Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4873714
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.

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.
Sav C liked this
#4873733
Alphagaia wrote:
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.
Of course it matters. What kind of question is that? It is explicitly being said that he instigated it, which is a lie.

Allowed it to continue? Why is he responsible for what other people do? If another member of this site breaks the TOS, should the mods ban you?
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.

Edit: Actually, found it. See the link below. Fair warning, if you are pro-reboot, you will probably not like the tone of this article. However, it lays out the timeline and shows the tweets indicating that Milo never used Twitter to incite anyone, while showing that Leslie did. Also, some of Leslie's tweets shown in the is article are NSFW.

http://archive.is/7ErX2
Last edited by kevinj319 on July 24th, 2016, 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Scum, pferreira1983 liked this
#4873737
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/

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.
zeta otaku, Alphagaia, JurorNo.2 and 2 others liked this
#4873750
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.

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.
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.

In terms of society, I feel this is a much longer subject of debate. While it doesn't directly have to do with Ghostbusters, for us to understand where our society has come from the stone age to now, ties in. Perhaps I'll just put it this way, to an extent, as a species, we have betrayed our natural reward systems. We are so disconnected from our food that people view hunters as villains, but have no problem going to the supermarket and buying a pound of beef. Like I said, doesn't DIRECTLY have to do with Ghostbusters, but, when you use the "evolution of society" bit, you(or I) open up the conversation beyond Ghostbusters.

Yes. But we are not talking about Seahorses. We're talking about Human Beings. Although, a movie about Seahorses busting ghosts would certainly be an interesting take!

That's actually extremely interesting about the Native Americans, but, that's one culture, I was talking as a whole. The Natives were obviously a completely unique and different animal than say, the Romans. But I digress, interesting stuff for sure.

In terms of LGBTQ and "social norms" I think your leaving out a HUGE part of my original post. The biological makeup of men and women. Perhaps these social norms were put into place based on the fact that since the man could not breastfeed the child he went out and hunted. Since the woman was home with the child (because she was the only of the two that could feed it), the "cooking, cleaning, etc" role came along with it. I don't know, but to me, it makes perfect sense.

If you notice in my Socialism quote, the key word is "almost". Even if it's the U.S.'s rhetoric that Socialism is Capitalism's main enemy, the do kind of oppose each other.
The only reason I bring it up is because of the clear Capitalistic approach of the original film, and the stark contrast of the new film. As the new film may not actually promote Socialism, it does, in a way, promote big government.
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/

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.
"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?

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.
#4873759
Scum wrote:We are so disconnected from our food that people view hunters as villains
Well, 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 culture
One 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.
#4873761
"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?

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.
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:
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.
#4873779
Kingpin wrote:
Scum wrote:We are so disconnected from our food that people view hunters as villains
Well, 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 culture
One 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.
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.

But what we do have, are accounts of a plethora of other cultures that did NOT have the level of "enlightenment" the Natives had. So, on a scale or graph, we're talking a virtual 1:100 ratio.

As such with all government clone. Idiots (Trump) and two-faced (Clinton). Though, this does kind of make my point. As it doesn't promote the actual representatives very well, it's all okay at the end because those "idiots and two-faced unpleasant individuals" are going to fund the Ghostbusters. So it's fine! We get free money!

True. I can't dispute that one.

But you see, it IS kind of a competition. If the CEO of twitter cared so much about people not being abused and harassed on his product, you would see a lot more banning of the individuals who berate and harass Clinton and/or Trump and/or the general police population. And were not talking racial and sexual abuse here. We're talking bomb threats and death threats. I see them every single day on twitter. I'll gladly link some (that do, in fact, still exist) if you don't believe me.
Ron Daniels wrote:
"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?

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.
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:
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.
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.

Now if only the major news networks could take a page out of our book andstop brainwashing us into thinking "if the other side wins, WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!!"
#4874188
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.

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.
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.

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:
https://medium.com/@deer.erin/why-shoul ... .a02su9cnx

:whatever: Too little, too late...
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.

Another big female hero from our youth(s) we seem to keep forgetting about, Carmen Sandiego. Whenever I decided I was going to be Indiana Jones, one of the girls would gladly take the mantle of Carmen, and usually beat me up in the process. I used to get beat up by this one girl (as you see in my above quoted post) all the time. It wasn't some schoolyard "I like you so I kick you in the knee thing", no, she really hated me.

Princess Leia? Really? So, all of her heroic acts go into the toilet because in ROTJ she's in a bikini? REALLY? Everyone seems to totally forget about how much of a savage she was.

Ripley in Aliens, while I agree it's most certainly not a kids movie, kids find ways to watch these kinds of movies. And when people say Sigourney was just "eye candy", everyone seems to forget that was the FIRST MOVIE. She's nowhere near being an action hero in the original. She's a reluctant hero, sure she has some badass moments, but that movie is Horror/Survival. Alien(S), the second (and better IMO) Is hailed as perhaps THE GREATEST action movie of ALL TIME. At no point to they focus on Ripley's sexuality in the second movie. In fact, Vasquez is arguably the most badass of the Colonial Marines, who is... another woman!!!

Also, what's wrong with celebrating a beautiful woman and/or a woman's beautiful body?
Lefty Throckmorton liked this
#4874204
Full disclosure: Didn't read the full article, only skimmed it.
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.
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2, Sav C and 1 others liked this
#4874208
J10kmn wrote:Full disclosure: Didn't read the full article, only skimmed it.
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.
I read the whole article, I suggest whenever you get a chance to read the whole article, it's a good'n.

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 liked this
#4874216
Just because I'm a skinny white dude doesn't mean I'm a constantly bullied nerd! Stop assuming just because I look this way, means you know who I am!

See how that works?
#4874223
Scum wrote:I read the whole article, I suggest whenever you get a chance to read the whole article, it's a good'n.

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"?
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.

Unattainable standards and gender equality are definitely related, like second cousins. I think unattainable standards are a rough thing for both genders, but I think women still have it rougher in that department too. That's not to say that it devalues a man feeling that way. For some reason, people have decided that equality means taking something away from someone and giving it to the other side.
#4874633
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:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/p ... ent-449025It's not made up conspiracy. By the way I never watched the accompanying video until now. I always knew Feig was a clown but... :mrgreen:
Scum liked this
#4874646
pferreira1983 wrote:
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?
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.
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.
#4874654
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. :cry:

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.
#4874656
pferreira1983 wrote: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.
And just to be clear, most of the time I'm right there with you wanting good story and characters.
pferreira1983 wrote:
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.
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.

My point is: regardless if the movie they are in is good or bad, a male character has a better chance of being portrayed in a multitude of ways and a female character generally falls into one of a few different camps. Even with the good examples we have of good female portrayal in film, there are many many more examples of good male portrayal in good or bad movies.

Again, I'm not suggesting that we knock ourselves (men) down in order to lift up women. Men exist and need to be in movies too. I'm saying we (men) should pull women up so that they're on the same level that we are.
Sav C, pferreira1983 liked this
#4874696
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.
Alphagaia, Sav C liked this
#4874726
JurorNo.2 wrote:
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.
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.

Not saying it's wrong at all, but its there. No doubt.
pferreira1983 liked this
#4874735
JurorNo.2 wrote:
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.
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.

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 liked this
#4874748
Scum wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:
IMO, that's barely a blip of an agenda.
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.

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?
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.

I do think "feminism" gets a bad wrap due to "neo feminists" who taint the pool of people just pushing for equal rights. Anyone who think that men and women should be equal in a world where women are not, those people are feminist to a certain degree regardless of whether they outwardly support it. People who try to knock down men to bring women up are neo feminists and THAT is wrong, those people are actually hurting gender equality.

That being said, Sony handled the lead up to this movie poorly and the leaked emails didn't help either. I honestly think that when they put the pencil to the pad they didn't think a female led reboot was going to be as big of an issue as they thought. The reboot issue part was them misunderstanding what people wanted from Ghostbusters (legitimate criticism), the female led cast issue part was people being shitty and less forward thinking than they were given credit (sexism).
ghostJAR, Alphagaia, Sav C liked this
#4874759
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.

His goals are pretty evident. Just a shame Ghostbusters got caught in the middle and was used as a vehicle to push it.
#4874823
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.

His goals are pretty evident. Just a shame Ghostbusters got caught in the middle and was used as a vehicle to push it.
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).

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?
Sav C, JurorNo.2 liked this
#4874825
Alphagaia wrote:
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.

His goals are pretty evident. Just a shame Ghostbusters got caught in the middle and was used as a vehicle to push it.
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).

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?
Cha-Chow.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/ ... s-ceiling/
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.
SpaceBallz liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Or if you bought the access pack you get them inst[…]

Now that we at SAGB have actually got through our […]

Has anyone successfully transferred the pedal el[…]

I have not heard of this. On the Matty PKE, if the[…]