People started calling me a misogynist because of a crack I made, it was only then I decided to run with it and troll the thread.
I don't genuinely believe what I say... I don't genuinely think women should stay in the kitchen... but when I make a joke, and people then jump on the bandwagon of hating on a joke, I am totally going to play with that and take it farther and farther... all the while laughing at them while they get more and more wound up.
Addition: Also the fact that this movie is a total insult to fans, an insult to New York and an insult to the original movies, gives me a sense of massive personal achievement to dump on the movie and everything it stands for and get a reaction out of people who can't or won't see this movie for what it is.
When you posit that having all-female Ghostbusters does nothing to benefit the film whatsoever, it makes me wonder exactly how having all-male Ghostbusters automatically benefits the film.
It doesn't necessarily, but it was the original design - just like Alien was originally designed to star a female actor. I'm against introducing change just for the sake of change, especially if I feel that political correctness is more of a motive than anything else.
I'm picturing the original Ghostbusters with each character's gender changed and it seems like the only major difference would be that Venkman probably wouldn't bring tranquilisers on a date with Dana. Also, if the roles are so androgynous that you can swap in people of different genders and nobody would notice, why are people even making such a stink about an all-female cast in the first place?
I'm against change for the sake of change, or change strictly designed to cater to a certain demographic.
It's also ironic how you took Monkeypunch to task for being optimistic about the film for the same reasons that you are being pessimistic about it. Perhaps the change happened because, as has been outlined already, when Ghostbusters II tried to repeat the exact same things as the first film with the exact same characters, it got panned and killed the possibility of another live-action film dead for decades. Besides, if we're going to be technical then it is going to be called Ghostbusters since it's a reboot more so than a sequel - referring to it as Ghostbusters 3 is simply shorthand so as to distinguish it from the original.
I'd prefer it be billed as a spin-off set in the same universe, rather than these new characters "replacing" the old ones.
They did make Sex and the City 3 with an all-male cast, it's called Entourage.
Correct - it was a different franchise - if it was billed as a sequel or remake and titled "Sex and the City" it would be derided by many fans and rightfully so.
In the latter case for example, if "Entourage" had been made as a sequel or reboot to "Sex and the City", it means that a faithful sequel/remake is less likely to be made.
But since it was a completely different franchise, then fans who want a faithful Sex and the City 3 will be more likely to get one.
But seriously, your attempts to defend yourself from being called a misogynist aren't exactly helped by the fact that you have constantly been making these boring sexist-sounding cracks all throughout the thread.
In the grand scheme of things I'm not worried about defending myself from being accused of misogyny because:
1. You're not my mom.
2. I'd be a girlie man if I sat awake at night worrying that someone on the internet thinks I hate "wimmin folks"
3. Humor has a different standard of expectations than formal speech - plus the PC mindset is heavily biased, seeing as there's plenty of misandrist humor out there (ex. in Hollywood films and sitcoms) but it's conveniently ignored. (In the past I used to gripe heavily about misandrist humor, but I've realized it'd be hypocritical to gripe about humor where one group is the butt of the jokes, but the other isn't).
(Oh wait, I forgot that women have been discriminated against more historically...)
Even after making this post I'm quoting, you throw out all these boring female stereotypes such as being upset at each other for wearing the same outfit. That only serves to undercut your attempt to accuse the filmmakers of misandry simply for not automatically resorting to all-male characters, even though the decision to do so does not appear to be steeped in any particular malice towards men.
It doesn't necessarily, but it was the original design - just like Alien was originally designed to star a female actor. I'm against introducing change just for the sake of change, especially if I feel that political correctness is more of a motive than anything else.
I'm against change for the sake of change, or change strictly designed to cater to a certain demographic.
I'd prefer it be billed as a spin-off set in the same universe, rather than these new characters "replacing" the old ones.
I was under the impression that the characters were written as gender-neutral and that that they eventually decided that Ripley would be female at a later stage in pre-production.
Anyway, what is your problem with political correctness, anyway? Is it really that big an inconvenience to you that people are actually trying to even out the clear imbalance when it comes to representation of different demographics in mainstream entertainment rather than just conforming to an incredibly arbitrary status quo? I'd argue that the system refusing to change simply so it can cater to a certain demographic (like straight white males aged 18-35) is a far more insidious problem that "change for the sake of change".
Correct - it was a different franchise - if it was billed as a sequel or remake and titled "Sex and the City" it would be derided by many fans and rightfully so.
In the latter case for example, if "Entourage" had been made as a sequel or reboot to "Sex and the City", it means that a faithful sequel/remake is less likely to be made.
But since it was a completely different franchise, then fans who want a faithful Sex and the City 3 will be more likely to get one.
In the grand scheme of things I'm not worried about defending myself from being accused of misogyny because:
1. You're not my mom.
2. I'd be a girlie man if I sat awake at night worrying that someone on the internet thinks I hate "wimmin folks"
3. Humor has a different standard of expectations than formal speech - plus the PC mindset is heavily biased, seeing as there's plenty of misandrist humor out there (ex. in Hollywood films and sitcoms) but it's conveniently ignored. (In the past I used to gripe heavily about misandrist humor, but I've realized it'd be hypocritical to gripe about humor where one group is the butt of the jokes, but the other isn't).
(Oh wait, I forgot that women have been discriminated against more historically...)
Huh? Do you know who you're replying to?
You do realise that part of my post was replying to a different post that was made by The Rodent and not you, right?
Anyway, what is your problem with political correctness, anyway? Is it really that big an inconvenience to you that people are actually trying to even out the clear imbalance when it comes to representation of different demographics in mainstream entertainment rather than just conforming to an incredibly arbitrary status quo? I'd argue that the system refusing to change simply so it can cater to a certain demographic (like straight white males aged 18-35) is a far more insidious problem that "change for the sake of change".
I think that the opportunities should be kept equal, and that "natural bias" should be allowed to run its course in context with the demographic. Action movies for example are mainly enjoyed by males, so the majority of them will naturally male leads - what it sounds like you're proposing is that movie producers actively make an effort to hire "underprivileged" groups even over more qualified actors just to "make" the demographics equal, even when there isn't equal demand.
Plus you're incorrect that the entertainment industry as a whole caters only to "straight, white males" - sitcoms and a good percentage of daytime television for example heavily cater to female audiences, because they are the demographic which watches it the most. The NBA, NFL, and hip hop music industry are also overwhelmingly black - so this is the problem with the affirmative action mindset IMO, it's a one way street.
I think that the opportunities should be kept equal, and that "natural bias" should be allowed to run its course in context with the demographic. Action movies for example are mainly enjoyed by males, so the majority of them will naturally male leads - what it sounds like you're proposing is that movie producers actively make an effort to hire "underprivileged" groups even over more qualified actors just to "make" the demographics equal, even when there isn't equal demand.
Plus you're incorrect that the entertainment industry as a whole caters only to "straight, white males" - sitcoms and a good percentage of daytime television for example heavily cater to female audiences, because they are the demographic which watches it the most. The NBA, NFL, and hip hop music industry are also overwhelmingly black - so this is the problem with the affirmative action mindset IMO, it's a one way street.
I only cited that particular demographic as an example (note the use of the phrasing "like" straight white males, as opposed to "only"), mainly because it's the most damning example I could think of because white males are disproportionately represented in media at a much greater percentage than that of their population. Also, that natural bias you speak of also seems to be a problem - sure, it's mainly males that enjoy action movies but it's not only them, and any attempt to make concessions to peripheral demographics is treated as the work of "the PC brigade" when really it's just allowing for the fact that, you know, other kinds of people exist and there's not a whole lot of reason why they shouldn't get more representation (because as it stands the balance is not equal regardless of opportunity). The whole "they picked the best actor for the job" thing is also part of the problem since it can be used to excuse white and/or male performers getting unlikely jobs (e.g. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, as Rodent pointed out earlier) while something like having Michael B. Jordan play Johnny Storm draws controversy. It's a very bad double standard. Also, Fury Road shows that you can still have women take up important roles in an action movie and it can still end up being an acclaimed/popular film, so I don't see why this whole "affirmative action" thing is so bad.
It seems aside from Dan Akroyd's cameo, Bill Murray will have one as well.
Murray has long been against appearing in another Ghostbusters movie in the past, but now it seems he will be portraying a supernatural skeptic named Martin Heiss who attempts to debunk the Ghostbusters work.
I only cited that particular demographic as an example (note the use of the phrasing "like" straight white males, as opposed to "only"), mainly because it's the most damning example I could think of because white males are disproportionately represented in media at a much greater percentage than that of their population.
The general population or the Hollywood population?
If the majority of Hollywood actors are white males, then they're naturally going to be "overepresented" - just as black males will be overrepresented in the hip hop music industry since they make up the majority of the performers, regardless of their actual percentage of the entire US population.
So unless you are claiming that there is active discrimination going on in Hollywood against blacks or other demographics then I find your claim dubious.
It seems aside from Dan Akroyd's cameo, Bill Murray will have one as well.
Murray has long been against appearing in another Ghostbusters movie in the past, but now it seems he will be portraying a supernatural skeptic named Martin Heiss who attempts to debunk the Ghostbusters work.
Hm if he's going to be in this movie then if nothing else they could've had him reprise his original role, and somehow incorporated this new Ghostbusters team into the continuity of the original films. I'd have preferred that than him simply making a cameo
there are people on the internet who make comments which are hypersensitive, patronizingly defensive of women or other "underprivileged demographics", often made more out of an intent just to "look like a good person" or "get approval" rather than sincere concern.
And your comments are sounding like that to me, since you haven't touched on Rodent's point and are more concerned with the genitalia of the cast members than the argument that it's just adding radical change to an established franchise without any proper reason given.
I genuinely feel sad for you if this is your world view, that people say things they don't mean to "look like a good person" or "get approval." Could it be that I actually believe in the things I say even though you disagree? Novel concept...
Nope the gist is that it's going to suck because their women. Melissa McCarthy being fat doesn't have a lot do with it, it's mainly just because they're women.
...and this is somehow not misogynist thinking? You clearly say, and I quote, yet again:
"it's going to suck because their women"
I'm actually not concerned about 'the genitalia of the cast members," but clearly you are. It's the gist of every argument you make here.
For the same reason that remaking the A-Team but changing Mr. T into a white man without any reason do so would suck. According to you though the only people who'd take issue with that would be anti-white racists, lol
Ummm, no...Mr. T is an actual person, you cannot recast him. If you mean his character, B.A. Baracus, then yes, that would be bad to recast him with a white man. But, and I cannot believe that this needs to be said yet again, the new Ghostbusters is not recasting the existing characters. Nobody is playing Peter Venkman or Ray Stantz. So this is not an apt comparison. At all. And do NOT put words in my mouth. EVER. Argue with me, sure, but you do NOT know me or what I would say.
Then I guess you wouldn't have any objection to a remake of Alien with Ellen Ripley changed to Allen Ripley without explanation... and only 'man hating, bra burning femiNazis" could possibly object to that change right? Or if X-Men was rebooted with Justin Bieber staring as Wolverine, anyone who'd object to it secretly just "hates Canadians". GTFO
SIGH. Stop using this example. Ripley actually WAS a man in the first draft of Alien. The director, Ridley Scott, is the one who changed it by casting Sigourney Weaver.
Also, if you actually researched your rants, Wolverine IS a Canadian. Justin Bieber is just poor casting. You GTFO with your spurious, self serving arguments.
Wow, so you'll root for a movie based merely on the fact that it has changed the lead actors to women, rather than based on the actual content or quality the movie itself?
You refuse to hate on a movie you haven't seen, yet have no problem with loving on it just for the sake of promoting an agenda; ironic.
Whelp it's too bad then that Fantastic Four didn't change The Thing into a black lesbian woman, just so that people like you would blindly support it just to "piss off racists/homophobes/misogynists" regardless of whether the films is even good or not, lol
No, it has NOTHING to do with the cast being women. THAT IS YOUR ISSUE. I don't love nor hate this movie because I haven't seen it. I am not "promoting an agenda." Once again, that's your deal. I don't blindly support ANYTHING, period.
And with this, I am offically done speaking to you, most likely forever. I'll read your response, and it will be the exact same arguments again, only worded differently, possibly with more homophobic terminology, or complaints about "feminazi's," and I'll be done, or I'll save myself some time and do something I'll actually enjoy.
*Mic Drop*
__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson
It's not misogynistic to be against this movie because they're women in this case. To be accused of being such a person because you don't like the idea of an all female Ghostbusters movie is stupid. The Ghostbusters were originally all MEN. People wanted a Ghostbusters 3 with basically the original guys back, but if that couldn't be the case, then something similar.
An all female Ghostbusters just isn't similar. Yeah, maybe a lot of people don't have a problem with it, but I cannot blame those who do. It doesn't matter that they're not playing female versions of the male characters -- it's the fact that the vibe is gonna be different. Men and women are different. It's going to have a different kind of vibe because they're women. To a lot of people, that maleness going on in Ghostbusters is crucial. Sex/gender affects things. The Ghostbusters vibe will change with them being all women. Some won't mind it... but the people who are already bothered by it shouldn't be declared misogynistic.
You have a brother that turned into your sister, right, Monkeypunch? Didn't that bother you? It's the same kind of thing. You mourned the loss of his maleness. Well, we are mourning the loss of the maleness that the Ghostbusters franchise used to have.
My opinion on this has changed. I first thought that this was a waste to make, but I am just going to wait it out and see actual footage. Remakes/reboots/e-imaginings whatever has become commonplace nowadays and it won't go away soon. I might as well check this out. What's the worst that can happen? I won't like the movie.
You have a brother that turned into your sister, right, Monkeypunch? Didn't that bother you? It's the same kind of thing. You mourned the loss of his maleness. Well, we are mourning the loss of the maleness that the Ghostbusters franchise used to have.
It's the fact that the movie is a novelty that's pissed people off tbh.
It's like saying "Let's remake Jaws! And the whole cast is women in bikinis!!"
I don't like that example, to be honest.
I don't think "Jaws" is obvious as a very male thing like "Ghostbusters", even though I'm sure people would complain and I'd understand. You could still remake "Jaws" and just change the storyline to fit with women in bikinis. But "Jaws" is basically about a shark first and foremost.
"Ghostbusters" was about four guys. Changing it to four women is a very big difference. It would be more like remaking "Jaws" and Jaws is a lion instead of a shark. Even though that, too, may be a bit extreme since men and women are still both humans. But it's still a vibe change.
Reply to Topic
Or if X-Men was rebooted with Justin Bieber staring as Wolverine, anyone who'd object to it secretly just "hates Canadians". GTFO