GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

ShakerMaker91

Meangadh wrote: »

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.

So only women who agree with girl power can have banners now thats a bit sexist

johnny_ultimate

*bangs head against desk*

pumpkin4life

Has to be the most passive aggressive thread on boards.ie.

Meangadh

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

So only women who agree with girl power can have banners now thats a bit sexist

Yep. That's exactly what my post said.

FunLover18

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?

As has been pointed out they were sperated on the original and no one made a big deal.

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

The first one didn't need to because males being the stars of movies is the norm, as is women being relegated to secretaries and love interests. Unfortunately an all female cast is not the norm hence the big deal on this occasion, but the hope is that this is a step towards a time when we can have an all female cast without it being accused of having an agenda.

ShakerMaker91

Meangadh wrote: »

Yep. That's exactly what my post said.

I bet you've seen the new Ghostbusters film 5 times you massive sexist...

smash

Meangadh wrote: »

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.

Riiiiggghht.... I think that maybe we might be done here.

Meangadh

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

I bet you've seen the new Ghostbusters film 5 times you massive sexist...

Ok now it just feels like you're flirting with me in that weird pulling my hair kind of way, so eh, for that reason, I'm out.

smash

FunLover18 wrote: »

the hope is that this is a step towards a time when we can have an all female cast without it being accused of having an agenda.

This has already been done successfully, and will continue to be done successfully. Look at Bridesmaids or upcoming movies like Bad Moms or Fight Valley.

The issue with Ghostbusters is that they've taken something that already exists and literally just done a complete gender role reversal just because they could. And if you don't like it then you're a sexist so and so.

ShakerMaker91

All the sexists are bailing out of the discussion I see they've all been rumbled

S.M.B.

psinno wrote: »

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

No, they did not.

silverharp

Meangadh wrote: »

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.

you had me until that, young white middle class women don't have "privilege"? they were lucky they had the token black actress for the photo

Meangadh

silverharp wrote: »

you had me until that, young white middle class women don't have "privilege"? they were lucky they had the token black actress for the photo

I never said that. Of course they have more priviledge than their black counterparts. But they're still women- a young middle class white man still has the edge in our society in most situations.

And I agree, one token black person isn't enough.

squonk

Christ this back and forth is getting boring. Who here has actually seen the film? I haven't, but I'll go in with an open mind.

johnny_ultimate

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

All the sexists are bailing out of the discussion I see they've all been rumbled

Firstly, as a mod note, you have received a warning for the trolling and name calling in your post. This will not be tolerated.

Secondly, it's not so much 'bailing out ' as realising a 'discussion' that is constantly being countered with strawman arguments and other assorted logical fallacies is ultimately a waste of one's time and effort. It's actually a common Internet argument technique: effectively numb the opposition into pure frustration and declare 'victory'.

Now, hopefully more posters will be along shortly to express their opinion on the film itself.

ShakerMaker91

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Firstly, as a mod note, you have received a warning for the trolling and name calling in your post. This will not be tolerated.

Secondly, it's not so much 'bailing out ' as realising a 'discussion' that is constantly being countered with strawman arguments and other assorted logical fallacies ultimately eventually becomes apparent as a waste of one's time and effort. It's actually a common Internet argument technique: effectively numb the opposition into pure frustration and declare 'victory'.

Now, hopefully more posters will be along shortly to express their opinion on the film itself.

Ok but I wasn't being serious I was being sarcastic like?

Christy42

smash wrote: »

This has already been done successfully, and will continue to be done successfully. Look at Bridesmaids or upcoming movies like Bad Moms or Fight Valley.

The issue with Ghostbusters is that they've taken something that already exists and literally just done a complete gender role reversal just because they could. And if you don't like it then you're a sexist so and so.

Why do you care so much about the gender? I mean I get why it is a big deal for women as it really hasn't happened much before. Go away with Bridesmaids and Bad Moms as this is a leap into a stereotypically male world. You announce a movie like Bridesmaids and you expect a female cast, you release a movie about a load of people saving a city and you expect a generally male cast. To quote the honest trailer on Guardians of the Galaxy "If you are confused the main hero is still the white guy".

The gender issue has been brought up a lot more by people giving out the lack of males. Seriously one action flick with all female main characters (and a planned spin off with all male main characters) and people think women are taking over hollywood.

orubiru

FunLover18 wrote: »

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

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

Hahaha! Jeez.

Could you imagine if they did the most "Anti-Feminist" movie imaginable?

Loads of objectification. Maybe have a few scenes showing women driving terribly. Show the Ghostbusters engaging in some catcalling for the craic.

The Ghostbusters could let a male ghost go free because "boys will be boys" *Channing Tatum winks at camera* followed by an exciting final scene where the Ghostbusters have to defeat a load of Suffragette ghosts and send them "back to the kitchen, b!tch"?

Sounds great!

Then we can have thousands of blogs about sensitive people getting too worked up over a movie.

wp_rathead

smash wrote: »

The issue with Ghostbusters is that they've taken something that already exists and literally just done a complete gender role reversal just because they could. And if you don't like it then you're a sexist so and so.

I get people are protective of their nostalgia but I don't get the big deal with "the gender role reversal" I gotta say..

I do have an issue with franchise reboots in general, but that is another discussion for another day.

That said I was never a big ghostbuster's fan, I liked them growing up didn't love them like some people did..

ShakerMaker91

I also hate the way they tried to bully people into seeing the film. Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy rolling off the same old sob story in every interview. They were basically saying if you don't go see this film you're a horrible person

smash

Christy42 wrote: »

Why do you care so much about the gender? I mean I get why it is a big deal for women as it really hasn't happened much before. Go away with Bridesmaids and Bad Moms as this is a leap into a stereotypically male world. You announce a movie like Bridesmaids and you expect a female cast, you release a movie about a load of people saving a city and you expect a generally male cast. To quote the honest trailer on Guardians of the Galaxy "If you are confused the main hero is still the white guy".

The gender issue has been brought up a lot more by people giving out the lack of males. Seriously one action flick with all female main characters (and a planned spin off with all male main characters) and people think women are taking over hollywood.

Maybe it's because it's a reboot of what would probably be considered a classic by a lot of people, I don't know, but they've gone way off course here in a deliberate attempt to try and prove, something... What that something is, I'm still not sure of as the move itself seems completely unnecessary. The way I see it is that it doesn't matter if it's a lighthearted movie, which is how some people are fobbing it off, "sure it's just a bit of fun", maybe so but would the same disregard be given if 'The Godmother' was brought out as a reboot?

I think it's just pure laziness if I'm being honest and I think it was done with the sole intention of being controversial so in that regard, it's been successful.

orubiru

Meangadh wrote: »

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.

I am 99% sure it would be crap.

They already tried Ghostbusters 2 and it was crap.

The truth is that most of these remakes and reboots are crap. Most sequels are crap too.

You have to give them some credit here for trying to disguise the crap with a gimmick but in the end this is just the same as all the other crap.

Crap crap crap.

#NotAllReboots

At least this movie came with some mild Internet drama. We should all be grateful for that.

Maybe we need a Back to the Future reboot? Doc Brown should definitely be a woman this time and Marty McFly should be an Otherkin who identifies as an actual fly.

ancapailldorcha

I've only seen the original. Is Ghostbusters 2 no good?

py2006

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've only seen the original. Is Ghostbusters 2 no good?

Its ok. I enjoyed but rarely rewatched it. It completely turned Bill Murray off doing a third one as he hated it so much apparently.

Meangadh

smash wrote: »

would the same disregard be given if 'The Godmother' was brought out as a reboot?

I think it's just pure laziness if I'm being honest and I think it was done with the sole intention of being controversial so in that regard, it's been successful.

Firstly, if the Godmother was made, you'd just have the same people complaining as are about this movie. Secondly, it's feasible to believe a bunch of women could be Ghostbusters. It's not feasible to think that in the Mafia, women would rule the roost- the whole mentality of the mafia is that the men run it, the women stay at home and raise the kids. A switch in the roles would turn it into a spoof. But there are plenty of movies out there that could have had women more to the fore- but they haven't, for whatever reason. Why is it so bad that they're becoming more prominent?

If this reboot was done with the sole intention of being controversial then I agree, that's lazy. But I really don't think it was- it was simply giving a new look to an old movie, mixing it up, and a great way to do that was to introduce women into the parts. Sure, there may have been other ways too- but what's so bad about this way?

Anyway- as regards discussing the merits of the movie itself, which we should get back to, I think my favourite was Kirsten Wiig. I enjoyed them all to be fair, but she just has great comedy timing.

Definitely a huge amount of product placement/advertising too- I guess that's just the world we're living in now, and it's so easy to do in a New York skyline setting.

orubiru

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've only seen the original. Is Ghostbusters 2 no good?

It's pretty bad.

The thing is that Ghostbusters is an all time classic movie. Lightning in a bottle, really. Trying to do a sequel? It's just a bad idea. Unless you want to make tons of cash.

I think a lot of the demand for Ghostbusters 3 really came from the disappointment of Ghostbusters 2. People wanted them to put that right, maybe.

py2006

Meangadh wrote: »

I never said that. Of course they have more priviledge than their black counterparts. But they're still women- a young middle class white man still has the edge in our society in most situations.

I'd love to hear you embellish on that one but its not for here.

Meangadh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've only seen the original. Is Ghostbusters 2 no good?

Ah I liked the second one too, even just to see the progression between Dana and Peter. And I love the end of it. But it's not a patch on the first one. I just love it.

Meangadh

py2006 wrote: »

I'd love to hear you embellish on that one but its not for here.

I'd love to hear you argue it, but again, not here.

py2006

My only concern is that I have nobody to go with lol

Perhaps may be my father who brought me to the original one. But like me he gets annoyed at the talking, texting "howyas" that frequent the cinemas these days. I don't think he would be pushed about the movie anyway!

Can't wait to see the cameos and nods to the original.