I don't know. I don't want to be rude to the women involved, but I don't think any of them exactly define beauty. Linda Hamilton and Mary Elizabeth Masterentonio are character actors, they're not sexy leading ladies or models.

Cameron also had/has an affinity for including sexually ambiguous characters or maybe what you'd call "butch" females, like Vasquez and One Night and the Michelle Williams character in Avatar. I've never heard a single complaint from the macho men who enjoy those films just as much as they enjoy Predator.

None of what you mentioned was funny to me. I did think this trailer gave a better idea of action, and showing more scenes at night time, which adds to the atmosphere. I also liked McCarthy saying, "We don't want mass hysteria." Nice call back. And McKinnon saying something about "we're talking apocalypse!" had the conviction a Ghostbuster should have.

But I actually thought the trailer made the comedy aspects look much worse, with the concert scene looking real bad. The special effects for the paranormal activity still look like some Disney Haunted Mansion stuff.



It's not garbage. It's a huge letdown compared to the first, and I think if they were going to redo the GB1 storyline but with less adult humor, they shouldn't have bothered. But it still has some funny moments, it's enjoyable, and definitely not "garbage."

Maybe. For some, attractive women would be a plus, just like most of Hollywood likes to cast attractive people, male or female, in parts that don't necessitate them to be so, other than for financial reasons. But in this case, the people who bring up unattractiveness, also mention them being unfunny. So if they find the characters unattractive and unfunny, what's left? I suppose their action performances but GB wasn't known for Van Damme/Stallone-type of physicality.

Maybe if the main characters in this film were funny in the trailer, people wouldn't be so critical.

However, I'm pretty sure if we had Megan Fox-types in the roles, a lot of nerds would be pissed about that too, saying it's pandering. Or if Sony had a bunch of Channing Tatums in the roles. Nerds would probably be pissed about that, saying they don't look like average Joes or scientists.



I'm the one that brought up Lizzie Caplan because, yeah, 1) she is easy on the eyes, but 2) because she's a likable character as seen in Hot Tub Time Machine, 3) she's great in comedic roles like Party Down, 4) she plays geek/nerd roles well, so I think she could pull off the scientist role and 4) it was said that she's a big Ghostbusters fan and really wanted the role, so I think that enthusiasm would equal a good performance, taking the paranormal aspects of the film seriously, as Aykroyd did.

Also, I wouldn't want all hot women, or all attractive people. A Ghosbusters team of both men and women, like the Extreme Ghostbusters, sounds like a more interesting choice, and more natural, rather than an inversion of GB complete with male secretary.


Maybe they don't see talent. They see a woman who's attractive, and assume she only has fans because of her looks.



So basically, females will be able to relate to the new Ghostbusters, because they're portrayed by an all-female cast, but prior to this, they couldn't relate to it because it featured all-men. Well if the first film feels exclusive to one particular gender in some aspects, couldn't the same be said for the new one, since they just flipped it?

Why is this film only important to a new generation of young women, and not just a new generation in general? Isn't that only stressing the idea that this is the Girl Ghostbusters, and not just the NEW Ghostbusters?

Sigourney was not "hot" in Aliens. She wasn't eye candy in ALIEN, but she was attractive, and the stripping scene definitely was pandering to the male libido. But Aliens didn't have any of that, and she was given a butch hair cut. In fact, none of the females in Cameron's sequel were hot.

Linda Hamilton was a cutie in Beauty and the Beast, and the first Terminator. But she looked like crap in T2, as the story demanded, and again, I never heard male complaints about her either. They gave great performances, which all types of people enjoyed.

Well said. Girls and women have always enjoyed Ghostbusters. It's currently my 8 year old daughter's favorite film.

If the crazy logic some folks use were true then I shouldn't have enjoyed Ghostbusters when I was a kid because it was about adult men and I was only a child and therefore wouldn't be able to identify. I shouldn't like Persona because it's only about women, right? I mean, who am I supposed to identify with? I can't watch this film. Where are the men? My brain is short circuiting!

shit. I shouldn't love GB at at all. 3 White guys and a black guy. How the hell can I give a damn about them?

What exactly is being taken away from you? Inquiring minds want to know.

Apparently some penis he doesn't even use.

Wow. The mental gymnastics you guys go through in order to twist someone's words, just so you can argue against a point he didn't even make.

The guy said that women need this new Ghostbusters because they couldn't identify with the original film due to it being all men.

That is not at all what the author of the article said.

To-mato tomat-o

What skin off anyone's nose is it if the Angry Video Game nerd doesn't want to watch and/or review the movie? It's his right. Is he single-handedly putting a kibosh on the movie being released? People make it sound like he's preventing girls and young women from having characters they can relate to. Is the AVGN *that* powerful? I guess so, therefore he must be bullied into submission.

Im assuming since hes a known GB fan, hes gonna be inundated with fans of his yelling at him about his thoughts on the flick. Hes heading that headache off at the pass.

And, of course, now were back to the same group of 4 or 5 people who are basically saying that any man who is opposed to this movie is automatically a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, guilty of propping up some evil patriarchal society.

I don't think we'll be able to have a rational discussion about this movie without the term, "Sexist," (or worse) being thrown in the face of males who are critical of this movie and/or it's gimmicky nature. (And, let's be honest - a new Ghostbusters was only greenlit when someone came up with the idea of the gender reversal, so calling the premise a casting/marketing gimmick is 100% correct.)

Your use of the word "gimmick" totally caught me off guard.

Not sure where I said any of that. All I've said is that there has to be a reason THIS movie has received the level of vitriol it has received. And based on comments I've seen on the internet and here too, the fact that it's four "unattractive" women could be a factor, because it is extremely bothersome to folks.

Add me to the group that does not find Weaver or Hamilton attractive.

But I'd bang them both.

It's bothersome because it isn't organic to the story. It was premeditated as a marketing ploy and nothing else. It's bothersome because the casting is as lowbrow as possible. It's bothersome because Melissa McCarthy isn't the least bit funny, and neither is Leslie Jones. It's bothersome because they took the concept so far as to have a male receptionist who is lacking in the masculinity department. Ha-ha, isn't that funny! They turned Thor into a [Hans & Franz]girly-man![/Hans & Franz]

And what should be bothersome to a lot more people is how racially stereotyped it is! Leslie Jones is a Ghostbuster! Oh, but not one of the scientists, she's just the hired, "Muscle," to do the heavy lifting. How enlightened! Oh, and she talks like the stereotypical black comedy characters who are just one step above the insulting StepinFetchit type characters from the 30's and 40's. At least Winston in the original was somewhat thoughtful and may have had the most common sense of any of the Ghostbusters!

There is a ton to be bothered about by this movie. None of which has to do with sexism or misogyny. Not to mention the fact that the trailers make the movie look worse than Pixels.

But those of you have been doing so just go on with your outrage and condescention of anyone strongly opposed to this movie. Feel free.

Just know that we haven't been able to discuss this movie rationally because insults of some peoples' characters have been thrown around all too carelessly on this thread.

He seems to be heavily implying it.

I'd say there was quite a bit different. Batman has been a character who's been around since 1939 and had various interpretations and incarnations, just within the comic book medium. You have fans ranging from all different age groups who grew up with their own version of Batman: Adams/O'Neil Batman, 60s camp Batman, the Fox Animated Series, the JLU, the Frank Miller Dark Knight/Year One, Grant Morrison JLA Bat-God, etc and most of those interpretations were popular enough to have their own legions of fans.
Not only that, but DC Comics is known for rebooting their universe and characters since the 60s. There's a CRISIS every 5 years or so when everything gets rebooted so we have pre-Crisis Superman, post-Crisis Superman, Earth 1 Superman, Earth 2 Superman, New Earth Superman, Post-Convergence Superman, Earth Two Superman...


Ghostbusters came out in 1984, so their fans are usually going to be a certain age and under, mostly people who were kids at that time, who grew up with the Murray and co interpretation, and The Real Ghostbusters animated series which continued the theme and relative continuity of the first film. GBII continued the film continuity, but ignored the animated series. Extreme Ghostbusters continued the animated series continuity. But nothing was rebooted, they all continued the story of Venkman, Spengler, Zeddemore and Stantz, with Spengler passing the torch to a new generation of Ghostbusters.

Or maybe it's not just one thing, maybe it's multiple factors at play.

Maybe if the trailers looked funny, and featured some genuinely scary ghosts people would be more willing to embrace it?


I get where the accusations of sexism come from because clearly we've seen some pretty weak arguments, but I doubt it's as cut as dry as lumping the majority of critics as belonging to two camps: conscious and unconscious sexists.

I think Holtzmann and Hemsworth's characters are going to be standouts though. Even though the film's trailers are generating a lot of negativity, it's staying in the headlines, and creating more audience awareness. I'm pretty sure this is gonna make $$$ because everyone's going to want to see what all the fuss is about.

Oh I see. This was a rational discussion of the film before WE came in?

If you really are on the side of the angels, what on earth are we responding to?

Imagined sexism. Because, well, it just isn't possible to be against this concept based on all those things I listed above (which is not all inclusive, by the way). No, it has to be sexism and hatred of women coming from neanderthals who do not believe that women are capable of anything.

I mean, what else could it be?

It hasn't been as cut and dry as you're making it out either though. There's been as many accusations from certain members here essentially calling people sexists because they don't like the film. Yeah some people have been going off on the female cast but the way some act it's like if there's any criticism at all it's only because of the cast and not at all because of the fact that the film just doesn't look great. It definitely goes both ways.

You make a good point. The excessive negativity in the first Ghostbusters thread is why it got locked. Most of the stuff I've said in that thread, and in this one, is just beating a dead horse. I'm bowing out of this thread so the people actually looking forward to the movie can discuss it amongst themselves.