Would you feel their was an agenda if the movie starred Kevin Hart in the Ernie Hudson Role,Seth Rogen and a former and current SNL male in the cast?


Would you think that movie has some kind of AGENDA other then trying to make people laugh and make money like the current Ghostbusters

I don't need to watch her review, I saw the actual movie!

I'm not upset with the film because there's a difference between subverting gender stereotypes and tearing men down. I realize that's tough for some people to understand, since having an incompetent male character isn't the same as saying all males are incompetent.

Also, a big point of Ghostbusters is that no one believes the Ghostbusters until it's too late. That's a theme in all three movies, including inexplicably in the second film where apparently everyone but the Ghostbusters forgot the events of the first movie (something the new movie riffs on). In this movie, most of the authority figures happen to be men, although there is one female who is just as clueless as some of the men.

And let's be clear, there's only one dumb male character in the film: Kevin, who is clearly a gender subversion of the stereotype of the dumb hot secretary. All the other men are not incompetent, they are incredulous of the Ghostbusters the same as all the male authority figures in the other movies.

And the reason I'm defending this movie is because I think the men's rights movement is odious and noxious. The most privileged group in society complaining about how some movie is unfair to them is embarrassing to me as a man. It's like seeing Chritians cry persecution while they're putting the Ten Commandments on courthouses and having Massive Christmas trees and crosses erected on public property. It's tone deaf and tiring. It's funny that the same people complaining about this movie tend to be the same people who tell other groups to suck it up when they complain about discrimination. And by funny I mean sad and pathetic.

On top of all of that, this new movie is a lot of fun and very enjoyable. I felt as engaged with these Ghostbusters as I did in the original. I was rooting for them just like I did with the first group. So I'm defending it because a lot of the attacks leveled against a it are from people who haven't even seen it, people unwilling to even give it a chance because they've decided that it's more important to mount a knee jerk defense of their fragile manhood than actually man up and see the movie and form their own opinion.

Pretty sound logic. It's okay to rip on men just because but any other group considered a minority that gets criticized or made fun of is a big no no. I get that men have been afforded more opportunities (and white men in particular) but really it's pretty hypocritical to empower one group by tearing down another.

No. I'd feel like I don't like the new guys in the cast, but it would be closer to a more faithful version of Ghostbusters.

Amy Pascal made it clear that this wasn't just about making money, and with her it's never about making people laugh. The movie was greenlit on a concept, not a good, marketable script. From what I've read Paul Feig has a history of man bashing in his movies (self hatred?), so hiring him fit that agenda.

They went out of their way to make a movie where every single male character was stupid and/or incompetent. I've never seen a movie where every single female character was stupid and/or incompetent. Inconsequential, maybe, but not all stupid and incompetent.

They took four male characters, switched them to female characters, and then set about bashing men. You don't think that's part of an agenda? Look at how Sony has marketed this thing. They almost promoted the war of the sexes and engaged in deleting posts from YouTube not based on sexism or misogyny, but based on having logical points criticizing the movie based on it's actual worth as a movie. They took out the reasonable, rational discussion and left in the hate and vitriol. Funny how that worked out and got them a ton of free publicity...

Look, if any of you like the movie, fine. People liked Dumb and Dumber and American Pie, and I couldn't make it through either one of those. (I didn't make it 20 minutes into American Pie before my wife and I both agreed it was total shit and turned it off.) But attacking people who have legitimate concerns and issues with the movie doesn't make it any better.

Kevin is such a self-indulgently absurd character that you can't take him seriously as any kind of "tearing down" of men. He's more of a cartoon than any of the characters in the original Ghostbusters animated show.

Granted I haven't seen the film but from the sounds of things every male character is made to look bad or stupid in some fashion. That sounds like a pretty pointedly aimed message which I find extremely funny that the cast and crew were so up in arms and quick to label anyone criticizing them as sexist or something (which there are some people who definitely are against the film for that reason) yet they can do that against men in their film and somehow they're not. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

So much ire over a completely dismissible movie. Which, of course, is what the studio wanted since they didn't have much of a film to release. Thank god opening weekend is over. This movie will be out of the general conversation by this time next week (it's unlikely to finish in the top 3 next weekend).

Not sure if I'm responding to your post appropriately, but outside of the four main male cast members from the first two movies, the male characters of the first two movies are pretty stupid and/or uncooperative.

Still, it kills me that of all of the movies that so-call threaten masculinity, Ghostbusters has somehow made the top of the list. I'm looking forward to a an all-female cast for the remake of Bloodsport.

Just to get this slightly on topic:

This pulled $46m over the weekend per Sunday morning estimates -- it had dipped to $44.5m after its Friday performance but seems to be back to what was originally expected.

It opened in a small release overseas (3 main territories) and pulled in $19.1m, not enough of a release to really tell anything about it thus far.

On the topic of sexism, I post on a GoT fanboard that is overwhelmingly female, and they all think the trailers were bad. We're mostly just dudes here, so it was nice to get a female perspective on the controversy. Here is an interesting exchange between three of the women who post there:

Well said. Just from a business sense, to cut out literally half of your potential audience... and from a male heavy property no less.

No, it really isn't. If the movie were tearing down women or minorities, it would be part of a pervasive pattern of movies doing the exact same thing. That's what systemic racism and sexism is all about -- wide-scale patterns of behavior and attitude.

A single movie (or even a handful of movies by one director) turning the situation around isn't enough to create a pattern of oppression against men. Just because two situations are opposite, that doesn't mean they're symmetric. One type of comedy is punching down, the other is punching up.

Any man who's running around screaming about how Melissa McCarthy is coming to cut off his dick because of one little movie is making men look like wimps who can't put up with even a tenth of what women and minorities go through every single day. Any man who's worth his balls can look at the movie, laugh and say, "Yup, we had that coming."

I went in with very meh expectations and found myself laughing a lot. It peters out a bit at the end (the original built to a much better finale) but I laughed a lot in the first 2/3rds, which is more than I expected.

Sony: *views online conflict*

The original is one of my favorite comedies of all time. I also found this movie very funny. I thought the script was fun, the effects were great and there were enough nods to the original to keep me entertained.

I think it's being overly criticized. I'll take just one of the criticisms that's been pointed out to task, about the proton packs and what they do.



That's just one example of a criticism that isn't justified.

The most controversial films of their decades:

70s: A Clockwork Orange
80s: The Last Temptation of Christ
90s: Natural Born Killers
00s: Fahrenheit 9/11
10s: Ghostbusters (seriously)

http://io9.gizmodo.com/ghostbusters-...ium=socialflow

So the plan for a sequel and franchise expansion is still in the works.

In related news, I hear there's at least two more Star Wars movies coming out in the next couple of years, despite the poor reviews from this thread...
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/...-spoilers.html

Reviews mean squat when a move makes back its budget + $48 million in its opening weekend.

Not entirely the same as it was universally panned, but Fox execs were saying the same thing about a sequel to Fan4stic. Sequel plans will have to depend on the overseas market as domestically it's going to be tough sledding with the upcoming competition.

"Ghostbusters isn't supposed to be this way!"

Who the fuck made us the arbiters of what a movie is "supposed" to be? The filmmakers decide what their film is supposed to be, and audiences will either like it or not. Much of the criticism I've read is coming from people who didn't even see the movie.

Hmmmm. Actually Ghostbusters was NOT universally panned by critics nor by the public at large (73% on Rotten Tomatoes, B+ from Cinemascore), mainly by Reddit and IMDB contributors, etc., and a bunch in this forum. Another interesting article about all that here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...thanks-to-men/

Was trying to be funny. Apparently I failed.

I think he was saying Fan4astic was universally panned.

Correct.

Thanks for the course correction. Even I hated Fantastic Four, and I give everything a fighting chance...