-off with Channing Tatum


  • Options
    #1336
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Meangadh wrote: »
    There's no agenda. There's simply pride in mixing it up from what's been the norm in the past.

    So there's an agenda then...


  • Options
    #1337
    S.M.B.
    Registered Users Posts: 9,373 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    py2006 wrote: »
    I was just pointing out that when that pic came out it seemed to start off the whole 'backlash' or may be it started before that?
    Oh it started long long before that picture appeared.

    It's been 18 months of the same sh*te to be honest.


  • Options
    #1338
    Meangadh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,963 ✭✭✭Meangadh


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    What are you talking about!? He said nothing like that.

    AFAIK Sony are working on a male spin-off with Channing Tatum

    I'm a she, but you're right, I didn't.

    Although I'd imagine that poster you quoted is now saying "well of course Meangadh is a she, coming in here with her female agenda".

    A male spin off sounds great too, btw. I'd like to see it as much as any other film- but even if it was crap, it might shut up a few of this movie's naysayers.


  • Options
    #1339
    Meangadh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,963 ✭✭✭Meangadh


    smash wrote: »
    So there's an agenda then...

    Well if that's your definition of agenda, then fine. But "agenda" has very negative connotations, and I fail to see how mixing things up from the norm in Hollywood is negative. If you want to say agenda to describe that then fair enough, you could. But personally I'd prefer to say that it's simply offering an alternative.


  • Options
    #1340
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    ShakerMaker91 wrote: »
    Would have been the same if a picture of an all male reboot cast were holding a sign saying men are better than women.

    The sign doesn't say that women are better than men.
    ShakerMaker91 wrote: »
    So men cant be Ghostbusters anymore so?? Its just women from now on?

    Yeah, that's exactly it. In fact, in the film itself the very last line - before the five minutes of manic laughter and the credit montage of men being enslaved & humiliated by women and ghosts - is "men can't be Ghostbusters anymore - death to the patriarchy!". Sets it up nicely for the sequel, IMO.


  • Options
    #1341
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Meangadh wrote:
    A male spin off sounds great too, btw. I'd like to see it as much as any other film- but even if it was crap, it might shut up a few of this movie's naysayers.


    Anyone who's seen the film will see that a 'Ghost Corps' logo appears at the start, this is brain trust for Sony's Ghostbusters universe. It would be cool to see Ghostbusters in other cities.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1342
    Grayditch
    Registered Users Posts: 14,347 ✭✭✭✭Grayditch


    I hope my male sensibilities are not offended in the ghost film.


  • Options
    #1343
    ShakerMaker91
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭ShakerMaker91


    My point is why have a separate male and female Ghostbusters why not just have a mixed team of men and women why have this segregation in the first place?


  • Options
    #1344
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    ShakerMaker91 wrote: »
    My point is why have a separate male and female Ghostbusters why not just have a mixed team of men and women why have this segregation in the first place?

    Technically the original film is to blame for that. This just corrects the initial imbalance of on-screen Ghostbusters.


  • Options
    #1345
    ShakerMaker91
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭ShakerMaker91


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    Technically the original film is to blame for that.

    The first film didn't make a big deal out of an all men team. Unlike the reboot with their girl power banners


  • Options
    #1346
    Meangadh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,963 ✭✭✭Meangadh


    And by the way, lest any of the posters here saying there's a female agenda is in any fear of this "agenda" changing everything- don't worry, change will take a lot longer than your lifetimes, so you can rest easy knowing that leading roles will be predominantly male, directors and producers will be predominantly male, superheroes will be predominantly male, the highest paid in Hollywood will be predominantly male, and so on and so on.

    Ye can relax. Men aren't going anywhere any time soon.


  • Options
    #1347
    Mara Yellow Cowboy
    Posts: 0 ✭ Mara Yellow Cowboy


    Unpopular opinion: The original films are overrated IMO


  • Options
    #1348
    ShakerMaker91
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭ShakerMaker91


    Meangadh wrote: »
    And by the way, lest any of the posters here saying there's a female agenda is in any fear of this "agenda" changing everything- don't worry, change will take a lot longer than your lifetimes, so you can rest easy knowing that leading roles will be predominantly male, directors and producers will be predominantly male, superheroes will be predominantly male, the highest paid in Hollywood will be predominantly male, and so on and so on.

    Ye can relax. Men aren't going anywhere any time soon.

    I have no issue with women in lead roles. Two of my favorite films Alien and Aliens have a women in the lead role.


  • Options
    #1349
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    S.M.B. wrote: »

    It's a simple photo showcasing the pride of a group of people.

    Did they release any other photos where people displayed pride in being male,black or white?


  • Options
    #1350
    Meangadh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,963 ✭✭✭Meangadh


    ShakerMaker91 wrote: »
    The first film didn't make a big deal out of an all men team. Unlike the reboot with their girl power banners

    Jesus Christ. They didn't have to. Bad and all as things are now, they were even worse back then for female roles. Men don't need to show a banner. Just like white people don't need banners. Straight people don't need banners. Rich people don't need banners. Those who are priviledged don't need banners.

    They can just get on with it- they don't have to overcome barriers. No barriers, no banners.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1351
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    Meangadh wrote: »
    And by the way, lest any of the posters here saying there's a female agenda is in any fear of this "agenda" changing everything- don't worry, change will take a lot longer than your lifetimes, so you can rest easy knowing that leading roles will be predominantly male, directors and producers will be predominantly male, superheroes will be predominantly male, the highest paid in Hollywood will be predominantly male, and so on and so on.

    Ye can relax. Men aren't going anywhere any time soon.

    What ever makes the money will dictate who/what roles will be available.


Advertisement