- July 24th, 2016, 9:56 am#4873713
More comic book movies is probably the last thing I want in any case, lol.
"You forgot the first rule of fanatics. When you become obsessed with the enemy...you become the enemy."
Scum wrote:Not painting everyone with the same brush, but that's been how society has worked since the beginning of time.Except society has changed considerably since human beings first started to develop social groups and orders. We weren't the dominant life-form on this planet at the beginning, and being killed by something bigger, meaner and faster than you was an almost every-day fact of life.
Scum wrote:This is why women and ONLY women can carry a child, give birth and nurse a child. It's a scientific fact.I feel the need to point out that in the Seahorse species, it's actually the male that gives birth to the young.
Scum wrote:I'm sure the men of such eras weren't questioning why they couldn't do the specialized things only women could do.On subjects not related to Ghostbusters I've done a bit of reading up on Native American culture - present in the culture of aboriginal North Americans were individuals who are nowadays referred to as "two spirit" (to simplify, individuals who embodied traits - and roles - of both male and female members of the tribe they were a part of).
Scum wrote:GB16 is almost promoting socialism.Wait... what?
Scum wrote:Not once do we see the gb's charge for their services, and the movie ends with them getting full funding from the government.Abby, and eventually Erin's approach through the film is very much "we have to prove our field is a legitimate science", they did what they did regardless of pursuing money because vindicating their theories and field was the more important endgame - I imagine Ray and Egon might've had a similar approach if they had someone other than Peter taking the lead - he had poorer prospects to fall onto than they did after getting kicked out of Columbia, so his best chance for survival, and to make some money off of the newly-discovered field of investigation they'd stumbled onto, was to turn it into a money-making business.
Alphagaia wrote:Of course it matters. What kind of question is that? It is explicitly being said that he instigated it, which is a lie.
Does it matter if he or one of his followers started it? He chimed in numerous times and certainly did not stop it. He is just one of the many people banned for this that allowed it to continue.
TheDreamMaster wrote: Got a link to this? Not saying I don't believe you, but last I read he was behind it, but I guess other info could've changed that.I don't have anything on hand. I was there as it unfolded, unlike any of the people who reported on it. I am not sure how I am supposed to prove a negative and supply a link or screenshot showing that he didn't start it. The burden of proof is on the people that claim he did.
Kingpin wrote:While I will agree that several of the most prominent male characters are written poorly (Mayor Bradley, Rowan, the tour guide, the Manager of the Stonebrook etc), there are some within the secondary tier who aren't problematic at all: Ed Mulgrave (Historian of the Aldrich Mansion), the graffiti artist, the cop interviewing team.We respect each others difference of opinion when it comes to the "anti-male" vibe, which is fine. We're obviously not going to change each others minds, which is also fine.
So while there is a problem with some of the male characters being badly written, I didn't get a "anti-man" vibe, other than very briefly in the "safety lights" bit, and I'm guilty as charged at also finding that a little amusing.Scum wrote:Not painting everyone with the same brush, but that's been how society has worked since the beginning of time.Except society has changed considerably since human beings first started to develop social groups and orders. We weren't the dominant life-form on this planet at the beginning, and being killed by something bigger, meaner and faster than you was an almost every-day fact of life.
Nowadays though, we have the luxury and the ability of being able to evolve out of those primeval roles our far-flung ancestors first developed. Men don't have to be the hunter/killer/providers anymore, and women don't have to stay home to raise the next generation.Scum wrote:This is why women and ONLY women can carry a child, give birth and nurse a child. It's a scientific fact.I feel the need to point out that in the Seahorse species, it's actually the male that gives birth to the young.Scum wrote:I'm sure the men of such eras weren't questioning why they couldn't do the specialized things only women could do.On subjects not related to Ghostbusters I've done a bit of reading up on Native American culture - present in the culture of aboriginal North Americans were individuals who are nowadays referred to as "two spirit" (to simplify, individuals who embodied traits - and roles - of both male and female members of the tribe they were a part of).
It's generally considered that these two spirit individuals would today fall under the spectrum of the LGBTQ community, but it's interesting to see that the Native Americans not only had roles for these traditional gender convention-breaking individuals, but in some cases they were revered.
Like with some of the arguments that have been made about LGBTQ relationships and same-sex marriage, while it can be said that the roles played by men and women have become the most commonplace that we're familiar with because they're the ones that have been repeatedly shown to us as being the norm, and the "accepted" roles... there's a lot about some cultures we know very little about, and if the traditional man/woman, hunter/provider/mother roles hadn't become so strongly reinforced over several centuries/millennia, who's to say how gender roles could've evolved?Scum wrote:GB16 is almost promoting socialism.Wait... what?Scum wrote:Not once do we see the gb's charge for their services, and the movie ends with them getting full funding from the government.Abby, and eventually Erin's approach through the film is very much "we have to prove our field is a legitimate science", they did what they did regardless of pursuing money because vindicating their theories and field was the more important endgame - I imagine Ray and Egon might've had a similar approach if they had someone other than Peter taking the lead - he had poorer prospects to fall onto than they did after getting kicked out of Columbia, so his best chance for survival, and to make some money off of the newly-discovered field of investigation they'd stumbled onto, was to turn it into a money-making business.
Ron Daniels wrote:He retweeted obviously fake screen caps from Leslie's account making extremely off color remarks. If you want to read them, you can find them here:http://fusion.net/story/327103/leslie-j ... er-racism/"obviously fake" is rather subjective. While i know it's a really weak argument, it's still true. How often do you see people on FB and Twitter sharing fake articles and photo shopped images?
The reason why he was banned is not because of this one isolated incident. He has a history of violating twitter's terms of service. Moreover, there was a significant increase in the number of offensive tweets sent to Leslie after Milo's tweets. I'm sure you noticed, because I did when it happened.
Regardless of whether Milo did anything beyond post those faked tweets, he had violated the terms of service by simply posting those. The additional trouble caused by many of his followers targeting Leslie after Milo's tweets was only superfluous justification for him to be permanently banned.
Your analogy regarding being banned from here is an oversimplification of the issues. A better analogy is, "Would I be banned if I jumped in and posted fake screenshots of something homophobic another user posted and joined a thread bashing that person?" The answer is yes. If you don't want to be lumped in with the gang, don't join the gang.
Scum wrote:We are so disconnected from our food that people view hunters as villainsWell, those hunters I view as villians are either those who hunt for their own personal glory, or who are so unrepentantly cruel to the creatures they're hunting (participants of the U.K.'s fox hunts, those who hunt and kill rhinos, tigers, giraffes etc.)
Scum wrote:That's actually extremely interesting about the Native Americans, but, that's one cultureOne culture, and there may've been more, but the information pertaining to them has been lost to history - we can't say something similar hadn't happened elsewhere in the world in the history of humanity, the only way we could rule it out were if we had time travel.
Scum wrote:it does, in a way, promote big government.Not very well, the main representative is a bit of an idiot, and his aide is a bit two-faced and unpleasant.
Scum wrote:How often do you see people on FB and Twitter sharing fake articles and photo shopped images?It'll depend on their motivation, I recall a public meeting in relation to Planned Parenthood where a graph was purported to suggest the rise of abortions thanks to Planned Parenthood, as it turned out, the graph was a fabrication, with the source, a notable anti-abortion website, listed clearly on it, so if someone is motivated enough to demonise someone, they will fake something to pursue their goal.
Scum wrote:Also, who do you think gets more harassment on Twitter. Leslie Jones, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or police officers in general? Just saying.This isn't a competition over who gets the most abuse, but the issue of someone apparently stirring racially-motivated abuse.
"obviously fake" is rather subjective. While i know it's a really weak argument, it's still true. How often do you see people on FB and Twitter sharing fake articles and photo shopped images?One of the images actually shows the delete text suggesting the person posting the image created the image. Arguably, Milo created the image. Regardless, Twitter's rules--incorporated into the terms of service--provides:
So your admitting he was banned based more on his previous violations?
When you actually look at the article you posted, the only person CLEARLY inciting anything is ACTUALLY Leslie! Specifically "Exposing them, hope ya'll go after them like they going after me". While the sentiment is nice, she's inciting people to harass other people. Isn't that why Milo was supposedly banned?
Also, Twitters terms of service are extremely vague.
Also, who do you think gets more harassment on Twitter. Leslie Jones, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or police officers in general? Just saying.
Impersonation: You may not impersonate others through the Twitter service in a manner that is intended to or does mislead, confuse, or deceive others.His tweets posting fake screenshots run afoul of the Impersonation rule because it was intended to mislead, confuse, or deceive others and succeeded in doing so.
Kingpin wrote:I agree, those types of "hunters" are the biggest scum of the earth. The problem is, much similarly to the "criticism of GB ATC = misogynist neo-nazi obese basement dwellers", the general public seems to view ALL hunters as gutless trophy hunters.Scum wrote:We are so disconnected from our food that people view hunters as villainsWell, those hunters I view as villians are either those who hunt for their own personal glory, or who are so unrepentantly cruel to the creatures they're hunting (participants of the U.K.'s fox hunts, those who hunt and kill rhinos, tigers, giraffes etc.)Scum wrote:That's actually extremely interesting about the Native Americans, but, that's one cultureOne culture, and there may've been more, but the information pertaining to them has been lost to history - we can't say something similar hadn't happened elsewhere in the world in the history of humanity, the only way we could rule it out were if we had time travel.Scum wrote:it does, in a way, promote big government.Not very well, the main representative is a bit of an idiot, and his aide is a bit two-faced and unpleasant.Scum wrote:How often do you see people on FB and Twitter sharing fake articles and photo shopped images?It'll depend on their motivation, I recall a public meeting in relation to Planned Parenthood where a graph was purported to suggest the rise of abortions thanks to Planned Parenthood, as it turned out, the graph was a fabrication, with the source, a notable anti-abortion website, listed clearly on it, so if someone is motivated enough to demonise someone, they will fake something to pursue their goal.Scum wrote:Also, who do you think gets more harassment on Twitter. Leslie Jones, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or police officers in general? Just saying.This isn't a competition over who gets the most abuse, but the issue of someone apparently stirring racially-motivated abuse.
Ron Daniels wrote:Absolutely, Twitter is privately owned, therefore they have the right to ban whoever they want. And thank you, I appreciate the fact that we can ALL have a civil conversation here and not insult and berate each other. Just because our opinions differ from one another, doesn't mean either side of our particular debate are bad or evil people."obviously fake" is rather subjective. While i know it's a really weak argument, it's still true. How often do you see people on FB and Twitter sharing fake articles and photo shopped images?One of the images actually shows the delete text suggesting the person posting the image created the image. Arguably, Milo created the image. Regardless, Twitter's rules--incorporated into the terms of service--provides:
So your admitting he was banned based more on his previous violations?
When you actually look at the article you posted, the only person CLEARLY inciting anything is ACTUALLY Leslie! Specifically "Exposing them, hope ya'll go after them like they going after me". While the sentiment is nice, she's inciting people to harass other people. Isn't that why Milo was supposedly banned?
Also, Twitters terms of service are extremely vague.
Also, who do you think gets more harassment on Twitter. Leslie Jones, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or police officers in general? Just saying.Impersonation: You may not impersonate others through the Twitter service in a manner that is intended to or does mislead, confuse, or deceive others.His tweets posting fake screenshots run afoul of the Impersonation rule because it was intended to mislead, confuse, or deceive others and succeeded in doing so.
I get you think Milo was done wrong. You are entitled to an opinion. He broke the rules. He was banned for breaking the rules. If you feel others should be banned for their behavior, the best way to address those issues is by filing reports on those tweets because that is the only way Twitter will realistically review the tweet and the account holder.
Scum wrote:Lee FW wrote:wow, I've avoided reading his review but I think it says more about him than the film. He really does come across as an odious little man.This is such a weak argument. Growing up in my neighborhood there were 7 of us, 4 males and 3 females. I'll never forget, I was always the Ghostbuster (venkman), my best friend Dom was always Donatello, Manho (joe) was always ultra-man (I know wtf lol), Kenny would usually volunteer to be the bad guy because he was a year older and always taller than all of us. Rachel was always Rainbow Brite, Stephanie was always Buffy (as the movie had just come out and she was OBSESSED), and lastly, the other Rachel was always Ripley (even though her parents wouldn't let her watch Alien or Aliens (we were like 10)). But she knew how badass Ripley was from word of mouth, I guess.
On the other end of the spectrum I read this piece that Paul Feig retweeted and it really hit me, as I had the same experience during the Times Square battle too of being taken back to being 7 and playing Ghostbusters in the school yard, only it's interesting to read it coming from a ladies perspective of what it meant to play ghostbusters at that age
https://medium.com/@deer.erin/why-shoul ... .t0hc24rgp
Also my partner came out of the cinema saying "I really wish I had that film as a kid" and myself as one of those kids at the time that relegated the girls to playing Janine or April O'neil (or the last boy to pick characters if there were't any willing girls to join in) I really hope this does something to help the balance of awesome characters for kids of both genders.
Now, obviously we weren't ALWAYS those particular characters (Although I was always either Venkman or Michelangelo), but from what my feeble mind can remember, those were usually who we were. It's also worth mentioning that the girls would sometimes be female members of the X-men.
I guess we were way ahead of our time in terms of "cross overs", but we used to have a blast pretending what interactions between Buffy and the Ghostbusters would be like. We were more focused on "who's your favorite character, OK! You can be him/her" than we were on "we're playing Ninja Turtles or Ghostbusters today" And, I have to add... Ripley HATED Venkman, as I was really good at RPing Venkmans womanizing qualities. I was punched in the stomach and kicked in the nuts countless times for hitting on Ripley. Ahhh, back when kids could police themselves. Not once did I go home crying to mommy that Rachel beat me up again haha.
My point is, there have always been strong females in movies, perhaps not to the extent we see now (hunger games, new ghostbusters, force awakens, etc). But to say that girls were always "stuck" being Janine or April is just weak.
I'm sorry if as children you couldn't think outside of the box.
featofstrength wrote:been seeing this one posted around facebook over the last week:I would love for this Dear Erin lady to read my above quoted statement and tell me the girls from my neighborhood growing up didn't have heroes. Why did she never ask (why can't Janine be a Ghostbuster today). Childhood = Imagination. At least mine did. Apparently we really were way ahead of our time.
https://medium.com/@deer.erin/why-shoul ... .a02su9cnx
Too little, too late...
featofstrength wrote:been seeing this one posted around facebook over the last week:My two cents, if you didn't actually see the movie, then don't get mad when you're asked to play one of the more minor roles.
https://medium.com/@deer.erin/why-shoul ... .a02su9cnx
Scum wrote:Also, what's wrong with celebrating a beautiful woman and/or a woman's beautiful body?I personally don't think that there is anything wrong with celebrating a beautiful woman. I love me a beautiful woman as much as the next guy or gal. I think the issue is that a woman's beauty or physical appearance is generally the primary or only thing being celebrated. Yes, men and women are biologically different and in most cases better suited for different things. The problem is that men are constantly portrayed in a multitude of ways in media (smart, stupid, masculine, feminine, hero, villain, strong, weak, etc). Women more often than not are damsels or eye candy.
J10kmn wrote:Full disclosure: Didn't read the full article, only skimmed it.I read the whole article, I suggest whenever you get a chance to read the whole article, it's a good'n.Scum wrote:Also, what's wrong with celebrating a beautiful woman and/or a woman's beautiful body?I personally don't think that there is anything wrong with celebrating a beautiful woman. I love me a beautiful woman as much as the next guy or gal. I think the issue is that a woman's beauty or physical appearance is generally the primary or only thing being celebrated. Yes, men and women are biologically different and in most cases better suited for different things. The problem is that men are constantly portrayed in a multitude of ways in media (smart, stupid, masculine, feminine, hero, villain, strong, weak, etc). Women more often than not are damsels or eye candy.
I'm not going to sit here and act like there are no examples of empowered female characters, pretending they don't exist doesn't help the discussion but actually hurts it. But a handful of examples of empowered female characters doesn't equate to the hundreds of male examples (in a wide variety of shapes and sizes). I'm not saying we need to replace male leads with female leads, I'm not saying we need to bash men to lift women up, I'm just saying that there isn't anything wrong with women being portrayed in media in a multitude of different ways that don't fall back on their physical appearance.
Scum wrote:I read the whole article, I suggest whenever you get a chance to read the whole article, it's a good'n.It totally is the same kind of argument, albeit on a slightly more focused scale. I don't think that there is anything wrong with the Dwayne Johnson type of hero, but I do think that there is room for other types of heroes just like I think there is room for women. I'm a 5'5 160lbs Hispanic and as it turns out we're not all maids, criminals, Spanish only speaking foreigners, or George Lopez.
I'm with you 100%. You know, this got me thinking, though...
Wouldn't there be a case for a man, such as myself, to demand equality in a similar way? I stand a 5'6, and weigh in at a staggering 145lbs. I am a pretty average skinny white boy. Why is it that just about every male hero is some Dwayne Johnson looking character? WHERE ARE MY SKINNY WHITE BOY HEROES!?!? And sure, there are a "handful" of heroic characters that aren't these gigantic freaks of nature, but... isn't it the same kind of argument?
Couldn't these "unattainable" characters of beauty, for either sex just be considered "eye candy"?
J10kmn wrote:I'm pretty sure as a form of art, film making can be used as a form of expression for anything the creator wants.Depends what purpose you have though doesn't it? If Hollywood started making pro-war films would everyone like that?
J10kmn wrote:I personally don't think that there is anything wrong with celebrating a beautiful woman. I love me a beautiful woman as much as the next guy or gal. I think the issue is that a woman's beauty or physical appearance is generally the primary or only thing being celebrated. Yes, men and women are biologically different and in most cases better suited for different things. The problem is that men are constantly portrayed in a multitude of ways in media (smart, stupid, masculine, feminine, hero, villain, strong, weak, etc). Women more often than not are damsels or eye candy.Not quite. Compare the ratio of good movies featuring males to female ones and it's about level. Quantity doesn't count, quality does.
JurorNo.2 wrote:In what way did that agenda "come first" in the movie? Where was the big feminist lecture?Look back at the Sony leaks. Pascal and Feig wanted to put forward their own feminist views into Ghostbusters. All they did was take an existing properly and add their values. There was no creativity behind this. It's like me saying "we need to have a porn movie, great now we've decided that we need to come up with a story". Screenwriting doesn't work like that. There was no excuse for such a lazy, cynical way they went about this. I mean come on, Feig never even intended to make the movie originally. If Pascal had sent him on his way as he wanted he would have made another film with female leads. The man is incapable of writing a film about men. Don't believe me? Here, take a read of this:
pferreira1983 wrote:Regardless if people like it or not, if someone wants to use a film to artistically express a pro-war stance then they can ... because its ART. Just because YOU value story and character over everything else does not mean that someone can't make a film for other reasons. I'm not saying you have to like it, I'm just saying you can't stop them.J10kmn wrote:I'm pretty sure as a form of art, film making can be used as a form of expression for anything the creator wants.Depends what purpose you have though doesn't it? If Hollywood started making pro-war films would everyone like that?
pferreira1983 wrote:Not quite. Compare the ratio of good movies featuring males to female ones and it's about level. Quantity doesn't count, quality does.I don't understand your argument here. The quality of a movie doesn't play at all into the representation of a gender.
J10kmn wrote: Regardless if people like it or not, if someone wants to use a film to artistically express a pro-war stance then they can ... because its ART. Just because YOU value story and character over everything else does not mean that someone can't make a film for other reasons. I'm not saying you have to like it, I'm just saying you can't stop them.Yeah you're right. The sad truth.
J10kmn wrote:I don't understand your argument here. The quality of a movie doesn't play at all into the representation of a gender.Well you want obviously a well represented female done right and in a good movie. That's what I mean.
pferreira1983 wrote:J10kmn wrote:And just to be clear, most of the time I'm right there with you wanting good story and characters.
Regardless if people like it or not, if someone wants to use a film to artistically express a pro-war stance then they can ... because its ART. Just because YOU value story and character over everything else does not mean that someone can't make a film for other reasons. I'm not saying you have to like it, I'm just saying you can't stop them.
Yeah you're right. The sad truth.
pferreira1983 wrote:That's what I thought you meant. I just wanted to be sure. In a perfect world, absolutely I'd want both men and women done right and in good movies. Unfortunately, not all movies are good and unfortunately not all bad movies contain purely bad representation.J10kmn wrote:I don't understand your argument here. The quality of a movie doesn't play at all into the representation of a gender.Well you want obviously a well represented female done right and in a good movie. That's what I mean.
pferreira1983 wrote: Pascal and Feig wanted to put forward their own feminist views into Ghostbusters.Again, what are the views presented in the movie? I'm not interested in behind the scenes gossip, I'm interested in the final film.
JurorNo.2 wrote:The entire basis of the movie IS feminism. If it had been an even ratio of male to female, the argument would hold absolutely no water. But, four exclusively female leads, is a feminist "girl power" message, in and of itself.pferreira1983 wrote: Pascal and Feig wanted to put forward their own feminist views into Ghostbusters.Again, what are the views presented in the movie? I'm not interested in behind the scenes gossip, I'm interested in the final film.
Scum wrote: But, four exclusively female leads, is a feminist "girl power" message, in and of itself.IMO, that's barely a blip of an agenda.
JurorNo.2 wrote:When compared to TFA, our lead is A (one) female, but has a strong supporting cast of males. THAT is a small blip of an agenda. If Finn and Poe were women, I promise you, people would be having the same conversation on Star Wars forums.Scum wrote: But, four exclusively female leads, is a feminist "girl power" message, in and of itself.IMO, that's barely a blip of an agenda.
Scum wrote:If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong but I recall Feig not wanting to do it at first and then only agreeing once they settled on reboot with female led cast. He feels comfortable working with women, he always works with women to push equality. That is a feminist agenda (not that that's a bad thing). It wasn't coincidental but I don't think the man is an evil genius out to ruin Ghostbusters for men everywhere and plant the feminist flag on our moon either.JurorNo.2 wrote:When compared to TFA, our lead is A (one) female, but has a strong supporting cast of males. THAT is a small blip of an agenda. If Finn and Poe were women, I promise you, people would be having the same conversation on Star Wars forums.
IMO, that's barely a blip of an agenda.
Perhaps it's just a difference of an opinion and a difference of the programming inside of our heads (upbringing, political leanings, life experiance, etc).
I suppose the real question here is... Was the selection of four female leads completely based around a feminist agenda? Or was the selection of four females leads a coincidence?
Do you believe this movie didn't calculate every risk, calculate every move? The attention to detail in terms of east eggs and technology was most certainly calculated. What's to say the placement of four women as the leads wasn't a calculated finely tuned vehicle to push... something bigger?
SpaceBallz wrote:The man wanted to do a complete reboot/remake with all women to push "equality" (even though men are mostly presented in a negative way in his films) in Hollywood. He didn't want the original creators to interfere with his vision and got pissed when the official Ghostbusters twitter account deleted a tweet promoting Hilary Clinton to be president.Hmm, making it a reboot had nothing to do with Gender equality, nor does his wish to elevate from a straw man to Ivan (which almost all approached directors had a problem with).
His goals are pretty evident. Just a shame Ghostbusters got caught in the middle and was used as a vehicle to push it.
Alphagaia wrote:Cha-Chow.SpaceBallz wrote:The man wanted to do a complete reboot/remake with all women to push "equality" (even though men are mostly presented in a negative way in his films) in Hollywood. He didn't want the original creators to interfere with his vision and got pissed when the official Ghostbusters twitter account deleted a tweet promoting Hilary Clinton to be president.Hmm, making it a reboot had nothing to do with Gender equality, nor does his wish to elevate from a straw man to Ivan (which almost all approached directors had a problem with).
His goals are pretty evident. Just a shame Ghostbusters got caught in the middle and was used as a vehicle to push it.
Could you provide evidence only men are presented in a negative way in his movies? Because while I do see some people acting like dum dumbs, it does not seem to be gender specific.
Feig being pissed about a removed tweet is news to me as wel. Do you have a link?
The Feigmeister wrote:“This is the first I’m hearing about this but I guarantee that none of us — producers or filmmakers — would have taken this tweet down,” Feig told the outlet on Friday. “We are pro-woman and all about smashing the glass ceiling and we support the message of this deleted tweet. And I personally am very much pro-Hillary.”Now I shall wait for the spin on this to be crafted.
Or if you bought the access pack you get them inst[…]
Now that we at SAGB have actually got through our […]