Originally Posted by Bluelitespecial (Post 12799305)

but its not funny, or scary.

Originally Posted by HN (Post 12799325)

^^ that got me thinking -- what other movies that are female centric without having words denoting that in the title

Originally Posted by redcon1 (Post 12799315)

Yep.

If the first Ghostbusters would've had four female leads: original
If 30 years later, a reboot with four male leads: gimmick.

Not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp for some people.

What if '39's The Women which had an all-female cast been remade with basically the same premise but with an all-male cast, would that not be a gimmick as well? It can work both ways.

Originally Posted by HN (Post 12799325)

^^ 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

Originally Posted by Dan (Post 12799340)

This would be an interesting thread on its own.

Does Death Proof count?

Originally Posted by Guru Askew (Post 12796274)

I'd be fascinating to see what your definition of "gimmick" is. Obviously anything short of cloning the original 4 actors would result in noticeable/obvious differences.

Originally Posted by Guru Askew (Post 12796274)

Would you be calling it a gimmick if they cast a red-headed man?

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 12799390)

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.

Originally Posted by fumanstan (Post 12799404)

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

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 12799390)

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.

Originally Posted by Guru Askew (Post 12799414)

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.

Originally Posted by fumanstan (Post 12799462)

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.

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 12799390)

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.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake (Post 12799394)

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.

Originally Posted by redcon1 (Post 12799328)

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

Originally Posted by wishbone (Post 12799431)

Why couldn't four women hire another woman as their administrative assistant instead of a man?

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara (Post 12799500)

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

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara (Post 12799500)

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

Originally Posted by HN (Post 12799450)

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?

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 12800218)

You can have zero problems with an all-women Ghostbusters movie and still find the trailer to be a horrifically-unfunny, poorly-edited piece of shit. :shrug:

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 12800218)

You can have zero problems with an all-women Ghostbusters movie and still find the trailer to be a horrifically-unfunny, poorly-edited piece of shit. :shrug:

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe (Post 12800421)

What is MRA?

Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 12800423)

I'm still convinced MRA blogs are largely satire (I'm told they're not), but then I was convinced Brietbart was too.

Originally Posted by HN (Post 12799450)

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?

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin (Post 12800567)

Not a very analogous comparison. Are any of them cult classics or be well regarded in 30 years?

Originally Posted by HN (Post 12800610)

If the amount of butthurt being expressed and generating the kind of hate towards this shemake is due to that then those people need to get over themselves. Their movie will always be there to enjoy.

Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 12800423)

Plus the internet always works that way, it gets to be cool to hate on something.

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe (Post 12800618)

Yeah, but we could have had a third movie with the cast, but Sony stole the film from Reitman and gave it to Feig.

Originally Posted by Guru Askew (Post 12800650)

Sony stole the movie from the director of 30 years worth of shitty flops and gave it to a director who made three straight $100+ mil grossers including one that landed almost-unheard-of Oscar noms for a comedy movie?

Idiots!

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe (Post 12800618)

Yeah, but we could have had a third movie with the cast, but Sony stole the film from Reitman and gave it to Feig.

Originally Posted by HN (Post 12800610)

If the amount of butthurt being expressed and generating the kind of hate towards this shemake is due to that then those people need to get over themselves. Their movie will always be there to enjoy.

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin (Post 12800756)

Ghostbusters is a classic. Will Pitch Perfect or Bridesmaids be in 30 years?