Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4871839
4/10 is actually not too bad coming from what you wrote in your review... not slamming it, you have every right to state your opinion after actually watching the movie... I just don't get where people are getting the "anti-male" stuff from...

I do agree when you say it seems like the movie was cut several times over, there was a lot of pacing issues...
twmedford23 liked this
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4871840
pyhasanon wrote:4/10 is actually not too bad coming from what you wrote in your review... not slamming it, you have every right to state your opinion after actually watching the movie... I just don't get where people are getting the "anti-male" stuff from...

I do agree when you say it seems like the movie was cut several times over, there was a lot of pacing issues...
I also didn't agree with:
This Post Contains Spoilers
By Jangonate
#4871841
For the life of me can't get the anti male thing. Everybody, but the Ghostbusters were assholes, just like the first two films.

Pacing was my one big complaint, too. Big moments were sometimes followed by slow set up. I also wanted just one more bust. Still lived it. Need to see it again!
Sav C, Lee FW, JurorNo.2 liked this
By scythemantis
#4871843
I'd like every single person who has called this movie "anti male" to please stop and answer the following question sincerely:

Have you ever watched a movie with a primarily male cast of heroes, a female villain, any use of women for sex appeal, and thought to yourself that the movie was "anti women?"

Because it seems to me like NOBODY calling this movie ant-male is anyone who ever gave a crap if a movie was misogynistic or not. You're calling a film "anti male" just for reversing the gender on roles you accept in every single other movie. Thousands of them. For decades.

I've never even once seen a reviewer cry "anti maleness" over a crotch-hit UNTIL this movie, and it's transparently obvious they're just pretending it offends them because this movie was lauded by some as feminist. Because of that, some reviewers are looking waaaay too deep into something as unimportant as shooting a ghost in its groin. Since when did they care about that in any comedy before now?
twmedford23, Alphagaia, JurorNo.2 and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By pyhasanon
#4871848
SpaceBallz wrote:
This Post Contains Spoilers
Hmmm... That's a good point, I'll have to check that out the next time I watch it, but I can see how that can seem forced...
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4871851
scythemantis wrote:I'd like every single person who has called this movie "anti male" to please stop and answer the following question sincerely:

Have you ever watched a movie with a primarily male cast of heroes, a female villain, any use of women for sex appeal, and thought to yourself that the movie was "anti women?"

Because it seems to me like NOBODY calling this movie ant-male is anyone who ever gave a crap if a movie was misogynistic or not. You're calling a film "anti male" just for reversing the gender on roles you accept in every single other movie. Thousands of them. For decades.

I've never even once seen a reviewer cry "anti maleness" over a crotch-hit UNTIL this movie, and it's transparently obvious they're just pretending it offends them because this movie was lauded by some as feminist. Because of that, some reviewers are looking waaaay too deep into something as unimportant as shooting a ghost in its groin. Since when did they care about that in any comedy before now?
So reversing the roles for an issue that Feig is apparently trying to correct makes it okay? He's not correcting it, he's reversing it. It's not equality. As soon as Kevin appears on screen he gets objectified and gets hired because of the way he looks, obviously not because of his intellect. "Okay guys, it's time men get objectified and be portrayed as helpless idiots for a few decades!" seems to be all some of you have when it comes to this issue and it ain't right. The reason why this is getting pointed out is because it's becoming blatantly obvious in Feig's films, and this film has been the center of attention for the better part of the last two years to social commentary on sexism.
Last edited by SpaceBallz on July 15th, 2016, 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Scum, neilfro, pferreira1983 and 3 others liked this
By TheDreamMaster
#4871852
SpaceBallz wrote:
pyhasanon wrote:4/10 is actually not too bad coming from what you wrote in your review... not slamming it, you have every right to state your opinion after actually watching the movie... I just don't get where people are getting the "anti-male" stuff from...

I do agree when you say it seems like the movie was cut several times over, there was a lot of pacing issues...
I also didn't agree with:
This Post Contains Spoilers
I sort of agree with the spoilered bit, but
This Post Contains Spoilers
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By WhoaFoogles
#4871856
SpaceBallz wrote:"Okay guys, it's time men get objectified and be portrayed as helpless idiots for a few decades!" seems to be all some of you have when it comes to this issue and it ain't right.
Literally no one here has suggested that.

This (perceived) shoe on the other foot seems to have rustled your jimmies pretty hard, though. That says more about you than it does this movie's nonexistent anti-male agenda.

Edit: Aww, SpaceBallz gave me a big ol' thumbs down.
Edit2: And so did EddieSpenser and kevinj319 <3
Last edited by WhoaFoogles on July 17th, 2016, 2:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
JurorNo.2, Razorgeist liked this
By Scum
#4871857
scythemantis wrote:I'd like every single person who has called this movie "anti male" to please stop and answer the following question sincerely:

Have you ever watched a movie with a primarily male cast of heroes, a female villain, any use of women for sex appeal, and thought to yourself that the movie was "anti women?"

Because it seems to me like NOBODY calling this movie ant-male is anyone who ever gave a crap if a movie was misogynistic or not. You're calling a film "anti male" just for reversing the gender on roles you accept in every single other movie. Thousands of them. For decades.

I've never even once seen a reviewer cry "anti maleness" over a crotch-hit UNTIL this movie, and it's transparently obvious they're just pretending it offends them because this movie was lauded by some as feminist. Because of that, some reviewers are looking waaaay too deep into something as unimportant as shooting a ghost in its groin. Since when did they care about that in any comedy before now?
The original Ghostbusters didn't portray any of the females are helpless or idiotic. Quite honestly, the only person in the original who is portrayed as being helpless is Luis. Janine is portrayed as almost a working class stiff, and Dana is probably the most "successful" (for lack of a better term) of any major character in the movie.

The only part of the original that could be considered anti-female is the character of Venkman, but the scales are balanced by him being proven to be a fraud and the least knowledgeable of the team, with the exception of Winston.

I agree completely with Spaceballz on his point about the "anti-male" angle. Though, it doesn't really bother me, it's crazy that so many people can't see it for some reason. Kevin being a bimbo, the
This Post Contains Spoilers
, the
This Post Contains Spoilers
, the
This Post Contains Spoilers
. And I'm sure I'm leaving a few out.

Equality means EQUALITY. When someone is objectified, male or female, equality doesn't exist. Like I said, none of it offends me, but it's clearly there.

I still loved the movie and plan on seeing it again, but there was a CLEAR tone set pretty early on that wanted to empower women so much, it came at the expense of making men look like idiotic fools.
By Scum
#4871858
And sorry... grammar is not on my side today lol
By wishtheend
#4871864
I just feel the need to address the "perceived" anti male gripe.

The girl Venkman is testing ESP on: dumb blonde
Dana is the helpless client turned overtly sexualized hell hound (groped by demons on the way there)
The girl at Louis' party: dumb blonde
Janine goes from almost asexual bookworm in GB1 to horn ball in GB2 for Louis?
The whole bathroom scene in GB2 was to get a somewhat undressed Dana shot (absolutely not needed for the scene)
Even Gozer, is referred to as a nimble minx

Regardless of how you feel men are portrayed in GB16, there is no embracing of women in the original films to be anything more the pretty eye candy, the object of sexual desire or to be the assistant to the boys. Some will try to blame it on "the 80s were a different time mannn" but that's not the case. I'm not implying the people making the film did these things intentionally but it's a reflection of culture and how women are seen and treated.

Fast forward to the new movie, the only character who I felt was purposefully a joke was Kevin but it was done with the right kind of humor and didn't bother me at all. None of the other male characters I felt were undermined as men, nor played any different than those actors in other films (Michael McDonald, the delivery guy, the mayor, Rowan etc).

So it seems blow jobs by ghosts, demons groping a woman, Peter being borderline pervy with Dana (drugging her), Gyno jokes in GB2 - all of this is totally okay. But there's a shot to the crotch gag and people suddenly are attacked? I ended up at a bar after the movie last night with my wife and ran into a few other couples there. The main response I got is that the lady viewers were happy to see that GB16 does make a point to address the typical tropes and standard women have been held to and basically gives them the middle finger. Yes, there is that element of girl power - but it doesn't offend me as a man to see a film with that dynamic. There is a double standard between what was OK in the OG films and how now it suddenly crosses a line because it's equal on the other side. You can dish it, but you can't take it.
missboyd, Webster liked this
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4871866
wishtheend wrote:I just feel the need to address the "perceived" anti male gripe.

The girl Venkman is testing ESP on: dumb blonde
Dana is the helpless client turned overtly sexualized hell hound (groped by demons on the way there)
The girl at Louis' party: dumb blonde
Janine goes from almost asexual bookworm in GB1 to horn ball in GB2 for Louis?
The whole bathroom scene in GB2 was to get a somewhat undressed Dana shot (absolutely not needed for the scene)
Even Gozer, is referred to as a nimble minx

Regardless of how you feel men are portrayed in GB16, there is no embracing of women in the original films to be anything more the pretty eye candy, the object of sexual desire or to be the assistant to the boys. Some will try to blame it on "the 80s were a different time mannn" but that's not the case. I'm not implying the people making the film did these things intentionally but it's a reflection of culture and how women are seen and treated.

Fast forward to the new movie, the only character who I felt was purposefully a joke was Kevin but it was done with the right kind of humor and didn't bother me at all. None of the other male characters I felt were undermined as men, nor played any different than those actors in other films (Michael McDonald, the delivery guy, the mayor, Rowan etc).

So it seems blow jobs by ghosts, demons groping a woman, Peter being borderline pervy with Dana (drugging her), Gyno jokes in GB2 - all of this is totally okay. But there's a shot to the crotch gag and people suddenly are attacked? I ended up at a bar after the movie last night with my wife and ran into a few other couples there. The main response I got is that the lady viewers were happy to see that GB16 does make a point to address the typical tropes and standard women have been held to and basically gives them the middle finger. Yes, there is that element of girl power - but it doesn't offend me as a man to see a film with that dynamic. There is a double standard between what was OK in the OG films and how now it suddenly crosses a line because it's equal on the other side. You can dish it, but you can't take it.
I think your missing the point. Feig's angle is that he's trying to create equality in Hollywood for women and give them stronger roles, demeaning the opposite sex doesn't help the cause. Dana is a strong character until she gets possessed, then acts out of her persona. The ghost BJ scene (that everybody runs to when it comes to these discussions) was a dream sequence. A majority of what you pointed out came from Peter, who is a woman-crazy flirtatious male (to be fair, he did swoon over Dana and fall in love). It was his character, this film does it just to do it. I don't see the "right kind of humor" displaying a male sex object that only gets hired because he looks good. ANYBODY that agrees with the reversing-roles ideal is a misogynist themselves.

Janine was a professionally dressed secretary with an attitude (and yes they gave her some sex appeal in the sequel but I'm sure the actress didn't mind), Dana was a musician that shot Peter's advances down every time he tried and even in GB2 she tries to save her baby on her own without the GBs when the time came. Those are strong female roles. People on these forums blaming the original GB films as being sexist against women to justify the message in the reboot baffles me.
Scum, neilfro, pferreira1983 and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By WhoaFoogles
#4871869
SpaceBallz wrote: People on these forums blaming the original GB films as being sexist against women to justify the message in the reboot baffles me.
This I agree with. Overthinking Ghostbusters has a good section on it.

Outside of Kevin, who is an overly-goofy caricature, nothing else in GB16 even remotely suggests an anti-man sentiment, though. I didn't even get much of a pro-women vibe from the actual film itself, aside from having the main characters be female. Maybe I was enjoying myself too much to peel back the layers and find the misandrist/feminazi message so cleverly hidden beneath the veneer of "scientists shoot lasers at ghosts."
By Scum
#4871871
SpaceBallz wrote:
wishtheend wrote:I just feel the need to address the "perceived" anti male gripe.

The girl Venkman is testing ESP on: dumb blonde
Dana is the helpless client turned overtly sexualized hell hound (groped by demons on the way there)
The girl at Louis' party: dumb blonde
Janine goes from almost asexual bookworm in GB1 to horn ball in GB2 for Louis?
The whole bathroom scene in GB2 was to get a somewhat undressed Dana shot (absolutely not needed for the scene)
Even Gozer, is referred to as a nimble minx

Regardless of how you feel men are portrayed in GB16, there is no embracing of women in the original films to be anything more the pretty eye candy, the object of sexual desire or to be the assistant to the boys. Some will try to blame it on "the 80s were a different time mannn" but that's not the case. I'm not implying the people making the film did these things intentionally but it's a reflection of culture and how women are seen and treated.

Fast forward to the new movie, the only character who I felt was purposefully a joke was Kevin but it was done with the right kind of humor and didn't bother me at all. None of the other male characters I felt were undermined as men, nor played any different than those actors in other films (Michael McDonald, the delivery guy, the mayor, Rowan etc).

So it seems blow jobs by ghosts, demons groping a woman, Peter being borderline pervy with Dana (drugging her), Gyno jokes in GB2 - all of this is totally okay. But there's a shot to the crotch gag and people suddenly are attacked? I ended up at a bar after the movie last night with my wife and ran into a few other couples there. The main response I got is that the lady viewers were happy to see that GB16 does make a point to address the typical tropes and standard women have been held to and basically gives them the middle finger. Yes, there is that element of girl power - but it doesn't offend me as a man to see a film with that dynamic. There is a double standard between what was OK in the OG films and how now it suddenly crosses a line because it's equal on the other side. You can dish it, but you can't take it.
I think your missing the point. Feig's angle is that he's trying to create equality in Hollywood for women and give them stronger roles, demeaning the opposite sex doesn't help the cause. Dana is a strong character until she gets possessed, then acts out of her persona. The ghost BJ scene (that everybody runs to when it comes to these discussions) was a dream sequence. A majority of what you pointed out came from Peter, who is a woman-crazy flirtatious male (to be fair, he did swoon over Dana and fall in love). It was his character, this film does it just to do it. I don't see the "right kind of humor" displaying a male sex object that only gets hired because he looks good. ANYBODY that agrees with the reversing-roles ideal is a misogynist themselves.

Janine was a professionally dressed secretary with an attitude (and yes they gave her some sex appeal in the sequel but I'm sure the actress didn't mind), Dana was a musician that shot Peter's advances down every time he tried and even in GB2 she tries to save her baby on her own without the GBs when the time came. Those are strong female roles. People on these forums blaming the original GB films as being sexist against women to justify the message in the reboot baffles me.
Exactly. I made it a point to say the only sexist trope in the original (I never mentioned GBII) is Venkman, as a character. Dana is a strong female throughout. And, you failed to address that the only "helpless" character in the original is Luis, who is by all accounts a man.

Janine was absolutely NOT "almost asexual" in the original. Her scene with Egon in the beginning, she's obviously hitting on him. Then, towards the end when she tells Egon "I'm afraid your gonna die" is more proof she has the hots for Egon. Perhaps it was so subtle, you missed it? If anything, Egon is the one who's the asexual bookworm in GB1.

Gozer is called a "nimble little minx" by Venkman. As I've said multiple times now, he is the only polarizing aspect in terms of misogyny in the original.

Again, I'm not talking about GBII. The sequel is a completely different monster.

And regardless of how you feel about women in GB1, in the 2016 version, there is no embracing of men to be anything more the pretty eye candy, the object of sexual desire or to be the assistant to the boys, or anything beyond being a pain in the ass. See how that works? Those are basically your words with the sexes reversed.

The ghost blowjob scene is well done and not a major plot point. And, as Spaceballz pointed out - a dream sequence. Perhaps that went over your head too? What with Ray wearing a Napolean esque outfit.

I cannot stress this enough, I'm not even close to offended. I'm looking at it from a strictly objective perception. I fight cognitive dissonance tooth and nail, to look at things with as little agenda as I possibly can.

Spaceballz and I's point still stands. The definition of equality is - "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities."

Perhaps the best way to debate this subject is to take everyone out of the picture and compare JUST the receptionists from GB1 to GB16. Janine knows how the phones work, threatens to quit, shows true excitement about the first call, seems to have a pretty good idea of what the business is all about, even goes as far as to say "you promised you'd hire more help", implying her intelligence. Also, she goes to bat for the GB's when Peck shows up with the police. Kevin on the other hand doesn't know how phones work, moves into the HQ, ignores the phones (doesn't even know how the phones work), has absolutely no clue about what GBs actually do, hell, he doesn't even know the difference between the basic senses (covers his eyes instead of his ears in response to loud noises). I could go on, but I think you get the point.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4871889
Two things:
1:I'm happy equality is being talked about, even if some think Feig is hurting the process instead of helping.
2: we have a thread called gender equality. Why not talk about it there instead of the thread about reviews?
By Lee FW
#4871906
SpaceBallz wrote:
scythemantis wrote:I'd like every single person who has called this movie "anti male" to please stop and answer the following question sincerely:

Have you ever watched a movie with a primarily male cast of heroes, a female villain, any use of women for sex appeal, and thought to yourself that the movie was "anti women?"

Because it seems to me like NOBODY calling this movie ant-male is anyone who ever gave a crap if a movie was misogynistic or not. You're calling a film "anti male" just for reversing the gender on roles you accept in every single other movie. Thousands of them. For decades.

I've never even once seen a reviewer cry "anti maleness" over a crotch-hit UNTIL this movie, and it's transparently obvious they're just pretending it offends them because this movie was lauded by some as feminist. Because of that, some reviewers are looking waaaay too deep into something as unimportant as shooting a ghost in its groin. Since when did they care about that in any comedy before now?
So reversing the roles for an issue that Feig is apparently trying to correct makes it okay? He's not correcting it, he's reversing it. It's not equality. As soon as Kevin appears on screen he gets objectified and gets hired because of the way he looks, obviously not because of his intellect. "Okay guys, it's time men get objectified and be portrayed as helpless idiots for a few decades!" seems to be all some of you have when it comes to this issue and it ain't right. The reason why this is getting pointed out is because it's becoming blatantly obvious in Feig's films, and this film has been the center of attention for the better part of the last two years to social commentary on sexism.
I think part of his brand of equality is the just the concept of if men can do it and no one bats an eyelid so can women.

Maybe true equality would be a 50 50 split but when male lead films still outnumber female, putting women up front and centre is the way to get there and address that imbalance.

There's plenty of films that can be labelled problematic and sexist if you try, the original Ghostbusters for one. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy them. Venkman is a pretty odious, lecherous character but we all love him all the same. Feig has never condemned that film or said the film was sexist or misogynistic because of him (or at least publicly as far as I know). I also don't ever think he's condemned a film because purely because its leads are all men. I just see this as him giving the ladies the same toy box to play with.

Lets face it, the world is never gonna be short of films where men are the leads and women are all ass holes or idiots, and not all of them are gonna be bad films, some will be awesome I'm sure but I guarantee the same criticisms that this GB got won't be fired at them.
Kingpin liked this
By Raystantz Italy
#4871907
Ghost Corps is having a new live action movie being written with a mixed team.
By gold333
#4871909
Why is everyone so naive ?

This movie is positioned as a feminism tentpole icon, of course it's going to hate on men. That is Feig's calling card in all his movies. Look at Spy.

It's the -in- thing to demean weaker men nowadays. Get with the program already!
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4871911
gold333 wrote:Why is everyone so naive ?

This movie is positioned as a feminism tentpole icon, of course it's going to hate on men. That is Feig's calling card in all his movies. Look at Spy.

It's the -in- thing to demean weaker men nowadays. Get with the program already!
Your manhood shall bend to his will.
User avatar
By pyhasanon
#4871912
Or, maybe we don't care and just want to enjoy a movie that we genuinely loved and enjoyed instead of nitpicking and being "offended" by the "man hate" that was apparently in the movie (that we didn't notice anyways)...
Lee FW, lozbloke, Alphagaia and 3 others liked this
By Lee FW
#4871914
pyhasanon wrote:Or, maybe we don't care and just want to enjoy a movie that we genuinely loved and enjoyed instead of nitpicking and being "offended" by the "man hate" that was apparently in the movie (that we didn't notice anyways)...
Can't like this enough!

Honestly if it wasn't made the subject of a few 15 minute rants by irate you tubers I don't think anyone would've even noticed and be using it as a reason to hate the movie. As arguments go it really is clasping at thin air.

My one bit of advice going in to the movie for anyone who hast seen it but is now worried that maybe all the male characters are idiots or douches, you know what, it's ok not to get offended by them, or on their behalf. Just sit back and revel in the ridiculousness of their characters and don't overthink them, I guarantee you'll enjoy it far more that way :love:
Last edited by Lee FW on July 16th, 2016, 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
JurorNo.2 liked this
By TheDreamMaster
#4871922
Really shouldn't drag on with the point everyone else has made, but I think the man hate is really only there if you are looking for it. Given the hate surrounding this film, I have no doubt plenty of people are looking for it.

I get it, some are like "Get this man-hate out of my Ghostbusters movie", and whatever, if you think its there, then its your opinion not to like it, and that's fine. Really though how many movies have been out there that were pretty poor regarding the women in them? A summer tentpole for women is a pretty big move for a studio, and it isn't going to ruin your childhood or however it was you saw the original films that they used Ghostbusters for that. Sit back and judge it as a Ghostbusters film, and stop looking for the hidden meaning once in a while.

If you can't get over it, look at it this way: there's other projects coming out. Even if the movie does well enough for a sequel, I doubt Paul Feig attaches himself for the franchise, and someone else will likely direct the next sequel, which might set a different tone than Feig's movies. Even if he does direct, they're trying to set up a new franchise, I doubt this will be the only GB series going.
Lee FW, zeta otaku, Alphagaia and 1 others liked this
By Scum
#4871924
pyhasanon wrote:Or, maybe we don't care and just want to enjoy a movie that we genuinely loved and enjoyed instead of nitpicking and being "offended" by the "man hate" that was apparently in the movie (that we didn't notice anyways)...
Yeah at this point it's probably just best to agree to disagree. Again, I can't stress enough that I loved the movie and I'll be going back to see it again next week. I just thought I noticed something there, but, I'll admit I did kind of go in there expecting there to be a certain amount of mansogyny.

We will have years to break down and pick-apart GB16! Let's just bask in the ectoplasmic awesomeness for now!
Lee FW, Alphagaia, Kingpin liked this
#4871942
I never found the original Ghostbusters to be anti-women, but it definitely did have a "boy's club" feel to it. At no point did I think the sexual symbolism or sexual jokes in the first Ghostbusters crossed the line into inappropriate.

That being said, I never found that Ghostbusters 2016 did it either, despite having a "girl's club" feel to it. I definitely don't feel that the movie crossed the line into inappropriate.

I totally get the "its just a gender flip" argument because it very much is, but I will never understand the "anti-men" argument. If you turned any of the GBs into a man and ran the movie exactly the same then none of the context changes. Everyone is a cartoon and everyone who isn't a GB is an intolerable asshole, there are just more men supporting characters than female.
WhoaFoogles, Kingpin liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4871971
WhoaFoogles wrote:
SpaceBallz wrote: People on these forums blaming the original GB films as being sexist against women to justify the message in the reboot baffles me.
This I agree with. Overthinking Ghostbusters has a good section on it.

Outside of Kevin, who is an overly-goofy caricature, nothing else in GB16 even remotely suggests an anti-man sentiment, though. I didn't even get much of a pro-women vibe from the actual film itself, aside from having the main characters be female. Maybe I was enjoying myself too much to peel back the layers and find the misandrist/feminazi message so cleverly hidden beneath the veneer of "scientists shoot lasers at ghosts."
Yeah me neither, the mayor, Heis and Erin's dean are not sexist, dumb or evil in my opinion so when EW calls all men either dumb, evil or sexist in the movie it's simply not true.

Erin's dean
This Post Contains Spoilers
Abbie's dean
This Post Contains Spoilers
The mayor
This Post Contains Spoilers


Heis
This Post Contains Spoilers
Look if you want to see it, you can see it. Which is why others presented some examples from GB84. Not because they actually think GB84 is sexist, but simply because if you look with a certain mindset you can find it.
WhoaFoogles, Sav C liked this
#4872012
I think the way the film is cut NOW is much better for the main stream audience. This version doesn't seem to be Anti Male. Some of the later tv spots made it seem Anti Male. Like the part where Benny the Chinese delivery guy makes some kind of remark about catching a man. I am glad that was cut out of the film. I am glad Kevin's line where he says "We need to build something to fight these damn Ghosts" was cut from the final film. Kevin was still portrayed as a total moron that feels like he belongs in a Disney Channel or Nikolodeon Original Series. Chris Hemsworth shines when he is possessed, but as Kevin he just didn't feel like he was a real 3 Dimensional character. :):):)
Kingpin liked this
By pferreira1983
#4872013
Scum wrote:
Equality means EQUALITY. When someone is objectified, male or female, equality doesn't exist. Like I said, none of it offends me, but it's clearly there.

I still loved the movie and plan on seeing it again, but there was a CLEAR tone set pretty early on that wanted to empower women so much, it came at the expense of making men look like idiotic fools.
All part of Feig and Pascal's masterplan and they used Ghostbusters as their target.
By pferreira1983
#4872015
SpaceBallz wrote:
So reversing the roles for an issue that Feig is apparently trying to correct makes it okay? He's not correcting it, he's reversing it. It's not equality. As soon as Kevin appears on screen he gets objectified and gets hired because of the way he looks, obviously not because of his intellect. "Okay guys, it's time men get objectified and be portrayed as helpless idiots for a few decades!" seems to be all some of you have when it comes to this issue and it ain't right. The reason why this is getting pointed out is because it's becoming blatantly obvious in Feig's films, and this film has been the center of attention for the better part of the last two years to social commentary on sexism.
I find it amazing how Feig and Sony keep trying to calm us down saying the film isn't sexist yet it's managed to offend not just males but females as well. It's THAT obvious. The whole thing is a debacle to be honest. If Feig and Dippold had more sense they could have empowered women in a better way. All they did was the exact opposite? Saving the day by shooting the villain in the crotch? That's empowerment? :roll:
#4872046
One part that got me thinking anti male was at the end with weaver's cameo. Especially when they are talking about the containment unit not having warning lights and the blond says warning lights are for dudes. I took that as a hit at the original when Ray says light is green, trap is clean part. Or the fact that the original containment unit had certain warning lights. To me it was like oh we're girls. We don't need warning lights like a man would have installed. Just my opinion tho.
Lefty Throckmorton liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

I'd really like to see the new t-shirt unlocks t[…]

Hey and welcome

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]