So this went up yesterday in honor of the new movie:
Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Calling out misogyny isn't the same as "trying to silence it".
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of being criticized for stupid or hateful speech.
In general you can say whatever you want (although sexist trolling would obviously be against the site rules), but you'll have to live with the consequences, namely: people showing up to call out your posts for what they are.
You keep painting white men as the victims of some equality agenda when all facts in just about every aspect of life indicate that this couldn't be further from the truth.
You seem to struggle to accept that absolutely nobody is impressed by the "white male victim card" when the odds everywhere in the world are insanely stacked against women and minorities.
I said "I'm addressing your posts".
Contrary to popular belief we are no hive mind so I don't care to speak for others. Your "examples" weren't from my posts.
I've been addressing your posts in a calm and matter-of-fact way. If you don't like my analysis and interpretation, tough luck. I will continue to point out misogyny and bigotry when I see it in posts. No amount of whining, complaining or playing a rather bizarre victim card will change that.
If you write misogynistic or bigoted posts you will simply have to live with the fact that you get a reaction. You don't somehow have the sacred right of having your opinion stand alone and free from criticism here or anywhere else.
Nobody is impressed by a meltdown.
Again: Equality and respect are not an agenda.
I'm not sure why you're so viciously trying to fight it. But as I have said before it reminds me of MRA people who have this vicious angry reaction because of the anxiety they experience at the thought of losing some of their white male privilege.
You sure don't want your posts to be associated with those guys, right? Maybe you should look to that.
Yup. Please do enlighten me.
I will give you a tiny hint of misandry if you finally accept that misandry is not a structural problem in our society. It is in fact the exception.
You sound like the guys who yell "But men get raped, too!!!!" whenever people want to discuss violence against women. Yes, men can get raped, too. But the structural issue in our society is something else. Women are overwhelmingly the victims of this rape culture.
Men sometimes getting the short end of the stick changes absolutely nothing about the obvious reality that white male privilege exists. By focusing on the few instances of men getting the short end of the stick you are doing the very real victims of an enormous structural problem in society (women and minorities) a huge disservice.
Again, you should really look to not using that MRA rhetoric if you don't want to be called out.
I'm probably not even going to watch this film. I don't like the franchise.
I merely find the conversation about it fascinating because it reveals so much about male privilege and its reaction to small changes in pop culture.
I do see a lot of insecurity in this thread, mostly from men. The idea of not being the sole relevant audience and not by default dominating the cast of a movie seems to cause an insane amount of anxiety.
As part of a group of people (women) who have traditionally and really been marginalized, underrepresented and misrepresented in movies I find that so adorable and cute. Well, I would if it weren't so stupid.
I have no interest in praising the film. I haven't seen it yet and I suspect it won't be my cup of tea.
This has gone on long enough, and it's partly my fault for not keeping a better eye on this thread. Despite the few posts attempting to even the tempers being flared, the back and forth continues. I am closing the thread for the time being, so that the better angels of our nature can prevail.
In the mean time, go see the movie. Or not. If and when the thread re-open, keep the topic THERE instead of each other.
In the mean time, go see the movie. Or not. If and when the thread re-open, keep the topic THERE instead of each other.
Okay, folks, here are the ground rules.
1) Discuss Ghostbusters, and only Ghostbusters.
2) Debates about gender politics, misandry and the like do not belong in here.
3) Derails will result in a 24-hour probation, so follow the golden rule: Don't be a douche.
1) Discuss Ghostbusters, and only Ghostbusters.
2) Debates about gender politics, misandry and the like do not belong in here.
3) Derails will result in a 24-hour probation, so follow the golden rule: Don't be a douche.
Perhaps the thread title should be set to something less provocative?
I'm going tonight.
I saw it on Monday on the day of release in the UK, I was never bothered by the idea of the reboot but the trailers didn't make the film look all that good.
All in all I say its a good film, but not a classic, there were elements I liked, such as Holtzmann who was good but maybe a bit too over the top in places. Overall the story was okay. I just wished I stayed until after the credits for a extra scene referencing.....
All in all I say its a good film, but not a classic, there were elements I liked, such as Holtzmann who was good but maybe a bit too over the top in places. Overall the story was okay. I just wished I stayed until after the credits for a extra scene referencing.....
Thought this was an interesting bit in Jesse Hassenger's "B" AV Club review:
The original Ghostbusters was only partially shot in Manhattan; plenty of it was fudged out in Los Angeles, but it used enough New York exteriors to get by. The new movie often substitutes Boston for Los Angeles for New York, and gentrification makes those swaps dispiritingly easy. That this is a shinier, less gritty-looking city than the older version does reflect some kind of reality, and the movie admits as much in a clever bit about how the classic Ghostbusters firehouse would now command an astronomical monthly rent. But for the most part, its New York feels overscrubbed and underpopulated, even for 2016. Crinkled newspapers blow through the streets in one shot—not to establish grit, but as homage to the original film. And when a bad guy rants about cleansing the streets, Taxi Driver-style, it sounds almost redundant. Even the climactic destruction looks tidier.
I saw a pre-screening on Wednesday night (Tues in the US.)
I don't think it's an instant classic or anything, but I found it insanely likeable. I don't mind Ghostbusters 2, but the reboot was eons above it. It had...heart, I suppose. Everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves, it straddled the line between 'remake' and bringing its own thing, and there was a lot of imagination put into certain elements. I may also have developed a slight crush on Kate McKinnon.
I guess you could say for me personally, it was successful where sorta similar reboots like Jurassic World left me really cold.
As for the New Yorkiness of New York, I'm pretty certain the credits mentioned that parts of it were also filmed in Australia. Can't find anything online to confirm that though.
I don't think it's an instant classic or anything, but I found it insanely likeable. I don't mind Ghostbusters 2, but the reboot was eons above it. It had...heart, I suppose. Everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves, it straddled the line between 'remake' and bringing its own thing, and there was a lot of imagination put into certain elements. I may also have developed a slight crush on Kate McKinnon.
I guess you could say for me personally, it was successful where sorta similar reboots like Jurassic World left me really cold.
As for the New Yorkiness of New York, I'm pretty certain the credits mentioned that parts of it were also filmed in Australia. Can't find anything online to confirm that though.
I've had an obsession with Ghostbusters my whole life. The first movie I remember seeing was Ghostbusters 2 which I still adore. I bought he novel sequel that no one has heard of, I got the game and I've even made my own props. So I can't love this franchise more.
That said, I loved the movie. It's not a retread of the original. It's the same basic premise that some scientists figured out how to catch ghosts and go into business together. But the threat is different and it goes in a different direction than the original. I liked that there was a continual evolution of the technology and that it kept the same hand-made aesthetic as the original gear and all seem to be heavily inspired by the Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters. Plus Slimer was back, I can't hate anything with Slimer.
When I came out of the film one of my first thoughts was how bad the trailers were and did not reflect the film I had just seen. Admittedly some of the jokes in the trailers are not in the film but still they could have been much better.
The trailers did a poor job of selling Patty as a character. She was great in the movie. I loved that she had weirdly realistic reactions to weird stuff, like when she walks into the room of mannequins.
Give us a review when you get back. Want to know how kid friendly it is, and if the alleged misandry is basically just banter and the odd joke...hard to find a coherent unbiased source on that angle lol.
Not sure I'd be a good source on the "kid friendly" stuff. We are pretty open with our kids, believing in letting them watch and discuss rather than hide things from them.
Similar threads
