Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
#4887468
That very much depends on the person/people trying, and their willingness to give up if the results weren't what they were expecting.

This won't be the last motion picture offering to bear the Ghostbusters name, and it won't be the last project to bear the name either.
Sav C, GBPaulRivera liked this
#4887470
I personally thought that Paul Feig wanted to make ATC his OWN type of movie, while simultaneously pandering to the common masses as well and in the process he kinda misunderstood the whole shtick about the original films, which mostly relied on sly dialogue. It doesn't help that the film's marketing seemingly played up upon the supposed feminist angle of the movie which probably turned a few people off, and even more so when members of the crew took a few shots at fans, and not in a good way. That's not to say that an all female team couldn't have worked, oh no, I was actually all for the inclusion of such a team, but the final film's humor style deviated significantly from the original, which I was annoyed at. I still enjoyed the movie despite all that once I was able to take it as its own thing.
Alphagaia liked this
#4887822
Kingpin wrote:Maybe not, but so what? While I wasn't specifically referring to female Ghostbusters, there is definitely a discrepancy in how many role models boys have versus how many girls have, so it's not always a bad thing if someone tries to add a few more to the crowd.
There isn't an unbalanced ratio, there's just less females in action packed roles. Not sure why people don't understand this. You and others are looking at female role models through action movies rather than counting role models for women across genres. If you count up it's actually the same. Both have good and bad roles. Both have good and bad movies.
#4887869
You've assumed I'm only looking at role models through action films. I'd like to see more prominent female scientists, artists, writers, soldiers, doctors, motion picture score artists, directors and so on (fortunately women in sport have gotten a great boost with the Olympics and Paralympics, but women's football sadly suffers from a general lack of interest - and I believe the main reason is pretty clear). I'm not convinced if we laid it down and counted it up, it'd be as equal as you believe it is.

While there may be fewer action roles for women, you do have to wonder how often that is because there are people who just aren't bothering to write better/more roles for women in action.
#4888051
Kingpin wrote:You've assumed I'm only looking at role models through action films. I'd like to see more prominent female scientists, artists, writers, soldiers, doctors, motion picture score artists, directors and so on (fortunately women in sport have gotten a great boost with the Olympics and Paralympics, but women's football sadly suffers from a general lack of interest - and I believe the main reason is pretty clear). I'm not convinced if we laid it down and counted it up, it'd be as equal as you believe it is.

While there may be fewer action roles for women, you do have to wonder how often that is because there are people who just aren't bothering to write better/more roles for women in action.
You've highlighted a typical question that gets asked the logical answer isn't one people like to hear. There just isn't enough interest. Why aren't there more female gamers? Lack of interest same way boys aren't into Barbie girls don't get excited by video games. A common misconception is women are blocked from getting male dominated roles, the simple answer is that they're mostly not, it's just there isn't enough interest from women. It's not that males are putting them off it's simply it doesn't appeal to them. If there's no interest ergo there are less females doing that particular job.
#4888137
Just wanted to share this clip here as well, since it's relevant to the whole women topic (and has a Ghostbusters connection). This '70s Saturday Night Live sketch is called "You've Come A Long Way, Buddy" and it's basically a group of early men's rights activists celebrating art "made by men." Clever gender reversal satire, typical of the time. Dan Aykroyd actually played the art gallery guy and Bill Murray is representing "The National Organization of Men." You guys really need to see this, lol.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/ ... 6759?snl=1
GBPaulRivera liked this
#4888157
Sav C wrote:Dan Aykroyd, John Belushi, Garrett Morris, Bill Murray, how I wish I could see that clip! But NBC isn't letting me view stuff from where I live (up north). Oh well.
Aw rats, I was afraid of that. There is a transcript though, here's the link: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76sbuddy.phtml
#4888158
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Sav C wrote:Dan Aykroyd, John Belushi, Garrett Morris, Bill Murray, how I wish I could see that clip! But NBC isn't letting me view stuff from where I live (up north). Oh well.
Aw rats, I was afraid of that. There is a transcript though, here's the link: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76sbuddy.phtml
Thanks, that's pretty funny. One clip I've always wanted to see but haven't been able to was The Pepsi Syndrome (although I have read the transcript).
#4888358
Alphagaia wrote:No interest? Is that why we see a rise of blockbusters with female leads of late?
Doesn't the script matter any more rather than if a female is cast? We've only seen a rise in blockbusters with female leads because of studio politics. There was just as many women going to the movies as there was before.

Before I forget Happy New Year everyone!
#4888634
I think the question you should ask is, is it crucial for the story for this person to be a male or female. A lot of times, Hollywood just defaults into male for it's chosen gender, while the part could just as easily be played by a female.
Feig does this the other way around.
Storywise it should not matter, as his movies are not intended to be chickflicks and since the ratio is normally 5:1 in favor of males, Feig flips this ratio in an effort to even out the score a bit and give more females a change to become big in Hollywood.
#4888647
Story should matter. 2016 would have fared a lot better with a more decent script.
The five night's at Freddy's fan film that was just put out had two members that weren't scientists, or Dr's. It had pushed through the idea that anyone could be a Ghostbuster.

Corny jokes, mediocre acting but it was damn good for a fan film. The special effects were almost on par with the new movie and they didn't have a 300 million dollar budget. Sony really should get that crew signed up for a tv series.

If they had tried making the film Oscar worthy feig and Co could have stepped up to the podium and brought their message of wanting to hire more women to millions of viewers at home.
#4888648
timeware wrote:Story should matter. 2016 would have fared a lot better with a more decent script.
I think you misunderstood me on that point. I agree with you story should matter, just that it should not matter much for most stories if a person is either female or male.
If you liked the script of GB:ATC is a matter of opinion, I liked the premise of the story with the nice backgrounds to characters and ghosts, with the exception of Rowan and the final battle. While the idea of a ghostform of the logo as a mockery is a great one, the fight itself missed drama. (Something the fanmovie with Five nights at Freddy lacked as well imo, it's all just solved so easily without the feeling they were in real danger.)
*NormalGamer* liked this
#4888649
Who's your audience and do you want to make a popular film?" If you were a cook and you give steaks to vegans, no matter how good the steak is they're not going to like it. Its more than just having a female lead. Over the past 45 years the top grossing movies have been action with a splash of family movies. Titanic being the biggest exception. The real gender issues isn't who stars in the movies but who goes to see them. Men and women probably go to the movies the same, but you can get women to go to action movies but you can't get men in large enough quantities to to go to " chickflicks". Atc had the budget, popular director and cast, but failed to appeal men. The last two star wars had female leads and made a ton of money. Where ATCs feamale cast felt more like a gimmick and spoof. The real question is, do you want to be popular? Than you have to find away to appeal to the masses. So if your a cook, have salads and steaks. . . Popular does not equal good, but when you have big budget your goal is to do over $500 million
#4888650
ccv66 wrote:The real gender issues isn't who stars in the movies but who goes to see them. Men and women probably go to the movies the same, but you can get women to go to action movies but you can't get men in large enough quantities to to go to " chickflicks". Atc had the budget, popular director and cast, but failed to appeal men. The last two star wars had female leads and made a ton of money. Where ATCs feamale cast felt more like a gimmick and spoof. The real question is, do you want to be popular? Than you have to find away to appeal to the masses. So if your a cook, have salads and steaks. . . Popular does not equal good, but when you have big budget your goal is to do over $500 million
I think the biggest problem here, why does an audience think a movie is a chickflick just because it features 4 women in the main roles? Is it because we are not used to it yet?
GB:ATC certainly was not a chickflick, as Feig hates those and wants to make movies that appeal to both genders.
#4888654
Again star wars had female lead, mass appeal. Im assuming Disney spent alot time thinking how to make their movie attractive to different demographics. Probably sacrificed some of the quality of the movie to be popular and successful. At the least make a movie for your core audience and then to branch out. I want to be upset with paul but its producers fault for not picking someone that would have been a better fit for the audience. Iam biast for multiple reasons, one being im not a fan of paul fiegs movies. His bigest blockbuster was bridesmaids and i thought it was meh - ok. But that's what he does rides the coattails of a movie staring men (hangover\gb84) redoes it with women just not as well. I was wanting Ghostbusters 3 like dark knight and got jar jar binks instead. The gender of the cast wasnt a major factor in its failure
#4888657
Ow, I thought you meant GB:ATC was perceived as a chickflick by the audiences and Star Wars was not. My mistake!

Yeah, I can understand you being disappointed by it not being a sequel or not being a fan of Feigs movies.
I did not even knew the guy existed before I went to this Forum, and it was the hate for him that made me want to explore his works. I've seen Bridesmaids, Freaks & Geeks and Spy so far which I all enjoyed, so I probably had less problems with him as a choice for the movie as I know he can do comedy and the guy likes tech.
Strangely enough the humor in this movie is all over the place as it seems to struggle what it wants to be, and while I generally laughed out loud multiple times, I cringed a few times as well, and if you disliked the premise of the movie from the start I definitely understand people latching on to those cringe things and not enjoying themselves.

It's like a glass half full or half empty kind of thing. It's not full, it's not empty but it sits there somewhere in-between, with ones perception of bias deciding if it's fun and the other tilting you the negative way.
#4888676
I know there are edits of the Star Wars Prequels where people have taken out the cheesy parts. Do a search for Anti-Cheese

Jar-Jar is minimized, some corny dialogue is removed, certain voices are changed. The movies play differently and are actually interesting.

I wonder if people will do their own edits of GB:ATC?
ccv66 liked this
#4888678
I liked freaks & geeks... Im sure your state of mind affects your perception of the film. Dressing up and going the premiere vs going in thinking its going to suck. Haven't seen the extended version yet. Going to get some beer pizza and give the movie another try, estrogen and all
#4888685
Admittedly I'm coming into this discussion a bit hotheaded. I'm going to focus strictly on the subject of the topic at hand and the genderism that has seemingly blown up since the announcement of the reboot, since it seems to be the subject at hand (correct me if I am wrong).

First, I'd like to start with the various MRA (men's rights activist) vilification posts I've seen, and tossing the classification of assholes, jerks, what have you. There is also an equal amount of Feminist vilification going on.

If a person has an ideal they follow religiously, that ideal can and probably will become tainted as they start to further explore it and stick around groups of people who embrace that same ideal. As an example - If someone is a gun enthusiast, they might find themselves in a situation where they start hanging around other enthusiasts who look at things a bit more extremely. Having been accepted by that group that person will slowly start to believe and take in that ideology that they need to save their guns at all costs, causing this new individual in the group to join up with a militia and start committing acts they deem necessary to protect the rights they have to own their weapons.

Soon, everywhere they look, they start to see people trying to take their guns, although the reality is others around them have started to feel unsafe because of the increased risk they might do something violent.

****THE ABOVE IS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE****

The same is with all of these different groups cropping up to denounce other groups and individuals as being against them - this is simple human psychology. We learn as children that communities are good, individualism - to an extent - is bad and to loose the acceptance or the approval of the community is detrimental to our mental wellbeing.

Now, going back to the vilification. We live in an age where technology has separated us from actual physical contact with people and the result is devastating. We are forced to turn to social media and therein we become trapped with the ideologies that we agree with and cast off any ideology we don't. We retreat in new ways to avoid not having to deal with the consequences of adopting these views and beliefs as our own and then we start to sound the war drums when those opposing views become too much at odds with our own, leading us to look for demons where they don't necessarily exist.

On that point, when you do feel alienated from the rest of the world, it's time to disconnect and experience the real world again. All to often we hold on to the hate because we have no context to the words, thoughts and emotion of others, causing us to live in the extremities of black and white, good and bad, light and dark, and with the thought that it's us versus them.

Stop vilification of your opposite views and start to consider that an entire world exists. Only then can we really start to make real, lasting change.

To those that feel alienated, I guess suck it up. You wont be able to change the minds of people any more than you can change the color of the grass. If you love doing something, don't let it go at the expense of that one shit head being louder than the rest.
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2, Clifton Sleigh and 1 others liked this
#4888953
Alphagaia wrote:Storywise it should not matter, as his movies are not intended to be chickflicks and since the ratio is normally 5:1 in favor of males, Feig flips this ratio in an effort to even out the score a bit and give more females a change to become big in Hollywood.
While I can understand the need to target certain genders with films it's not necessarily the right way to go about filmmaking. Also with Ghostbusters as well as countless gender swapping remakes the case you could make is that it not only violates the source material but it's just unnecessary and shows a lack of ambition. The fact that people appreciate this amazes me no end.

Case in point with news of the Lost in Space remake being gender swapped I wrote a comment saying it's something no one wanted. Someone, obviously a feminist, came back to me and asked why gender swapping is bad, it readdresses the balance. I said that whole point of Lost in Space was that it was Swiss Family Robinson in space. The person says Family Robinson is outdated in the way it handles gender and this will be better as there is more women in it. As this point I was beginning to think this person hadn't actually seen LOS as they stated it had six men and three women in it which is inaccurate. I said it matters since Family Robinson homage is basically the central premise of the show. Once you take that away through gender swapping it's not LOS.

Now I know you probably agree with this guy totally but my point is that gender swapping is both lazy and disrespectful to the premise of the source material. This is really wanted occurred with Ghostbusters ATC as well.
Azurial wrote:Now, going back to the vilification. We live in an age where technology has separated us from actual physical contact with people and the result is devastating. We are forced to turn to social media and therein we become trapped with the ideologies that we agree with and cast off any ideology we don't. We retreat in new ways to avoid not having to deal with the consequences of adopting these views and beliefs as our own and then we start to sound the war drums when those opposing views become too much at odds with our own, leading us to look for demons where they don't necessarily exist.
For me anyway I have to totally disagree. Yes social media can be filled with propaganda however it has allowed me to become more social at least online. Suffering from social anxiety isn't easy and I often get left out of conversations. Nearly all the time I can't say what I mean or have time to group my thoughts together because someone is already shouting over me with their views so I get ignored. The terrific thing about being on Facebook and online forums like this is that people are forced to read my views. It's there for people to read. I get myself across which I could never do before. Since I started communicating online I've had lots of people say to me both positive and negative stuff.
Azurial wrote:To those that feel alienated, I guess suck it up. You wont be able to change the minds of people any more than you can change the color of the grass. If you love doing something, don't let it go at the expense of that one shit head being louder than the rest.
Ha, ha! I can be stubborn in my views so don't worry. :mrgreen:
#4901013
pferreira1983 wrote:Back last July at Comic Con I was speaking to a Ghostbuster fan at their UK stall. I hadn't seen the film yet and asked what he thought of it. He said he didn't like it. I said I didn't like the way that fans who aren't for the reboot were being labelled as misogynistic by the media. As I was saying that one female Ghostbuster fan overheard a couple of words I said, not the full conversation and immediately interrupted us defending not only the movie but complaining in my face about the backlash due to misogynistic fans as though it was entirely my fault. She basically overheard just a couple of words and that triggered her without hearing everything I said. I did feel intimidated, never thought I'd feel intimidated by the fanbase I most support. Felt a little disappointed in that person to be honest. But then some friend of theirs came over and they completely forgot I was there so I moved on... :-|
I liked the 2016 movie, but that was wrong of her to do that to you.
#4901182
Sav C wrote:He just won the Nobel prize for Literature (I didn't even realize they had a literature category). Now that's one big feat! Recently I've been listening to his new album Fallen Angels a lot. It's a jazz album where he sings covers of standards, I highly recommend it. His voice goes well with jazz tunes.
Check out the music video for the song The Night We Called It A Day.
Some other good new albums to check out if you haven't already are Van Morrison's Keep Me Singing (which has some nice tracks where he revisits his previous sounds), and the Rolling Stones's Blue and Lonesome (which is only cover songs).
There's also Annie Lennox's album Nostalgia, from 2014, her third album of covers. Plus there's this one from Phil Collins, Going Back.
Sav C liked this
#4901243
pferreira1983 wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:Storywise it should not matter, as his movies are not intended to be chickflicks and since the ratio is normally 5:1 in favor of males, Feig flips this ratio in an effort to even out the score a bit and give more females a change to become big in Hollywood.
While I can understand the need to target certain genders with films it's not necessarily the right way to go about filmmaking. Also with Ghostbusters as well as countless gender swapping remakes the case you could make is that it not only violates the source material but it's just unnecessary and shows a lack of ambition. The fact that people appreciate this amazes me no end.
That's bullshit, and you know it. There's NOTHING that says that the characters can't be gender-swapped if it can be accomplished and succeeds well; check out this example of Rule 63 here.

Case in point with news of the Lost in Space remake being gender swapped I wrote a comment saying it's something no one wanted. Someone, obviously a feminist, came back to me and asked why gender swapping is bad, it readdresses the balance. I said that whole point of Lost in Space was that it was Swiss Family Robinson in space. The person says Family Robinson is outdated in the way it handles gender and this will be better as there is more women in it. As this point I was beginning to think this person hadn't actually seen LOS as they stated it had six men and three women in it which is inaccurate. I said it matters since Family Robinson homage is basically the central premise of the show. Once you take that away through gender swapping it's not LOS.
Lost In Space was a concept executed in a shitty manner by Irwin Allen to begin with, and the whole concept needed a rethink, which (IMHO) it got in 1998 (and it got in 1995 with the Lost In Space comic book by Bill Mumy that served as a soft reboot of the original series.) There's nothing that says that the creators of the new show have to go the same way as Allen did or as the writer of the original source novel did (and before you object, I've seen the original show.)
Now I know you probably agree with this guy totally but my point is that gender swapping is both lazy and disrespectful to the premise of the source material. This is really wanted occurred with Ghostbusters ATC as well.
What occurred was that a generation of moronic neck bearded fan boys couldn't get it through their f****-up brains that there was no way a third movie with the originals was going to happen, especially since Murray and Ramis weren't even on speaking terms after the filming of Groundhog Day, Ramis dying in 2014, and Murray not really caring about being Peter Venkman again (except as a joke in a few instances or in the video game). Again, gender-swapping's happend a lot (and happens a lot), as I've mentioned before when mentioning Rule 63.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

I don't remember exactly, But I think I've had pr[…]

Someone ID'd them on Facebook first, there w[…]

Two specific ideas I have are basically holiday sp[…]

While waiting impatiently for Frozen Empire to rel[…]