[SpaceBallz]

Some men objectify women.
Some women objectify men.
Some women objectify women.
Some men objectify men.

Happy, now?

Oh now your just being silly.

[Kingpin]

No sillier than how some of the discussions have been going. It may be it is a bit silly, but I honestly needed to vent some frustration.

That being said though, just as there are plenty of men (not all men mind you, but plenty, as strip clubs are plenty proof of) who objectify women, and plenty of women who objectify men, and plenty of gay guys who objectify both straight and gay guys, and gay women who objectify both straight and other gay women, I may've worded it in a silly way, but it does happen (heck, I'm guilty of it).

We as a species have a lot of road ahead of us in fixing this (and other) problems, but the first step in fixing a problem is admitting we have one.

Greater equality for all is not a bad thing. Some of the ways it's implemented aren't perfect, some ways might even have more negative points than positive, and some may take their time to bear fruit, but one day, and I have hope it might happen in my lifetime, people, regardless of gender, will have the same opportunities for employment.

And maybe before the turn of the next millennium, some of the other discrepancies and inequalities some of us experience will have been ironed out as well. We like to call what we have civilisation, there's no harm in trying to make it a bit more "civil".

[savintheday]

I like boobs.

[skankerzero]

I love arguing about things we have zero control over. So productive.

Let's all go make classic packs instead!

Why does control matter in this instance?

Because the reality is this is the movie we're getting whether any one person is pro or anti reboot. While discussion is good, there's a certain point where discussions become circular and anti productive. Especially if you can't act upon the results of the discussion.

[d_osborn]

Because the reality is this is the movie we're getting whether any one person is pro or anti reboot. While discussion is good, there's a certain point where discussions become circular and anti productive. Especially if you can't act upon the results of the discussion.

There's a new big-budget Ghostbusters movie about to hit. Good movie or not, I'll have fun anticipating it. I'll be there opening night with a belly full of pizza/beer and a huge grin on my face. If it sucks, I'll laugh about how bad it is. If it's good, I'll laugh about how funny it is. If I'm bored, I'll come here and laugh at the hater posts. It's up to you to find the silver lining and not be miserable.

[featofstrength]

There's too many men..er...too many people making too many problems. And not much love to go round.
Can't you see this is a land of confusion? This is the world we live in and these are the hands we're given.
Use them and remake classic movies to make it a place worth living in.

[GhstbstrLMLIII]

If Paul Feig created this same movie without using the Ghostbusters property, I would be much less peeved about it. It would've been more like a homage than a bastardization.

And I wonder if we've just uncovered one of the main cruxes of the issue some folks have with the reboot - if the whole thing were the same, but it wasn't called "Ghostbusters" and the car wasn't called "Ecto-1", and the equipment weren't "Proton Packs" and "Ghost Traps", would people have as much of a problem?

To directly answer your question, Ben - for me personally that is the main crux. I think rebooting it was the lazy way out. If you are going to throw out everything that's come before, and push your political agenda, fine. Just don't call it "Ghostbusters." Heck, calling it "Ghost Smashers" would be more of an homage like Egon's Pompadour mentioned. The only reason to call it "Ghostbusters" is for the instant name recognition. The problem is - the new movie wants to completely scrap everything that made the brand what it is in the first place (except when it can exploit it in a misleading manner like in the trailer).

If this was a continuation - building on the established franchise - I wouldn't have near the problem with it. Many people here have suggested ways to make that work and I won't rehash here, suffice to say he could have kept his team and most of the equipment he wanted to use anyway, but made it work "in universe."

I get that this doesn't delete the originals, the cartoons, etc, that drew my attention as a kid, and my appreciation of increased as I grew older. I get that I don't have to consider this movie at all for my internal "canon." But Sony/Feig using the name and logo because of the "brand recognition" to push something that overlooks the originals bugs me. And is something that I have been and am sure I will be continued to be asked about when I wear my GB apparel.

[Slimered]

I don't really see why the gender matters personally. It makes no difference to me.

[Alphagaia]

And I wonder if we've just uncovered one of the main cruxes of the issue some folks have with the reboot - if the whole thing were the same, but it wasn't called "Ghostbusters" and the car wasn't called "Ecto-1", and the equipment weren't "Proton Packs" and "Ghost Traps", would people have as much of a problem?

To directly answer your question, Ben - for me personally that is the main crux. I think rebooting it was the lazy way out. If you are going to throw out everything that's come before, and push your political agenda, fine. Just don't call it "Ghostbusters." Heck, calling it "Ghost Smashers" would be more of an homage like Egon's Pompadour mentioned. The only reason to call it "Ghostbusters" is for the instant name recognition. The problem is - the new movie wants to completely scrap everything that made the brand what it is in the first place (except when it can exploit it in a misleading manner like in the trailer).

If this was a continuation - building on the established franchise - I wouldn't have near the problem with it. Many people here have suggested ways to make that work and I won't rehash here, suffice to say he could have kept his team and most of the equipment he wanted to use anyway, but made it work "in universe."

I get that this doesn't delete the originals, the cartoons, etc, that drew my attention as a kid, and my appreciation of increased as I grew older. I get that I don't have to consider this movie at all for my internal "canon." But Sony/Feig using the name and logo because of the "brand recognition" to push something that overlooks the originals bugs me. And is something that I have been and am sure I will be continued to be asked about when I wear my GB apparel.

Why does one call a reboot a lazy way out, though? It's not that hard to come up with a continuation either. It's just a preference. Rebooting allows for more focus on parts the orginal just glanced over, like setting up the franchise and how to actually catch and contain a ghost.

In fact, the story could as well been a continuation if you take away the experimenting and the ghost never existed before premise. I don't think its lazy as Feig himself wanted to explore the ghost catching element. In the original, they got it right in one go, and this time it will take a whole movie for them to establish the franchise.

For the past 25+ years we have had movies, books, cartoons, comics, games all continuing (and deforming) the canon we know and love. I get that any ghostbuster fan would love to see more of the old gang or rookies to don the original packs, and we will still have many iterations where that does happen, but I don't mind a deviation to see something fresh.

[Slimered]

To directly answer your question, Ben - for me personally that is the main crux. I think rebooting it was the lazy way out. If you are going to throw out everything that's come before, and push your political agenda, fine. Just don't call it "Ghostbusters." Heck, calling it "Ghost Smashers" would be more of an homage like Egon's Pompadour mentioned. The only reason to call it "Ghostbusters" is for the instant name recognition. The problem is - the new movie wants to completely scrap everything that made the brand what it is in the first place (except when it can exploit it in a misleading manner like in the trailer).

If this was a continuation - building on the established franchise - I wouldn't have near the problem with it. Many people here have suggested ways to make that work and I won't rehash here, suffice to say he could have kept his team and most of the equipment he wanted to use anyway, but made it work "in universe."

I get that this doesn't delete the originals, the cartoons, etc, that drew my attention as a kid, and my appreciation of increased as I grew older. I get that I don't have to consider this movie at all for my internal "canon." But Sony/Feig using the name and logo because of the "brand recognition" to push something that overlooks the originals bugs me. And is something that I have been and am sure I will be continued to be asked about when I wear my GB apparel.

Why does one call a reboot a lazy way out, though? It's not that hard to come up with a continuation either. It's just a preference. Rebooting allows for more focus on parts the orginal just glanced over, like setting up the franchise and how to actually catch and contain a ghost.

In fact, the story could as well been a continuation if you take away the experimenting and the ghost never existed before premise. I don't think its lazy as Feig himself wanted to explore the ghost catching element. In the original, they got it right in one go, and this time it will take a whole movie for them to establish the franchise.

For the past 25+ years we have had movies, books, cartoons, comics, games all continuing (and deforming) the canon we know and love. I get that any ghostbuster fan would love to see more of the old gang or rookies to don the original packs, and we will still have many iterations where that does happen, but I don't mind a deviation to see something fresh.

I think it would be much lazier to remake the original Ghostbusters shot-for-shot with the same characters played by the likes of Ben Stiller and Jonah Hill.

[pferreira1983]

what creative reason story wise does there need to be for an all female team?

What creative reason story-wise does there need to be a all-male team?

There must be a reason, not a political agenda involved. If the reason you're making a movie and slapping a franchise name on it is to sell an agenda rather than a creative reason you don't have an actual movie, just a message. Now I don't know about you but I want to see a Ghostbusters film that can do maybe both or just be a movie without a message. An all-female team could have been an excellent idea had it not come from a political agenda. Movies made by committee doesn't always work and this is a case where it definitely hasn't. The story should matter first, not one's beliefs in using the film to change the Hollywood system.

[pferreira1983]

Sure but wouldn't make it any less a disgrace towards male representation would it? If you think how women portrayed in that movie is what women should aspire to I can't help you.

Since you agreed gender does not play into it, could you provide some examples how badly the characters are portrayed in that movie? I mean, they are meant to have character flaws, but that's the journey they have to overcome.

Dude the presentation of women in Bridemaids is appalling the same way the representation of men in The Hangover is terrible. Bridemaids isn't progress. It's going the complete opposite way.

[pferreira1983]

It's a gimmick and a sharade. Like Hollywood deeming the Ghostbusters franchise small enough and giving it to girls in a kind of, here we are done, you can play with this now.

It's small/safe enough to give to girls. The real important stuff like, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Avengers, etc. will still be men in charge with women in supporting roles thank you very much, kind of way.

In terms of progress through women working on GB'16 behind the camera as well as infront, this isn't the way to achieve it.

We might aswell ban all males; actors, staff, production crew, etc. from all Hollywood productions for the next 12 years just to make the infographics gender balance 50-50% again. Why not? Just stop going to see anything with any male in it that comes out of Hollywood. Apart from if the male is in a subservient or sex object role.

They did it to women for years, let's get 'em back! That'll teach those evil men!!

See where that thinking takes us?

I loved the movie Gravity, a movie where gender plays no part in its making, where it's unnoticed. You don't even consciously realize you are looking at the male or female lead in a scene. Gender is moot, as both are represented.


GB '16 is like forcing someone to watch womens tennis when I feel like watching mixed doubles, because women have suffered men (who are all evil) too long!

Exactly, an eye for an eye doesn't help at all.

[pferreira1983]

Man. A lot of these threads are currently about the same thing.

Tell me about it, and I have to review each one for any required moderation. :/

Sorry I can be a pain Kingpin.

[Alphagaia]

Since you agreed gender does not play into it, could you provide some examples how badly the characters are portrayed in that movie? I mean, they are meant to have character flaws, but that's the journey they have to overcome.

Dude the presentation of women in Bridemaids is appalling the same way the representation of men in The Hangover is terrible. Bridemaids isn't progress. It's going the complete opposite way.

Could you explain you reasoning why you think this instead of just stating it matter of factly?

[JurorNo.2]

An all-female team could have been an excellent idea had it not come from a political agenda.

In your mind, what would a movie look like that had an all-female team, but no agenda?

[pferreira1983]

Dude the presentation of women in Bridemaids is appalling the same way the representation of men in The Hangover is terrible. Bridemaids isn't progress. It's going the complete opposite way.

Could you explain you reasoning why you think this instead of just stating it matter of factly?

The film speaks for itself.

[pferreira1983]

An all-female team could have been an excellent idea had it not come from a political agenda.

In your mind, what would a movie look like that had an all-female team, but no agenda?

Good question. I think if Ivan Reitman had a bigger hand in the creation of the film and the film was tied to the originals instead of being a reboot, plus tell Feig, Pascal and Kate Diplodo or whatever her name is to stay away from the creation of this movie...it can have worked.

[JurorNo.2]

In your mind, what would a movie look like that had an all-female team, but no agenda?

Good question. I think if Ivan Reitman had a bigger hand in the creation of the film and the film was tied to the originals instead of being a reboot, plus tell Feig, Pascal and Kate Diplodo or whatever her name is to stay away from the creation of this movie...it can have worked.

Well that sounds like the answer to, "What could have made the movie better?" But that's different from what would make the movie not look like it has an agenda.

[pferreira1983]

Good question. I think if Ivan Reitman had a bigger hand in the creation of the film and the film was tied to the originals instead of being a reboot, plus tell Feig, Pascal and Kate Diplodo or whatever her name is to stay away from the creation of this movie...it can have worked.

Well that sounds like the answer to, "What could have made the movie better?" But that's different from what would make the movie not look like it has an agenda.

My idea is to take the agenda out, simples. What that leaves you with are people behind it that only want to push a decent script.

[Alphagaia]

Could you explain you reasoning why you think this instead of just stating it matter of factly?

The film speaks for itself.

No, it does not. If you cannot provide examples your argument stands weak as we cannot understand your line of thinking.

[JurorNo.2]

Well that sounds like the answer to, "What could have made the movie better?" But that's different from what would make the movie not look like it has an agenda.

My idea is to take the agenda out, simples. What that leaves you with are people behind it that only want to push a decent script.

OK I think I understand, it's the affirmative action bit that you don't like, correct? I can understand that. It doesn't necessarily mean the product won't be good, but at the same time it's not an ideal practice.

[Kingpin]

If the reason you're making a movie and slapping a franchise name on it is to sell an agenda rather than a creative reason you don't have an actual movie, just a message.

Except the "selling an agenda" bit came up after the film had already started going into pre-production, rather than it being the basis for the film coming to be. I'd be willing to concede more to the point that the reboot is a "political agenda" if the aim of making the whole cast female had been around since day one, but it wasn't.

An all-female team could have been an excellent idea had it not come from a political agenda.

So if Feig had simply kept his mouth shut over his wanting to help get more women into the industry, more people wouldn't have a problem with it?

The story should matter first, not one's beliefs in using the film to change the Hollywood system.

I agree, the story should matter more... however, in relation to that, as a lot of the story is still being kept under wraps, it's not completely unforgiveable that because there's a deficit of story details, other things gain prominence by filling the vacuum.

Also, would there be as much focus on the "political agenda" rather than the story if people who didn't like it didn't keep going on about it? It's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy, the fans who don't like the "political agenda" and talk about it will then keep finding it being talked about more than the film's story.

Sorry I can be a pain Kingpin.

It's okay, I just wish some folks (on both sides of the debate) would remember that we're all Ghostbusters fans. We don't have to be like Team Stark and Team Cap, or the North versus the South over a movie.

[DarkSpectre]

Sadly the whole civil war aspect has been in play pretty much since the first stills started popping up. TeamVenkman! Lol

[JurorNo.2]

Well we're all TeamVenkman, I don't think anyone is solely TeamReboot.

[Alphagaia]

#teamsony.

Did I do it right?

[JurorNo.2]

I don't want to align with a studio myself. I don't know, it's too hard to tell with just a trailer.

[DarkSpectre]

#teamsony.

Did I do it right?

Hell yeah you did!

[Alphagaia]

I don't want to align with a studio myself. I don't know, it's too hard to tell with just a trailer.

Hehe, it's meant as a joke as DarkSpectre was convinced I'm a Sonyplant as I've quite actively questioned and turned some of the facts derived from the leaks to show a potential different side of the coin.

[JurorNo.2]

I don't want to align with a studio myself. I don't know, it's too hard to tell with just a trailer.

Hehe, it's meant as a joke as DarkSpectre was convinced I'm a Sonyplant as I've quite active questioned and turned some of the facts derived from the leaks to show a potential different side of the coin.

Oh duh, right, lol. The whole "shill" thing. What's funny is I've never been accused of being a Disney shill, even though I actually do own Disney stock.