- November 24th, 2017, 9:44 am#4901244
Just so you know, Pferreirra was outed as a stubborn troll a few months ago. He won't be responding.
For Ivan.
JurorNo.2 wrote:You know, something else has been occurring to me. Feig all but said he wanted to portray Holtzmann as a gay character. And Feig also hinted the studio wasn't cool with broadcasting that. And who are some of the biggest fans of this movie and Holtzmann -- Tumblr girls.Honestly, and maybe this might put me in a negative light, but I'm sorta happy with that move. However, while I do agree that Holtzmann is gay, there's something about not out right saying it that ... adds to her. It's human, in an interesting way, because she is still a sexual icon, but subtle and you're more focused on other elements to her personality.
Now I'm not playing the "homophobic" card, I think that label is used too often.
But it goes back to what I was saying earlier that GB16 doesn't sexualize women in the traditional sense. I do think segments of the audience...weren't sure how to take it. What lesbians find attractive in women isn't always what straight men find attractive in women (same can often be said for gay men vs straight women, and what they find attractive in men).I'm working on a web comic with the ATC team going on jobs, busting ghosts, and etc. And my co-writer/illustrator is one of those Tumblr girls. She's a Pansexual or an Asexual person, but really rejoices in the LGBTQ aspect of Holtzmann and "Holtzbert." I'm a straight heterosexual male who has mixed feelings towards LGBTQ, but I'm all for human rights, equality, and respecting people's life choices. Jillian is gay, I write with respect to that, (heck I got an idea with Gal Gadot being the character model for one story), but I also remember that she's not JUST that and not just the mad scientist trope, but a person and one who should be explored in different ways.
GBPaulRivera wrote:You're not being negative at all; This is pretty much how I see it, as well, and subtlety can go a long way regardless of whatever element a characters personality has (sexuality, ethnicity, etc.); overall, whether the element is explicit or not explicit, the key to a well-rounded character is 'balance'.JurorNo.2 wrote:You know, something else has been occurring to me. Feig all but said he wanted to portray Holtzmann as a gay character. And Feig also hinted the studio wasn't cool with broadcasting that. And who are some of the biggest fans of this movie and Holtzmann -- Tumblr girls.Honestly, and maybe this might put me in a negative light, but I'm sorta happy with that move. However, while I do agree that Holtzmann is gay, there's something about not out right saying it that ... adds to her. It's human, in an interesting way, because she is still a sexual icon, but subtle and you're more focused on other elements to her personality.
DarkSpectre wrote:Holtzmann works best as an androgynous character. Because the focus isn't about her sexuality but on personality, quirks and mind. And I know there are alot of "Holtzbert" shippers out there but the film established that Erin is verrrrrrry hetero. ("You're like a law suit waiting to happen"). Besides I think it would ruin the dynamic if suddenly 2 of the characters where in a relationship. It changes the motivations and tilts the group dynamic. The cartoons sort of explored this with Egon/Janine and Eduardo/Kylie but neither dominated the characters journeys or got in the way of story telling. Despite being the son of a gay man, I'm glad that Sony didn't allow Feig to out Holtzmann. Because all it would've done was add more fuel to the fire that was the shitstorm of 2016 and on a surface level, who cares? Does the fact that she's LGBTQ make her better at catching ghosts and building the equipment? Nope. Same goes if she was hetero. I've always gotten the impression (moreso in the comics than the film) that Yates and Holtzmann just didn't care about relationships. Yates' science was more important to her and Holtzmann is a "Peter Pan" type character that also has no interest or doesn't care about relationships. Her love is her equipment and ideas.YES. Thank you. With my comic series, this was a decision I had to speak with my friend/artist. She is a big fan of the Holtzbert, but I told her that doing this causes a change in the dynamic of the four Ghostbusters and focusing on that would put aside what we're here to see, and that is these funny people reacting to the supernatural and horror.
GBPaulRivera wrote:@ *referring to bold*DarkSpectre wrote:Holtzmann works best as an androgynous character. Because the focus isn't about her sexuality but on personality, quirks and mind. And I know there are alot of "Holtzbert" shippers out there but the film established that Erin is verrrrrrry hetero. ("You're like a law suit waiting to happen"). Besides I think it would ruin the dynamic if suddenly 2 of the characters where in a relationship. It changes the motivations and tilts the group dynamic. The cartoons sort of explored this with Egon/Janine and Eduardo/Kylie but neither dominated the characters journeys or got in the way of story telling. Despite being the son of a gay man, I'm glad that Sony didn't allow Feig to out Holtzmann. Because all it would've done was add more fuel to the fire that was the shitstorm of 2016 and on a surface level, who cares? Does the fact that she's LGBTQ make her better at catching ghosts and building the equipment? Nope. Same goes if she was hetero. I've always gotten the impression (moreso in the comics than the film) that Yates and Holtzmann just didn't care about relationships. Yates' science was more important to her and Holtzmann is a "Peter Pan" type character that also has no interest or doesn't care about relationships. Her love is her equipment and ideas.YES. Thank you. With my comic series, this was a decision I had to speak with my friend/artist. She is a big fan of the Holtzbert, but I told her that doing this causes a change in the dynamic of the four Ghostbusters and focusing on that would put aside what we're here to see, and that is these funny people reacting to the supernatural and horror.
It's not odd for their to be romance. Sure Egon and Janine, but I think Eduardo and Kylie are a greater example. While Janine is a Ghostbuster, she's got a different dynamic to each character than being a part of the main team who are actively going out more often than her. Kylie and Eduardo, on the other hand do go out together to bust ghosts constantly, and so the romance while connecting doing the same thing really helps them develop. Yet, the fact is Holtzmann and Gilbert don't have that equilibrium because, as you said one is very hetero and one is homosexual, there is no natural buzz between them. It's more a Fan desire to see that, than the characters themselves. Also, I agree that Yates' is of that classic character type where there work and research are their true loves. Holtzmann too, but I'm sure she still blushes and finds certain ladies beautiful to want to date, but she is very much into her work too.
What I would like to see is Holtzmann reacting to men that Erin date since she could still have that underlying crush OR have formed a sisterly platonic connection with Erin.
Commander_Jim wrote: ↑December 6th, 2016, 3:45 pm I was only talking about the demographic changing thing because thats one of the most common responses to anyone who doesnt support this movie, that little girls like it (though thats something Im yet to actually witness in real life or anywhere other than Paul Feigs twitter feed) and we should be so ashamed for not, as you put it, "sharing our toys". Its all part of the same "You're a fanboy/misgynist if you dont like this movie" rhetoric.Okay Jim, I've got something to show you that disproves the bullcaca you just spewed:
Azurial wrote: ↑December 28th, 2018, 3:54 pmGhostbusters has always been "inclusive". No one told anyone they couldn't be a Ghostbuster, anywhere, in the history of the IP, fan made franchises, or anything. Just because you don't see someone who looks like you on the screen doesn't mean you cant imagine yourself right there with them. That's what the imagination is for. It's why we go see movies - they feed that imagination. They give us an escape so we CAN go on that adventure with the characters on screen.
Azurial wrote: ↑December 28th, 2018, 5:28 pm Why does anything have to be equal? We live in a world where things aren't fair. It's the nature of life. One day you can get up and have the best day ever, the next a plane could just fall on your head. Things are random. Doesn't mean people should try to idealize the world, but make the best of what life offers in the little time we have on this planet.With respect, remarks analogous to that have been made for decades in response to people asking for things to be a bit more reflective of the current status quo. While the original film isn't outwardly excluding to some fans, it may not be as easily identifiable as some who aren't white or male. The 2016 film, for all it's flaws, gives female fans greater flexibility. Now, they don't have to dress up as a gender-flipped version of one of the 1984 Ghostbusters. They can be one of the 2016 Ghostbusters if they want to.
Azurial wrote: ↑December 28th, 2018, 5:40 pm Again, why does anything have to be equal? You're sidestepping the question posed. Why focus on something secondary when it serves no purpose other to stir the pot?It only stirs the pot when somebody's got a problem with it.
Azurial wrote: ↑December 28th, 2018, 6:25 pm It was tainted by the battlecry to make everything fair.Respectfuly, no. It was tainted by a body of fans who got up in arms over the fact the new characters were women. Some of them were so steadfastly opposed to the decision that they went out of their way to make vile remarks about the director, actresses, and make horrendous remarks about kids in a children's hospital.
Kingpin wrote: ↑December 28th, 2018, 7:02 pm With respect, remarks analogous to that have been made for decades in response to people asking for things to be a bit more reflective of the current status quo. While the original film isn't outwardly excluding to some fans, it may not be as easily identifiable as some who aren't white or male. The 2016 film, for all it's flaws, gives female fans greater flexibility. Now, they don't have to dress up as a gender-flipped version of one of the 1984 Ghostbusters. They can be one of the 2016 Ghostbusters if they want to.I don't think we're on the same page, Kingpin. The point I was trying to get across was that Ghostbusters has always been entertainment first and foremost and never once focused on the secondary characteristics of the characters. Whatever push back from the film, we were all smeared with the same label because of that small group of people, fans or not, had issue with the casting choices simply for being female. The argument for exclusivity/inclusivity ends when a movie becomes a prop and thats when it becomes pot-stirring.
We acknowledge that not everything in life is fair or equal, but representation matters, be it women, people of colour, people who are LGBTQ+, or who aren't able-bodied. We're not trying to idealize the world, just make it more reflective of how diverse reality actually is.
...
Respectfuly, no. It was tainted by a body of fans who got up in arms over the fact the new characters were women. Some of them were so steadfastly opposed to the decision that they went out of their way to make vile remarks about the director, actresses, and make horrendous remarks about kids in a children's hospital.
It wasn't tainted by a "battlecry to make everything fair", it was tainted by gatekeeping "fans" who didn't like a creative decision.
Azurial wrote: ↑December 28th, 2018, 7:44 pm The point I was trying to make is that no one was excluded by the originals either.I agree with your other points, but this is simply not true for the reasons already given. (Winston in marketing and script rewrites amd Janines change of character in the sequel). This is not the fault of the film, but of the times. (The same way smoking was normal and now frowned upon). Things evolve.
Sav C wrote: ↑January 4th, 2019, 12:42 amSpeaking anecdotally, one character I significantly relate to due to race and gender is Rocky Balboa. Typically Hollywood portrays Italians as mafiosos, which doesn't bother me so much, but I can't relate to them. While it's all for naught if the movie sucks, a fantastic movie like Rocky, which has a positive Italian lead, is very easy to be inspired by and to relate to (on a more superficial basis than intellect). What I'm saying is that lack of representation, so long as the movie is not going out of its way to be exclusive, will not typically break a film; however, proper representation is really important, as it makes it much easier for people of different backgrounds to relate to a movie, and feel positive about themselves.@ *referring to bold*
Hopefully that's not nonsense, as I am a bit tired.
Alphagaia wrote: ↑December 29th, 2018, 12:38 amMy beef with ATC wasn't the movie. I liked it. I knew some female fans that got caught in the cross hairs of the "cause." So I kind of took it personally when Paul chose to escalate things rather then ask the feminazi's to take a chill pill. It was just unfortunate that ATC came out during an already heated election cycle. The Uber-Fem's got pretty vicious.Azurial wrote: ↑December 28th, 2018, 7:44 pm The point I was trying to make is that no one was excluded by the originals either.I agree with your other points, but this is simply not true for the reasons already given. (Winston in marketing and script rewrites amd Janines change of character in the sequel). This is not the fault of the film, but of the times. (The same way smoking was normal and now frowned upon). Things evolve.
Any new movie, sequel or no, will divide, and while this particulair divide was really bad for a number of reasons, mainly because of how social media works, I think we did learn from it, and have grown from it. Yeah we did lose some fans along the way, mostly the trolling kind, but as a fanbase we understand diversity a bit better.
*NormalGamer* wrote: ↑January 4th, 2019, 1:40 amOops, yeah, I think I knew that distinction. Still, I think my message is still unchanged: I find it even easier to relate to Italian males in movies than just typical white males, and I'm convinced that by having female Ghostbusters, there was a near certainty that there were women who had an easier connecting to the Ghostbusters franchise.Sav C wrote: ↑January 4th, 2019, 12:42 amSpeaking anecdotally, one character I significantly relate to due to race and gender is Rocky Balboa. Typically Hollywood portrays Italians as mafiosos, which doesn't bother me so much, but I can't relate to them. While it's all for naught if the movie sucks, a fantastic movie like Rocky, which has a positive Italian lead, is very easy to be inspired by and to relate to (on a more superficial basis than intellect). What I'm saying is that lack of representation, so long as the movie is not going out of its way to be exclusive, will not typically break a film; however, proper representation is really important, as it makes it much easier for people of different backgrounds to relate to a movie, and feel positive about themselves.@ *referring to bold*
Hopefully that's not nonsense, as I am a bit tired.
Actually, Italian is more of a 'Nationality' and not a race; Nationality is based on what country you're from or born in.
timeware wrote: ↑January 4th, 2019, 8:17 amSo I kind of took it personally when Paul chose to escalate things rather then ask the feminazi's to take a chill pill. It was just unfortunate that ATC came out during an already heated election cycle. The Uber-Fem's got pretty vicious.You can't really blame them when you use language like that.
timeware wrote: ↑January 4th, 2019, 9:11 am Al Bundy was my role model for years.Al's a role model to us all.
Kingpin wrote:I second this, Kingpin.timeware wrote: ↑January 4th, 2019, 8:17 amSo I kind of took it personally when Paul chose to escalate things rather then ask the feminazi's to take a chill pill. It was just unfortunate that ATC came out during an already heated election cycle. The Uber-Fem's got pretty vicious.You can't really blame them when you use language like that.
timeware wrote:There are different kinds of feminists out there. To rope them all into one category would be more insulting I think. I'm referring to the groups that take hating men to almost a kind of religion.Those types of "feminists" are in the intellectual minority and are pretty easy to recognize as extremists. True feminists would not tolerate hate based on gender prejudices.
Kingpin wrote:Then go with "extremist", there's no chance for confusion with that one, nor do you trivialise the actual nazis with the trendy and inaccurate "feminazi".I also second this, by the way. There are actual nazis out there, right now, that we should be concerned about.