The New Ghostbusters - Part 8

[DarthSkywalker]

No, I'm showing disdain for this film out of the number of times out four minutes they find a need to repeat that it's girls. Look at Force Awakens, look at Tomb Raider, look at Mad Max Fury Road. Which I would have loved to see this film turn out like. They don't constantly say so and so is a girl - it's just a matter of fact of life. That's the path that I like.

As said, as a bi guy it irks me when movies turn LGBT guys into the political statement character of a film as well. I prefer the route where it's just a matter of fact. The political statement side rubs me the wrong because then it makes the character feel like a tool for a message rather than just being a part of every day life.

I never saw that as him treating them as inferior. I see that as the man has been turned into almost a damsel in distress and showing men as inferior. A reverse of how women in movies used to be portrayed years ago. Just like they flipped a very old script with the secretary, they flipped it there as well. 2 out 2 of the guy characters they've shown have been flipped that way - it seems like something that would have been maybe relevant in the early 00s or 90s but it doesn't in this day and age where a lot of women are running corporations and a woman's about to become a president or at least in marketing making it come off like that.

Thank you for this. Thank you so much. You proved it all right here. It is pandering to you, it irks you, for one simple reason. We are talking about women. It wouldn't be pandering if it wasn't flipping tropes, or playing up the fact that they are women, like it isn't something to be ashamed of.

You also apparently didn't see Fury Road or get it. Because it is feminism on steroids.

 

[bluejake01]

No, I'm showing disdain for this film out of the number of times out four minutes they find a need to repeat that it's girls. Look at Force Awakens, look at Tomb Raider, look at Mad Max Fury Road. Which I would have loved to see this film turn out like. They don't constantly say so and so is a girl - it's just a matter of fact of life. That's the path that I like.

As said, as a bi guy it irks me when movies turn LGBT guys into the political statement character of a film as well. I prefer the route where it's just a matter of fact. The political statement side rubs me the wrong because then it makes the character feel like a tool for a message rather than just being a part of every day life.

I never saw that as him treating them as inferior. I see that as the man has been turned into almost a damsel in distress and showing men as inferior. A reverse of how women in movies used to be portrayed years ago. Just like they flipped a very old script with the secretary, they flipped it there as well. 2 out 2 of the guy characters they've shown have been flipped that way - it seems like something that would have been maybe relevant in the early 00s or 90s but it doesn't in this day and age where a lot of women are running corporations and a woman's about to become a president or at least in marketing making it come off like that.

There are very, very few women running corporations, and the ones that are have to fight harder, be meaner, be more "manly" than men in order to be taken seriously. There is a double standard over Hillary Clinton's tone and many people call her a shrew or a ***** when she does get upset and passionate. Things are better, but not hunky ****ing dory. I'd expect another member of the LGBTIQ community to be less dismissive of the systemic sexism that still exists.

(I don't like Hillary or Trump, but neither one because of what's between their legs)

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There are very, very few women running corporations, and the ones that are have to fight harder, be meaner, be more "manly" than men in order to be taken seriously. There is a double standard over Hillary Clinton's tone and many people call her a shrew or a ***** when she does get upset and passionate. Things are better, but not hunky ****ing dory. I'd expect another member of the LGBTIQ community to be less dismissive of the systemic sexism that still exists.

(I don't like Hillary or Trump, but neither one because of what's between their legs)

Shush now, feminism is evil, sexism is dead, and everything is perfectly fine between the sexes thees days.

 

[Kyle]

It is pandering to you, it irks you, for one simple reason. We are talking about women. It wouldn't be pandering if it wasn't flipping tropes, or playing up the fact that they are women, like it isn't something to be ashamed of.

You also apparently didn't see Fury Road or get it. Because it is feminism on steroids.

Pandering means to gratify or indulge. It feels like it's aiming solely for feminists in a baiting way to me. That's what grates me. It feels baiting.

In a hypothetical film, if regular straight characters need to be knocked down for LGBT characters to look good - I'd hate what that's saying in how whoever is behind that film views us. On the surface it looks good, under that it starts looking murkier to me. In the film if the counter-balance it, then it would work - it just feels heavy due to not seeing a lot.

I get that Mad Max showed women in power and I love that. So in that sense I can see it as being "feminist." But, I don't remember that film continuing to bring up that Furiosa is a woman or needing to knock men down in order to show how powerful she is.

less dismissive of the systemic sexism that still exists

I'm not saying it's completely rid of now. It has gotten noticeably better than what it was in the past. What they have shown however in how they have flipped the script, just feels dated - like there is something much more in tune with the times that they could have done. Hell, maybe they did and that's just not in this really weird marketing scheme.

 

[bluejake01]

Pandering means to gratify or indulge. It feels like it's aiming solely for feminists in a baiting way to me. That's what grates me. It feels baiting.

In a hypothetical film, if regular straight characters need to be knocked down for LGBT characters to look good - I'd hate what that's saying in how whoever is behind that film views us. On the surface it looks good, under that it starts looking murkier to me.

I get that Mad Max showed women in power and I love that. So in that sense I can see it as being "feminist." But, I don't remember that film continuing to bring up that Furiosa is a woman or needing to knock men down in order to show how powerful she is.



I'm not saying it's completely rid of now. It has gotten noticeably better than what it was in the past. What they have shown however in how they have flipped the script, just feels dated - like there is something much more in tune with the times that they could have done. Hell, maybe they did and that's just not in this really weird marketing scheme.

I don't feel like you have a very good grasp of Fury Road.

Furiosa may have had strength and cunning and she may have been capable, but she was not in power. She was breaking free of her own chains as well as freeing the wives. And YES, she did have to keep knocking men down, and fighting them off, and out smarting them to show how powerful she was. When Max learns to trust her and begins to come back to his old self, he is perfectly happy being her equal, and in many ways being in service to her. He allows himself to become a human tripod to steady her shot. He is happy to give her the credit and glory because she earned it...but not because she was in power, and not because the world led by Immortan Joe was egalitarian. She had to knock men down. Or don't you remember the movie?

 

[Kyle]

BlueJake, to narrow all of that down - I didn't mean be in political power. I meant that she was physically powerful and could fight back. Those women could kick butt and nobody stopped to go "women are powerful fighters?" They just were. Just like I say Rey is powerful and if you wanted to take that literally there as well - she started destitute. I didn't mean that she physically didn't knock men down - meant knocked down in how men were portrayed which I saw as being diverse. They were just as capable as men were with fighting if not more without batting an eye. I never saw Max as distrusting her because she was a woman, purely distrusting her because he didn't know who the heck she was. However, I did not read that into the metaphors of what was going on in terms of a larger sociological message.

 

[bluejake01]

Well, there are other male characters in the Ghostbusters. They haven't been shown in the trailers, but Charles Dance, Ed Bagley Jr. And Bill Murray share significant scenes with the leads and they aren't heavy handed propaganda devices.

 

[Kyle]

So they counter-balance it, which is really good to hear. And you beyond caught my attention on the third. Can you explain further? I thought it was just a cameo, but by saying Bill Murray has significant scenes with the leads what role does he play exactly and how many scenes of the cut you saw was he in? I'm pretty sure this is a question a lot of us have after seeing that since, thought it was only a cameo.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Pandering means to gratify or indulge. It feels like it's aiming solely for feminists in a baiting way to me. That's what grates me. It feels baiting.

In a hypothetical film, if regular straight characters need to be knocked down for LGBT characters to look good - I'd hate what that's saying in how whoever is behind that film views us. On the surface it looks good, under that it starts looking murkier to me. In the film if the counter-balance it, then it would work - it just feels heavy due to not seeing a lot.

I get that Mad Max showed women in power and I love that. So in that sense I can see it as being "feminist." But, I don't remember that film continuing to bring up that Furiosa is a woman or needing to knock men down in order to show how powerful she is.

It is a movie about women trying to escape men who enslave them for breeding purposes...

"We are not things".

****ing chastity belts.

The place of purity has only women.

Good lord.

 

[Kyle]

Didn't mean politically in power. Meant as no batting of the eye and no flipping the scripts. The women were seen as capable fighters, no one could doubt their fighting skills. Hell, even in captivity the women (although a crime) were seen in high regard with no batting of an eye in that they kept that entire civilization afloat in a very literal sense - without them, their civilization would crumble thus why they needed to get them back. Some of the men were seen as pigs, but there was a counter-balance which it seems like this film has too now. It just didn't hit me as heavy handed, and the larger sociological implifications of what it was saying actually didn't hit me.

 

[bluejake01]

Major spoiler, and I must caution you this was from version of the film that was cut back in late January/ early February...so things may have changed

Spoiler

Bill Murray plays a supernatural skeptic and debunker who comes to investigate their operation after the Mayhem concert. He is kinda Walter Peck like and insists they open the trap that Mayhem is housed in. At first the trap seems empty, but eventually the ghost flies out, grabs him and drags him out the window, and the fall kills him.

 

[Xrated48]

Did you just compare McCarthy and Wiig to Sandler and James? How in the hell... That is just insane. McCarthy does a lot of crap, but she is clearly talented and has shown it. She has more great movies to her name then those two idiots combined. Same for Wiig.

As for my picks I would have went with a combination of:

Rose Byrne
Emma Stone
Jennifer Lawrence
Brie Larson
Tina Fey
Anna Kendrick
Jenna Fischer

Melissa McCarthy isn't funny at all imo so I agree with Kyle that she's the Kevin James and Adam Sandler for female comedies.

 

[Kyle]

Major spoiler, and I must caution you this was from version of the film that was cut back in late January/ early February...so things may have changed

Spoiler

Bill Murray plays a supernatural skeptic and debunker who comes to investigate their operation after the Mayhem concert. He is kinda Walter Peck like and insists they open the trap that Mayhem is housed in. At first the trap seems empty, but eventually the ghost flies out, grabs him and drags him out the window, and the fall kills him.

Spoiler

Depending on how that plays out, I'll love that or hate it. I love that it's basically the anti-Peter thing to do. I hate that he's killed, but I loved his scene in 'Zombieland.' So, it could go either way.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Melissa McCarthy isn't funny at all imo so I agree with Kyle that she's the Kevin James and Adam Sandler for female comedies.

I am pretty sure I wasn't quoting Kyle.

 

[Kyle]

Melissa McCarthy isn't funny at all imo so I agree with Kyle that she's the Kevin James and Adam Sandler for female comedies.

I never stated she was the Kevin James or Adam Sandler. Someone else did.

I loved her work in 'Spy,' thought she was okay in 'The Heat' (the stand out to me in that was Sandra) and not memorable in much else to me.

With that said, when she has a good script and a good role - she can be hilarious.

Is there any word on 'Spy II'? Because that, I'd love to see.

Also I'd never knock down Kevin James, because I personally think he's funny (I am hyped to see his new sitcom). Not all of his movies or roles are good. I thought Zookeeper and Paul Blart was just okay, Paul Blart II was trash - but really enjoyed 'Here Comes the Boom,' 'Hitch,' a big fan of 'King of Queens' (which is why I'm excited for his sitcom), and think he was the saving grace in 'Grown Ups.'

Sandler's really fallen downhill. Somehow when you get old, you seem to lose a lot of your talent. Not sure why that is. But, I'd put Sandler into that group. He was great in the 90s and before then, but he's been falling apart ever since. At least he's in a better standing than Mike Myers though... It is baffling to me how they can just... plummet...

 

[bluejake01]

Spoiler

Depending on how that plays out, I'll love that or hate it. I love that it's basically the anti-Peter thing to do. I hate that he's killed, but I loved his scene in 'Zombieland.' So, it could go either way.

Spoiler

He always said he wouldn't do anothe Ghostbusters film unless they killed him off, I wonder if that was a condition of his to do this cameo?

 

[bluejake01]

McCarthy shows her range every now and then. St. Vincent was amazing, but that is probably more to do with Bill Murray.

 

[Kyle]

Spoiler

He always said he wouldn't do anothe Ghostbusters film unless they killed him off, I wonder if that was a condition of his to do this cameo?

Probably was. Was it played up almost, if not, as good as Bill Murray's death in 'Zombieland'?[/spoiler]

 

[VelcroWallet]

This movie is going to bomb and bomb hard.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I enjoyed King of Queens. The problem was he decided that was going to be his thing for the rest of his career, and it has not worked. I have seen McCarthy show range. As a long time Gilmore Girls fan, she was always a highlight.

Also on the idea of pandering. The reason this stuff is perceived as pandering is because of the box we have placed around this kind of stuff. When I think of pandering, I think stuff like a Foley cheap pop. Too often as men we think we perceive such stuff from our own perspective without giving any notice to how a woman might feel about the same thing. Why is it pandering to put a "weaker males" in a film? Because you expect men to not be weak or something?

 

[Kyle]

McCarthy shows her range every now and then. St. Vincent was amazing, but that is probably more to do with Bill Murray.

Can't believe I forgot that one. I loved her in that movie. Plus, it's the first serious role I saw her in. Probably forgot it, because she blended so well into the role. I didn't see Melissa really, I just saw the character which I think is one of the best compliments that you can pay an actor.

 

[bluejake01]

Spoiler

Probably was. Was it played up almost, if not, as good as Bill Murray's death in 'Zombieland'?

The effects were still very rough, so it was still in animatic stage.

 

[Xrated48]

I never stated she was the Kevin James or Adam Sandler. Someone else did.

I loved her work in 'Spy,' thought she was okay in 'The Heat' (the stand out to me in that was Sandra) and not memorable in much else to me.

With that said, when she has a good script and a good role - she can be hilarious.

Is there any word on 'Spy II'? Because that, I'd love to see.

Also I'd never knock down Kevin James, because I personally think he's funny (I am hyped to see his new sitcom). Not all of his movies or roles are good. I thought Zookeeper and Paul Blart was just okay, Paul Blart II was trash - but really enjoyed 'Here Comes the Boom,' 'Hitch,' a big fan of 'King of Queens' (which is why I'm excited for his sitcom), and think he was the saving grace in 'Grown Ups.'

Sandler's really fallen downhill. Somehow when you get old, you seem to lose a lot of your talent. Not sure why that is. But, I'd put Sandler into that group. He was great in the 90s and before then, but he's been falling apart ever since. At least he's in a better standing than Mike Myers though... It is baffling to me how they can just... plummet...

I'm sorry when I read I thought it was you posting it. I misread it

 

[Kyle]

Why is it pandering to put a "weaker males" in a film? Because you expect men to not be weak or something?

Before when it was going 2 for 2, it felt like that was the direction they might be going in overall. I don't have a problem with it. I'm a "weaker man" from the stereotypical he-man. Just wanted a wide range of types of characters, which it looks like this has and is just not showing in the marketing. Hell, hate that word "weaker males".... feels like an insult to be saying that, I don't view myself that way but know others would view me that way: emotional (prone to crying a la Barry in Flash), creative, introverted, etc.

As said, unless it's a world turned upside down film - I don't want any race, gender, or sexuality to be knocked down in order to make the next look bigger by comparison. It comes off like a cheap and easy move to establish that comparison and if it's heavy handed makes me question why the person behind it thought it was necessary in order to make one look bigger (as said, it would feel like an insult as a bi guy if straight characters needed to be knocked down for a bi character to stand on his own two feet). This can be done, it just has to be very evenly-handed because it is a tight rope. As said, I might be alone - but that would offend me personally and make me ask, "why didn't you think you could make a bi character stand on his own without resorting to knocking a group of people down to do that?" It feels like reverse-homophobia rather than being seen on equal grounds.

Now knowing there's an even-handedness that isn't being presented in marketing, it's a moot point.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Before when it was going 2 for 2, it felt like that was the direction they might be going in overall. I don't have a problem with it. I'm a "weaker man" from the stereotypical he-man. Just didn't wanted a wide range of types of characters, which it looks like this has and is just not showing in the marketing. Hell, hate that word "weaker males".... feels like an insult to be saying that, I don't view myself that way but know others would view me that way: emotional (prone to crying a la Barry in Flash), creative, introverted, etc.

As said, unless it's a world turned upside down film - I don't want any race, gender, or sexuality to be knocked down in order to make the next look bigger by comparison. It comes off like a cheap and easy move to establish that comparison and if it's heavy handed makes me question why the person behind it thought it was necessary in order to make one look bigger (as said, it would feel like an insult as a bi guy if straight characters needed to be knocked down for a bi character to stand on his own two feet). This can be done, it just has to be very evenly-handed because it is a tight rope. As said, I might be alone - but that would offend me personally and make me ask, "why didn't you think you could make a bi character stand on his own without resorting to knocking a group of people down to do that?" It feels like reverse-homophobia rather than being seen on equal grounds.

Now knowing there's an even-handedness that isn't being presented in marketing, it's a moot point.

The point is, why is it knocking any gender to simply have weaker males in the film? Why isn't it simply a different type of character? This is what makes no sense in your argument, as it isn't a promotion of even handedness. Like we couldn't have a guy who is proven wrong in his assessment of the women, because he would look sexist and thus would be a knock against men? You are viewing this entire thing from a male dominated perspective.