Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[ancient]

Ok, maybe I'll go through that giant wall of text you just posted at me later, but I think we need to focus on the issue at hand, so I'll refocus my point:

Crappy little remake movies aren't relevant to culture, entertainment of this sort is reactionary - it's safe fluff based on safe formulas, not cutting edge & industry changing.

I just realized this this sounded like I was blowing you off, I can't go chasing links until I get home, that's all. I sense a rant about statistics coming though.

I don't know if I'd call this a crappy little remake movie. It's pretty clearly a big movie for the studio, with a big name director, a popular cast, and tons of special effects. It's a big summer blockbuster, maybe not on the level of Batman v Superman, or Civil War, but I think it's still pretty clearly a big deal. Hell, if it was just a crappy little remake movie, then it probably wouldn't have been able to get enough attention to be the most unliked movie trailer in YouTube history.
As for it not being cutting edge or industry changing, I really could care less about that stuff, all I want is an enjoyable movie, and I'm starting to think there's a pretty good chance this actually could be.

Again, being the most disliked youtube video is not exactly a difficult accomplishment, I wouldn't read into something like that too much. Look up the other most disliked videos, I get the feeling there isn't much earth-shattering stuff on that list, or anything older than 10 years. The people making this movie don't inspire confidence, they sound like idiots to me - I'm talking about the studio people. I also judge comedy remakes harsher than any other genre, because stealing jokes is one of those little unique things in its own category. Pink Panther remake anyone? The tagline for that one should've been: "Peter Sellers is dead."

 

[ichab]

Well, we'll start with bias against women in media:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/...gazine/2011winter_media_bias.authcheckdam.pdf
https://www.nyu.edu/classes/jackson/causes.of.gender.inequality/Readings/Wood - Gendered Media - 94.pdf
http://www.alternet.org/story/79646/cutting_women_out:_the_media_bias_against_female_candidates
https://dub.washington.edu/djangosite/media/papers/unequalrepresentation.pdf
http://www.ijirset.com/upload/august/28_Gender Bias in Media and Ad Agencies.pdf

Then, for fun, let's discuss bias against women in the STEM fields:
http://www.uchastings.edu/news/articles/2015/01/double-jeopardy-report.pdf
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-creativity-bias-against-women/
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/13201.full.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...ion-according-international-study-gender-bias
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resources.html
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200001/back-page.cfm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623121000.htm
https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/what-institutions-can-do-support-women-science
http://ctl.yale.edu/sites/default/f..._subtle_gender_biases_favor_male_students.pdf
https://www.aacei.org/wpc/library/reprints/2006-10.shtml
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol6_No1_2015_1_19.pdf

I could go on, and on and on and on and on, but we're talking about a film here, so I'll keep it relevant to bias against women in media and in the sciences. So we have a film where four female scientists get together and start a business in capturing and detaining the paranormal: spirits, apparitions, ghosts, goblins, specters, and so on.

Sounds interesting, right? Oh, I'm sure there will be a mixed reaction to this. I mean, the movie is touching on some sacred ground, as the original all male cast Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II are pretty well loved by many. How bad of a reception could the movie get by telling everyone the four leads will be women?

http://fortune.com/2016/05/02/female-ghostbusters-trailer/

Stephanie Merry of the Washington Post does one better and outlines what we're seeing, but with some spiffy graphs:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...re-hating-the-ghostbusters-trailer-guess-why/

That is just for this movie. If we get out into the actual politics of what is going on, there is a vast world of information out there I could show you. Whether you accept it or not, it's there if you're willing to look, and like the effects of global climate change, it's going to make itself known to the most oblivious and those who are still deep in denial quite soon.

Take the Ghostbusters brand off and no one would have cared about four female leads.

 

[Amaris]

Take the Ghostbusters brand off and no one would have cared about four female leads.

You think so? If so, why would that be?

 

[ichab]

You think so? If so, why would that be?

Because no one bitches about Angelina Jolie's leading roles, or Sandra Bullock, or Uma Thurman. Hell I still remember when Steele Magnolius came out with a mostly all female cast and no one made a big deal about it. They were great movies that were judged on their own merits. Kill Bill made a boat load of money at the box office with a female lead because it was ORIGINAL.

The griping on this movie is based solely on the fact that instead of trying to create something original, hollywood is once again being LAZY by dusting off a popular brand and rebooting it with a new cast. And no, changing the gender is not "mixing it up" or "evolving." It's just lazy storytelling.

 

[Amaris]

Because no one bitches about Angelina Jolie's leading roles, or Sandra Bullock, or Uma Thurman. Hell I still remember when Steele Magnolius came out with a mostly all female cast and no one made a big deal about it. They were great movies that were judged on their own merits. Kill Bill made a boat load of money at the box office with a female lead because it was ORIGINAL.

The griping on this movie is based solely on the fact that instead of trying to create something original, hollywood is once again being LAZY by dusting off a popular brand and rebooting it with a new cast. And no, changing the gender is not "mixing it up" or "evolving." It's just lazy storytelling.

You're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong, but you're entitled to it just the same.

 

[Tosk]

You're both right. Neither aspect on its own would have created this situation, but you put 'em together and...

 

[Saul]

Sure, but none of those movies got the insane amount of hate this is getting. There have been popular movies with female leads, but there is still plenty of evidence of the insane amounts of sexism still out there. To try to say that there isn't sexism or misogyny out there and that it doesn't impact the reaction to movies like this is just insane.

Sexism and misogyny impacts everything.
A lot of hate this movie was getting wasn't solely sexism though however much people like to tag it as such. Reboots piss people off. How they went about announcing this and then marketing it didn't engender confidence that this was anything more than a cash grab. Latching onto the gender battle to stir up more publicity was dragging itself through the mud. Giving credence to the lowest common denominator of hateful morons didn't do anything to help the movie.

 

[Marsden]

Hey, now, don't for get the racism! I see all these sexism posts, racism is getting upset it's not being mentioned.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Hey, now, don't for get the racism! I see all these sexism posts, racism is getting upset it's not being mentioned.

Yeah, that's racist!

 

[Greg Cox]

Crappy little remake movies aren't relevant to culture, entertainment of this sort is reactionary - it's safe fluff based on safe formulas, not cutting edge & industry changing.

But who says that every movie has to be cutting-edge and industry-changing? Especially spooky ghost comedies? The original GHOSTBUSTERS was a blast and highly entertaining, but I'm not sure anyone would argue that it was daring, cutting-edge cinema at its most artistic. Hollywood's been doing zany supernatural comedies since at least as far back as TOPPER, I MARRIED A WITCH, THE GHOST GOES WEST, GHOST BREAKERS, ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN; BELL, BOOK AND CANDLE; THE GHOST AND MISTER CHICKEN, THE GHOST OF DRAGSTRIP HOLLOW, FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS, etc. Heck, I'm pretty sure I remember Harold Lloyd wandering into a haunted house or two . . . and need I mention THE CAT AND THE CANARY?

Don't get me wrong. There's certainly a place for more challenging, innovative movies, but sometimes you just want to watch a wacky ghost comedy . . . .

 

[Cyke101]

Hey, now, don't for get the racism! I see all these sexism posts, racism is getting upset it's not being mentioned.

As if racism and sexism didn't intersect all the time...?

 

[Amaris]

But who says that every movie has to be cutting-edge and industry-changing? Especially spooky ghost comedies? The original GHOSTBUSTERS was a blast and highly entertaining, but I'm not sure anyone would argue that it was daring, cutting-edge cinema at its most experimental. Hollywood's been doing zany supernatural comedies since at least as far back as TOPPER, I MARRIED A WITCH, GHOST BREAKERS, ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN; BELL, BOOK AND CANDLE; THE GHOST AND MISTER CHICKEN, FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS, etc. Heck, I'm pretty sure I remember Harold Lloyd wandering into a haunted house or two . . . and need I mention THE CAT AND THE CANARY?

Don't get me wrong. There's certainly a place for more challenging, innovative movies, but sometimes you just want to watch a wacky ghost comedy . . . .

Over the past 30 years, Ghostbusters has become SRS BSNS. It can't just be a wacky comedy, it has to be the most iconic film of all time, and if it isn't, it's a failure, no matter how many people end up liking it, or how much money it makes.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

You think so? If so, why would that be?

Because Bridesmaids?

 

[Amaris]

Because Bridesmaids?

Indeed, Bridesmaids did very well with all female leads. There wasn't a lot of complaint, but why? Is it because the movie stood on its own merits, or was it because the movie having four female leads in a comedy about a wedding is still considered acceptable? @ichab says the dislike for this film is based SOLELY (his word) on the fact that it's not an original like Bridesmaids. That is demonstrably false, as several of the links I posted above clearly show, but why was Bridesmaids okay with four female leads, and Ghostbusters isn't?

Is it solely about originality? Because there were many fans clamoring for another Ghostbusters film featuring the original male leads, and some were even willing to go without one of them since he had passed on. So why Bridesmaids? Because it's original? Hell, that film is just one trope based on the same unoriginal concept that is the hallmark of many romantic wedding comedies, so it's not about being original, or at least not solely about being original.

Go read some of the links I posted above. See what people are saying. It's not just about originality, or being a reboot.

 

[Greg Cox]

Over the past 30 years, Ghostbusters has become SRS BSNS. It can't just be a wacky comedy, it has to be the most iconic film of all time, and if it isn't, it's a failure, no matter how many people end up liking it, or how much money it makes.

SRS BSNS?

And don't be silly. Everyone knows THE GHOST IN THE INVISIBLE BIKINI is the most iconic film of all time.

 

[Owain Taggart]

The original GHOSTBUSTERS was a blast and highly entertaining, but I'm not sure anyone would argue that it was daring, cutting-edge cinema at its most artistic.

That does bring a point. Does anyone know what the ratings were for it when it was released? Was it a hit with critics? Would be interesting to see.

 

[Myko]

SRS BSNS?

"Serious business"

 

[B.J.]

That does bring a point. Does anyone know what the ratings were for it when it was released? Was it a hit with critics? Would be interesting to see.

Pretty sure it was a hit with both the public and critics. I was 11 at the time, but I remember seeing tie-ins, merchandise, etc *everywhere*, which was huge for the time. At least Ebert gave it 3.5/4 stars, and Siskel & Ebert (yeah, I know) gave it 2 thumbs up. Kinda difficult finding 1984 reviews other than Ebert.

 

[Marsden]

That does bring a point. Does anyone know what the ratings were for it when it was released? Was it a hit with critics? Would be interesting to see.

It's the only movie I remember being in the movies all year long. I know things are different now, with even VCRs being new then and no internet services to watch movies, but I never remember another movie being in anywhere near that long, at least in NE PA.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's the only movie I remember being in the movies all year long. I know things are different now, with even VCRs being new then and no internet services to watch movies, but I never remember another movie being in anywhere near that long, at least in NE PA.

I remember "2001" playing forever at the Cinerama Theater in Seattle during its original release, but that was nearly fifty years ago . . . . .