^^ that got me thinking -- what other movies that are female centric without having words denoting that in the title ("The Women", "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants", "Bridesmaids", etc.) ? (besides pr0n and everyone's soon to be favorite Ghostbusters movie, of course).

I've got:
-Set It Off
-Spring Breakers

Brave, High Tension, The Descent

[QUOTE=Sean O'Hara;12797207]You haven't seen the shit he's posting in Politics. He's a full-on Kool-Aid drinking MRA.



Don't move the goalposts. Your claim was, "no women are garbage men". "A handful of women" is not "no women".

And the article has a photo of one of the women.




I'm confused. Where's her Proton Pack?

The Jesse Jane model is exquisite but requires a wide grip.

I'm always learning so much about you.

Always surprising.

Sure, turns out a lot of comedies suck. Doesn't mean they're out to get you. Except maybe Rob Schneider.

This would be an interesting thread on its own.

Does Death Proof count?

Neither are gimmicks. There is nothing about being a Ghostbuster that requires you to be male. If the movie was all about getting your period, it would be a gimmick to cast men for the remake.

If four people of the same gender starring in a movie is a gimmick, I agree. But if 4 men starring in a movie is not a gimmick, I don't know see why 4 women is.

Would something like the Resident Evil or Underworld films count? They're centered around female protagonists. Or even the Alien series.

Yes. It would. Fucking good movie too. Amazing car stunts.

This wasn't directed at me, but I commented in the other thread about this. For the record, I'm not all hardcore against this movie as many in here, but I still think there is a gimmick element to the casting/character.

For me it's not about whether or not a women could be a Ghostbuster or any 'real-life' comparisons. It's simply that they did a perfect inversion of the cast dynamics by gender. This didn't happen by accident and wasn't a matter of, "Oh, did we hire 4 women? Huh, I didn't notice." It was an intentional move to do a very specific 'twist' on the existing formula. I'm not saying this is intrinsically a good or bad thing, but it happened.

No, but if they hired four red-headed men I would. Or if they were all obese, or if they all spoke with thick Southern accents, or if they were all gay. Just like if they cast a black guy as James Bond I wouldn't consider it a gimmick, but if they also made *everyone* at MI6 black, then yeah, that would be a casting gimmick. Again, this has nothing to do with black people being unqualified for MI6 but rather the intent of the film production team when making such an overt choice.

Before anyone says, "Four men isn't a gimmick, but four women is?"... my point is that the 'four women' part ISN'T a gimmick. The 'changing every specific thing to another specific thing' part -- in my opinion -- IS.

It is a gimmick cuz all it was in visual was a gender swap. To make it worse... Jones gets to play loud black woman. Which... only makes the situation worse among other things.

I don't remember Winston really hitting any cliches on race aside from being a guy who just wanted a job and a goddamn paycheck.

Same thing I was getting at earlier too. And again, calling something a gimmick isn't inherently bad or evil either.

When it's used in an empty, meaningless way for no reason other than to maintain your anti-woman stance while still saying "not sexist" it is. And in the Great Ghostbusters Debate it is absolutely exclusively used for that purpose.

To add the Janine character was cast as a man, a very buff man that happens to wear glasses. Why couldn't four women hire another woman as their administrative assistant instead of a man?

GIRL⚡POWER

Now, if they remade any of those female centric movies we just named in the last few posts (and I totally forgot Pitch Perfect) with 1-to-1 male swap, would anyone have a problem?

I disagree, but you seem completely unwilling to separate individual opinions from the generalization of being anti-woman that you've levied on a number of people here.

Simple question, but do you disagree with DRG's comment about the inversion of roles in this reboot was very specific and deliberate?

I don't think all the criticism is sexist. I certainly don't think each and every single person who is opposed to this movie is on the same page in regards to why they're against it.

That said, I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority is sexist, and I don't see how that could even be disputed by anyone who spends any time following the discussion on the Internet.

So it's simultaneously bad because it's a "perfect inversion," and because the characters don't actually match up to the originals?

She must be letting a man carry it.

Because women are allowed to hire on the basis of eye candy, too?

Again, I never said that it was 'bad'. I merely said it was a gimmick.

Here's a comparison. On this season of The Amazing Race they cast *every* team with 'internet celebrities'. Now they've had 'Youtube stars' on the show before, but in casting *every* team on the show this season with these social media people, they were making a deliberate choice to make that a 'twist' this season.

Again: the word has lost all meaning. It's en empty buzzword that is used in an attempt to legitimize what is obviously a gender issue. A blatant, obvious issue. You'd think it would be easy to describe your distaste without screaming GIMMICK! Maybe it's because "gimmick" kinda rhymes with "wimmen," I dunno.

There are basically two scenarios that would result in the casting of an all women team. Either Sony hired the director of several of the most consistently well-received and high-earning comedies and he simply decided to play to his established strengths by casting women or Sony hates men and decided to make a female-led movie as part of a global conspiracy to undermine all that is masculine in this world.

Yes, those are the only two scenarios. Either Paul Feig played to his strengths, or Sony hates all men!

Valar Morghulis