Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
05-18-16 | 10:31 PM
#476
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
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?
I mean, what else could it be?
I've never once said everyone against this movie is sexist. You can be against this movie and not sexist. However, the level of venom directed at this property is far more than comparable movies (and I've posted the numbers to back that up.)
Refusing to admit that sexism towards this movie exists is just willfully blind.
05-18-16 | 10:47 PM
#477
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Maybe not outright saying it but I think that's definitely been the implication of more than a few posters in here. That seems to be the argument that keeps winding this thread around when someone mentions something against it. I'm not saying there's been zero sexism in this or the other thread but I don't think it's the only driving factor like some would like to make people believe either. It seems that some people (including the filmmakers) are more about pushing an agenda rather than focused on the quality of the film itself.
Last edited by Mike86; 05-18-16 at 10:56 PM.
05-18-16 | 10:57 PM
#478
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
It seems that some people (including the filmmakers) are more about pushing an agenda rather than focused on the quality of the film itself.
05-18-16 | 11:00 PM
#479
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I could not be more clear: you can not like this movie and not be sexist. There are people who are against this movie for sexist reasons. Both of those realities can exist simultaneously.
05-18-16 | 11:05 PM
#480
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Yep, except that's not what I said. There was a whole other sentence in there that you skipped. One that specifically undermines your position.
I could not be more clear: you can not like this movie and not be sexist. There are people who are against this movie for sexist reasons. Both of those realities can exist simultaneously.
I could not be more clear: you can not like this movie and not be sexist. There are people who are against this movie for sexist reasons. Both of those realities can exist simultaneously.
So, you're basically saying that much of the criticism here is based in sexism. Otherwise you wouldn't have used that qualifier. Sexism was the implied accusation that the qualifier strongly suggested.
"You can not like this movie and not be sexist..." (...as long as you have ZERO problem with the gender reversal).
I have a problem with it because it's a cheap, stupid stunt that was done to get attention. It was approved without a script in hand. Akroyd and Ramis worked on scripts (some of them good from what I've read) for a decade before having the rug pulled out from under them. So a middle aged Ghostbusters won't work, but an all female Ghostbusters will? Really??
OK, then perhaps we should talk about age discrimiation and start accusing people of being agist, too? (If they were dead set against the middle aged Ghostbusters.) Why not? It's not any more outlandish.
Last edited by B5Erik; 05-18-16 at 11:28 PM.
05-18-16 | 11:24 PM
#481
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Again, not sure how you get from "some people who are against this movie are sexist" to "all people who are against this movie are sexist" but you seem determined to make that connection. If you really want me to believe that the only things you have against this movie are the humor level and the actors themselves, you have to believe that I don't think everyone against it is sexist. 
All you have to do is click one Twitter link or visit the YouTube comments to see the sexism toward this movie. Or hell, read this very thread to see examples. Yet some claim that the backlash against this film has nothing to do with sexism. That's ridiculous to the extreme.
You don't become the most disliked trailer on YouTube (when the trailers for comparable movies like the reboots of Robocop and Total Recall or childhood video game icon trashfest Pixels get nowhere near the same level of hatred) without something beyond "this movie doesn't look funny" going on.
All I'm saying is that I think sexism is playing a factor in that, especially since sexism is a problem on the internet in general and that's where 99% of this venom is coming from.
All you have to do is click one Twitter link or visit the YouTube comments to see the sexism toward this movie. Or hell, read this very thread to see examples. Yet some claim that the backlash against this film has nothing to do with sexism. That's ridiculous to the extreme.
You don't become the most disliked trailer on YouTube (when the trailers for comparable movies like the reboots of Robocop and Total Recall or childhood video game icon trashfest Pixels get nowhere near the same level of hatred) without something beyond "this movie doesn't look funny" going on.
All I'm saying is that I think sexism is playing a factor in that, especially since sexism is a problem on the internet in general and that's where 99% of this venom is coming from.
05-18-16 | 11:34 PM
#482
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I edited the post above only to add italics, quotation marks, and paretheses to make clear what I am saying.
And the problem that some people do have is that this gender reversal (and ethinic changes) only go one way. But that doesn't mean that the problems with and criticism of those changes linger on if the quality is good. Case in point - Battlestar Galactica. Two key male characters were changed to female, creating a backlash among fans of the original series. But, guess what? The quality of the show won most of those people over and they didn't bring it up again past the first 5 or 6 episodes.
The quality of this movie is highly unlikely to do the same. Where the change in BSG was part of an overall plan for QUALITY, the change in Ghostbusters is a stunt looking to get the movie attention and nothing more.
05-18-16 | 11:37 PM
#483
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 20,052
Received 169 Likes
on
127 Posts
From: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Maybe it's remake burn out. I know I hate Robocop, Total Recall, and Pixels just as much as I hate this Ghostbusters remake. Add Vacation to that list too, what a piece of shit that was! I hate all these films on about an equal level. Maybe audiences are just catching up. I tend to be ahead of the curve 
05-18-16 | 11:46 PM
#484
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Maybe it's remake burn out. I know I hate Robocop, Total Recall, and Pixels just as much as I hate this Ghostbusters remake. Add Vacation to that list too, what a piece of shit that was! I hate all these films on about an equal level. Maybe audiences are just catching up. I tend to be ahead of the curve
Pixels I didn't expect much from, and if I ever see it (I haven't seen it and have no plans to) I'm sure I won't be terribly impressed...
Hollywood just kind of sucks right now. It's been going downhill for a long time.
05-18-16 | 11:54 PM
#485
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
And for the record if you don't like Tyler Perry movies and you're not willing to plunk down $12 to see the new Madea movie, you're a racist--or an unconscious racist--or a "soft" racist. That's just the way it is.
05-19-16 | 12:04 AM
#486
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
05-19-16 | 12:07 AM
#487
Banned by request
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I don't see how anyone can deny that sexism is a factor in the response to this film (not the only factor, but a prominent one), when we have posters in this thread like bluelitespecial who has flat out said on this forum that he thinks all women have secret agendas and he wants nothing to do with any woman at all.
Not all of the criticism of the new Ghostbusters is based in sexism. But some of it is, and the part that is has been shouting really loudly.
Not all of the criticism of the new Ghostbusters is based in sexism. But some of it is, and the part that is has been shouting really loudly.
05-19-16 | 02:30 AM
#489
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 20,052
Received 169 Likes
on
127 Posts
From: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I don't see how anyone can deny that sexism is a factor in the response to this film (not the only factor, but a prominent one), when we have posters in this thread like bluelitespecial who has flat out said on this forum that he thinks all women have secret agendas and he wants nothing to do with any woman at all.
Not all of the criticism of the new Ghostbusters is based in sexism. But some of it is, and the part that is has been shouting really loudly.
Not all of the criticism of the new Ghostbusters is based in sexism. But some of it is, and the part that is has been shouting really loudly.
05-19-16 | 05:51 AM
#491
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: Formerly known as achau9598 - Baltimore, MD
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Seems like the marketing department doesn't know how to sell this film ... If it is a comedy, they either haven't been given anything to use in the trailer that actually is funny, or this really is the comedy level of the entire movie. If it is more action, they haven't sold it that way, either. I wonder if we are going to get a third, and final, trailer before release.
I still think the problem is in the cast - but I'm struggling to think of four other funny ladies that I'd replace them with.
I still think the problem is in the cast - but I'm struggling to think of four other funny ladies that I'd replace them with.
05-19-16 | 09:01 AM
#493
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I don't see how anyone can deny that sexism is a factor in the response to this film (not the only factor, but a prominent one), when we have posters in this thread like bluelitespecial who has flat out said on this forum that he thinks all women have secret agendas and he wants nothing to do with any woman at all.
and he may be an outlier, as suggested, but the same can be said about the one or two people apparently saying that ALL the criticism is sexist. They're the outliers, too.
Not all of the criticism of the new Ghostbusters is based in sexism. But some of it is, and the part that is has been shouting really loudly.
https://medium.com/@ashleylynch/bust...bb0#.mzuhq6mzv
(You can skip the first section, and start at "Who You Gonna Cast?")
Ghostbusters 3 was a long swirling project that was on the table FOREVER. For the longest time the big holdup was Bill Murray, who made public his refusal to participate in the movie. When Harold Ramis died in 2014, it finally seemed like the chances for an original cast sequel were gone for good.
Almost immediately Sony hopped onto rebooting it with an entire new script, cast and director, but this enormous shadow was cast over the project by the almost obscene pop culture footprint of the original 1984 runaway success.
For people who weren’t alive when Ghostbusters was originally released, it’s as true a cultural phenomenon as you’ll find. It exploded with an almost immediate and omnipresent impact. It was exactly the right film at exactly the right time, and it’s lightning-in-a-bottle success is still mythologized and chased after in the film industry. But still today, no one knows exactly what caused Ghostbusters to strike so definitively in the culture (although Bob Chipman gives one of the better arguments I’ve seen) or how to replicate it. Even the same creative team was unable to capture that magic in the pretty universally dismissed Ghostbusters II. Every time a sci-fi/comedy comes on the books, there’s a not-so-secret hope that it becomes the next Ghostbusters.
What a gargantuan task and horrible predicament for whatever poor sap takes on the new Ghostbusters project, right? In this light, it’s easy to see why an all female cast makes sense. It’s different. It’s fresh. And the team of Feig/McCarthy has proven to be a consistent box office powerhouse. Throw in some SNL alum and suddenly it’s feeling like the same unpredictable ingredients that helped make the original Ghostbusters such a magical experience might be in place.
The response was entirely predictable.
Almost immediately Sony hopped onto rebooting it with an entire new script, cast and director, but this enormous shadow was cast over the project by the almost obscene pop culture footprint of the original 1984 runaway success.
For people who weren’t alive when Ghostbusters was originally released, it’s as true a cultural phenomenon as you’ll find. It exploded with an almost immediate and omnipresent impact. It was exactly the right film at exactly the right time, and it’s lightning-in-a-bottle success is still mythologized and chased after in the film industry. But still today, no one knows exactly what caused Ghostbusters to strike so definitively in the culture (although Bob Chipman gives one of the better arguments I’ve seen) or how to replicate it. Even the same creative team was unable to capture that magic in the pretty universally dismissed Ghostbusters II. Every time a sci-fi/comedy comes on the books, there’s a not-so-secret hope that it becomes the next Ghostbusters.
What a gargantuan task and horrible predicament for whatever poor sap takes on the new Ghostbusters project, right? In this light, it’s easy to see why an all female cast makes sense. It’s different. It’s fresh. And the team of Feig/McCarthy has proven to be a consistent box office powerhouse. Throw in some SNL alum and suddenly it’s feeling like the same unpredictable ingredients that helped make the original Ghostbusters such a magical experience might be in place.
The response was entirely predictable.
05-19-16 | 09:13 AM
#494
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
In this light, it’s easy to see why an all female cast makes sense. It’s different. It’s fresh.
It isn't organic to the story. Why would it just be a bunch of women? What, no men were interested? There weren't men on the science faculty at the college? And, of course, the final nail in the coffin for anything other than this being a marketing stunt, a gimmick, is the casting of Chris Hemsworth (in a role that Tony Randall would have been perfect in 45 years ago) as the male Janine.
And the pushing of the pics with only the women in the cast and crew with signs of, "Girl Power," made this seem like nothing but an agenda put on digital video.
So, yeah, a lot of long time Ghostbusters fans are going to be pissed about that. They couldn't get a G3, despite Akroyd and Reitman spending a decade working on it, but about 3 seconds after someone says, "All Female Ghostbuster Team," it gets greenlit? It's contrived. And that's why it's going to be so damned bad. Because they were trying to shoehorn a gimmick into an old script, and they used the maximum number of cliches possible while doing it. None of the stuff we've seen is the least bit clever or funny. It's just stupid.
05-19-16 | 09:19 AM
#495
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 20,052
Received 169 Likes
on
127 Posts
From: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
You don't need to follow that link. Right here at DVD talk we have threads going back years where we discussed the development hell of a third film and how it began to be altered into a reboot, first with Ben Stiller, then with Seth Rogan and other young dudes, and eventually the female angle.
Last edited by Mabuse; 05-19-16 at 09:26 AM.
05-19-16 | 09:25 AM
#496
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
It's contrived.
It isn't organic to the story. Why would it just be a bunch of women? What, no men were interested? There weren't men on the science faculty at the college? And, of course, the final nail in the coffin for anything other than this being a marketing stunt, a gimmick, is the casting of Chris Hemsworth (in a role that Tony Randall would have been perfect in 45 years ago) as the male Janine.
And the pushing of the pics with only the women in the cast and crew with signs of, "Girl Power," made this seem like nothing but an agenda put on digital video.
So, yeah, a lot of long time Ghostbusters fans are going to be pissed about that. They couldn't get a G3, despite Akroyd and Reitman spending a decade working on it, but about 3 seconds after someone says, "All Female Ghostbuster Team," it gets greenlit? It's contrived. And that's why it's going to be so damned bad. Because they were trying to shoehorn a gimmick into an old script, and they used the maximum number of cliches possible while doing it. None of the stuff we've seen is the least bit clever or funny. It's just stupid.
It isn't organic to the story. Why would it just be a bunch of women? What, no men were interested? There weren't men on the science faculty at the college? And, of course, the final nail in the coffin for anything other than this being a marketing stunt, a gimmick, is the casting of Chris Hemsworth (in a role that Tony Randall would have been perfect in 45 years ago) as the male Janine.
And the pushing of the pics with only the women in the cast and crew with signs of, "Girl Power," made this seem like nothing but an agenda put on digital video.
So, yeah, a lot of long time Ghostbusters fans are going to be pissed about that. They couldn't get a G3, despite Akroyd and Reitman spending a decade working on it, but about 3 seconds after someone says, "All Female Ghostbuster Team," it gets greenlit? It's contrived. And that's why it's going to be so damned bad. Because they were trying to shoehorn a gimmick into an old script, and they used the maximum number of cliches possible while doing it. None of the stuff we've seen is the least bit clever or funny. It's just stupid.
05-19-16 | 09:28 AM
#497
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
They couldn't get a G3, despite Akroyd and Reitman spending a decade working on it
I'm not as concerned with the rest of the story on the project until I see the actual movie, and I don't want to keep discussing the "gimmick" of where it's at now. I'm just genuinely curious why you think Aykroyd and Reitman's project had any chance of being good. Just because they were the core team behind the original? I don't buy it, because they were the team behind GB2, and yes, GB2 is garbage (sorry mabuse, I wanted to talk about this more, but I watched it very recently, and there was barely anything redeeming about it, despite the fact that I LOVED it growing up. Obviously I changed, not the film, but.. it's very very bad.)
You don't need to follow that link. Right here at DVD talk we have threads going back years where we discussed the development hell of a third film and how it began to be altered into a reboot, first with Ben Stiller, then with Seth Rogan and other young dudes, and eventually the female angle.
05-19-16 | 09:32 AM
#498
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 20,052
Received 169 Likes
on
127 Posts
From: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Here's a comment from way back in 2012. Long before any of this feminist, SJW, all-female-cast backlash:
Originally Posted by Mabuse
This would actually be just about the worst possible scenario. Sons/daughters of the original cast? No
Wow, looking back, at least my views have been consistent and I'm not some bandwagon jumping critic of this female Ghostbuster idea. This is from August 2014
Originally Posted by kgrogers1979 View Post
The best thing would be just to introduce a new cast and call it Ghostbusters: The Next Generation or something like that. Have them be the sons/daughters of the original cast and maybe have the original cast in cameo roles. But a complete reboot... fuck no.
The best thing would be just to introduce a new cast and call it Ghostbusters: The Next Generation or something like that. Have them be the sons/daughters of the original cast and maybe have the original cast in cameo roles. But a complete reboot... fuck no.
This would actually be just about the worst possible scenario. Sons/daughters of the original cast? No
Originally Posted by Mabuse
Chick ghostbusters is about as far away from what I want to see in a movie as anything could possibly be.
Chick ghostbusters is about as far away from what I want to see in a movie as anything could possibly be.
05-19-16 | 09:41 AM
#499
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
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.
05-19-16 | 09:41 AM
#500
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I really think a lot of the problems people have with this project could have been solved by making this movie a pseudo-sequel/soft reboot versus a straight total reboot. Imagine if McCarthy's or Wiig's character was playing the daughter of Ray or one of the other original Ghostbusters. The ghosts return to NYC, she digs the old equipment out and as a scientist herself, has to make updates for it. She surrounds herself with other women because she knows these women from work and other things and already knows their strengths.
The cameos from the old cast would serve a better purpose AND you'd have an actual storyline reason why the new team was all women. You wouldn't have to harp on the 'next generation' angle but just use it enough to appease the nostalgia but also allow the newbies to shine. Maybe even throw in a poignant scene where Venkman and Ray say they couldn't do it without Egon, which would give a good storyline reason why they weren't getting into the action themselves and passing the torch to the ladies.
Instead we get this sort of confused feel to this film's messaging... they claim it's this straight-up reboot, but yet the marketing seems to be going out of its way to milk the original.
The cameos from the old cast would serve a better purpose AND you'd have an actual storyline reason why the new team was all women. You wouldn't have to harp on the 'next generation' angle but just use it enough to appease the nostalgia but also allow the newbies to shine. Maybe even throw in a poignant scene where Venkman and Ray say they couldn't do it without Egon, which would give a good storyline reason why they weren't getting into the action themselves and passing the torch to the ladies.
Instead we get this sort of confused feel to this film's messaging... they claim it's this straight-up reboot, but yet the marketing seems to be going out of its way to milk the original.