Ghostbusters 2016

[Crabs]

How would swapping the genders be any less creative than leaving them all the same?

Nothing about this movie is creative. It shouldn't have been made in the first place. The gender-swap is an obvious gimmick, but some people are acting like that makes it a novel concept.

Like I said, it didn't look good to me, but that doesn't mean I can't see the sexism. You didn't really address the point about the conspicuous difference in responses.

Suppose we can talk about the objective quality of the film, you know it's possible for a film to be both be bad, and treated as still worse than it is because of sexism?

Besides, this movie had push back before it even released a trailer, and even after the trailer, that still means hostility from so many people who didn't see the film.

The sexism angle was way overblown to diminish any legitimate criticism. Fans were criticizing this film long before the trailer was released because rumors and details were being revealed during its production. There was an absurd musical/dance sequence that eventually got cut because of the backlash, though apparently it's still in the credits. It became clear early on that Paul Feig neither understood nor respected the Ghostbusters property. This movie is simply a "Paul Feig film" with the Ghostbusters name slapped on it.

If you want to talk about sexism though, Paul Feig took his male-bashing a step further and had Melissa McCarthy's character shoot the iconic GB logo in the groin with a proton stream. Imagine if the original Ghostbusters shot Zuul in the tits or her vag and they made a joke about that. The feminist uproar would be furious.

 

[93JC]

Like any critic,Roeper is pretty much hit and miss on his opinions. This is a guy that gave thumbs down to Fellowship of the Ring.

And everything he said about that film at the time—it has great special effects and production design but it's too long, there are so many characters being introduced at the same time that their development suffers and the audience doesn't really give a crap about any of them, and it's "bogged down under the weight of all those mystical speeches"—is absolutely true. He admitted he was not a fan of the books, and Roger Ebert pointed out to him that dedicated fans of the books wouldn't care about the faults Roeper found because they'd be too engrossed with seeing a faithful adaptation on screen to care; Ebert was right, and Roeper admitted as much. Roeper later changed his mind about the characterization after seeing the rest of the trilogy of films, knowing it eventually all led somewhere, but at the time, in a vacuum, he was right.

I agree with Roeper's assessment wholeheartedly, especially as someone who got bored reading "The Hobbit" and never finished it. I've never read the "Lord of the Rings" books and have no intention to, and I have no intention of ever revisiting the films because they were, exactly as Roeper said: very pretty, very well made, but "weighed down" by a mystical backstory that doesn't resonate with me and waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

I'm glad you brought this up because it really gets to the heart of the matter of why I refuse to see this new Ghostbusters movie: I'm a fan of the original one. I have a personal list of five favourite movies; it hasn't changed since I was a teenager, and the original Ghostbusters is firmly ensconced on it. If Peter Jackson made The Lord of the Rings films a slapstick comedy full of toilet humour you'd probably be pretty cranky about it.

"a hackneyed piece of shit meant to cash in on the nostalgia", those come and go, a dime a dozen, with hardly a peep. This film generated far more noise that one typically does, and the only reason for that is people taking issue with the female cast.

Or maybe, you know, maybe it's getting a lot more "noise" because Ghostbusters was the second-highest-grossing film of 1984 (shy of Beverly Hills Cop by about $5 million; Ghostbusters II was 7th in 1989) and became culturally significant enough that the frickin' Library of Congress keeps it in the US National Film Registry? Maybe people have a problem with Sony cynically producing a reboot/sequel that trades on its namesake's reputation and the very politicized novelty of having an all-female cast, never minding the fact that regardless of the gender of the acting leads the remake/sequel film looks terrible?

But there's no ignoring this film received more resistance than it otherwise would have or probably should have because of sexism.

Sure, there are certainly people who won't like it because they're sexists, just like there are people who won't like the original for any number of stupid reasons. Crying "sexism" is also being used to deflect any other criticism, which is a shitty thing to do. There are many people out there willing to defend the film and insinuate that anyone else who criticizes it must be doing so from a sexist point of view. Because they're all women, therefore anyone who thinks the movie sucks must be sexist, right?

Like you, like this:

Generally people don't give me advanced analyses of Rotten Tomatoes scores. I assume it takes a kind of motivated reasoning for one to bother.

Don't be a coward, hiding behind insinuation. If you've got something to say then come out and say it, otherwise shut the fuck up.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Nothing about this movie is creative. It shouldn't have been made in the first place. The gender-swap is an obvious gimmick, but some people are acting like that makes it a novel concept.

So... to turn this into an actual direct answer to my question, the answer is "casting women isn't any less creative".

The sexism angle was way overblown to diminish any legitimate criticism. Fans were criticizing this film long before the trailer was released because rumors and details were being revealed during its production. There was an absurd musical/dance sequence that eventually got cut because of the backlash, though apparently it's still in the credits. It became clear early on that Paul Feig neither understood nor respected the Ghostbusters property. This movie is simply a "Paul Feig film" with the Ghostbusters name slapped on it.

There are always leaks and rumors. That's not usually justification for hating a movie so much as to make it a cause célèbre. The behavior was, as I've, excessive and extraordinary in a way that demands a particular explanation different from just any crappy nostalgic cash grab.

It's not clear why this movie, as opposed to all the others, would have a team employing such an insidious, duplicity scheme to preemptively blunt criticism. This sort of seems like the equivalent of trying to disregard so some affiliate's terrible mistake by saying "he was a plant!" "It was a false flag operation!". There was a serious sexist response, and it was because there are a lot of sincere, stupid sexists.

If you want to talk about sexism though, Paul Feig took his male-bashing a step further and had Melissa McCarthy's character shoot the iconic GB logo in the groin with a proton stream. Imagine if the original Ghostbusters shot Zuul in the tits or her vag and they made a joke about that. The feminist uproar would be furious.

Lets try a different thought experiment. What if the cast was all male and they did that gag? Would you have batted an eyelash at it? The answer is presumably no.

 

[93JC]

Imagine if the original Ghostbusters shot Zuul in the tits or her vag and they made a joke about that.

Gozer, not Zuul.


And Gozer was "whatever it wants to be".

 

[Crabs]

Gozer, not Zuul.


And Gozer was "whatever it wants to be".

Both were portrayed by women. Either/or

The point being, feminists would be an uproar.

Lets try a different thought experiment. What if the cast was all male and they did that gag? Would you have batted an eyelash at it? The answer is presumably no.

You could say the same thing about a woman hitting a woman. Would it garner the same reaction from the public if a man did it? Absolutely not. And if a man did that and it was made into a joke, it would be considered sexist/misogynistic.

 

[93JC]

Both were portrayed by women. Either/or

I presumed you meant the main antagonist, that actually did get shot at.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

And everything he said about that film at the time—it has great special effects and production design but it's too long, there are so many characters being introduced at the same time that their development suffers and the audience doesn't really give a crap about any of them, and it's "bogged down under the weight of all those mystical speeches"—is absolutely true. He admitted he was not a fan of the books, and Roger Ebert pointed out to him that dedicated fans of the books wouldn't care about the faults Roeper found because they'd be too engrossed with seeing a faithful adaptation on screen to care; Ebert was right, and Roeper admitted as much. Roeper later changed his mind about the characterization after seeing the rest of the trilogy of films, knowing it eventually all led somewhere, but at the time, in a vacuum, he was right.

I agree with Roeper's assessment wholeheartedly, especially as someone who got bored reading "The Hobbit" and never finished it. I've never read the "Lord of the Rings" books and have no intention to, and I have no intention of ever revisiting the films because they were, exactly as Roeper said: very pretty, very well made, but "weighed down" by a mystical backstory that doesn't resonate with me and waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

I'm glad you brought this up because it really gets to the heart of the matter of why I refuse to see this new Ghostbusters movie: I'm a fan of the original one. I have a personal list of five favourite movies; it hasn't changed since I was a teenager, and the original Ghostbusters is firmly ensconced on it. If Peter Jackson made The Lord of the Rings films a slapstick comedy full of toilet humour you'd probably be pretty cranky about it.[/quote[

*sigh*

I think basically because you happened to be in the minority of people who agreed with Roeper on that, you missed the point entirely.

The point is basically: Why do I care that Richard Roeper said something? So did a bunch of critics. And we're back to 78%. Some guy saying something is not a retort to 87 people including that guy saying something.

Or maybe, you know, maybe it's getting a lot more "noise" because Ghostbusters was the second-highest-grossing film of 1984 (shy of Beverly Hills Cop by about $5 million; Ghostbusters II was 7th in 1989) and became culturally significant enough that the frickin' Library of Congress keeps it in the US National Film Registry? Maybe people have a problem with Sony cynically produced a reboot/sequel that trades on its namesake's reputation and the very politicized novelty of having an all-female cast, never minding the fact that regardless of the gender of the acting leads the remake/sequel film looks terrible?

The second one wasn't even that good, and Bill Murray hated it. Never the less, ever since then, there have been talks about a third Ghostbusters, and no one seemed to care until one finally got underway with a female cast.

I find it hard to believe that there are so many people valiantly defending a classic work of art in this case. Like I said, you talking about standard stuff. And actually some reboots have lately been made of some really culturally significant stuff. You know, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc... But this one is total garbage before anyone's seen it. This one can't be any good even after reviews put it at 78%.

Sure, there are certainly people who won't like it because they're sexists, just like there are people who won't like the original for any number of stupid reasons. Crying "sexism" is also being used to deflect any other criticism, which is a shitty thing to do. There are many people out there willing to defend the film and insinuate that anyone else who criticizes it must be doing so from a sexist point of view. Because they're all women, therefore anyone who thinks the movie sucks must be sexist, right?

Yes, that has unfortunately happened sometimes. It doesn't change the sexism in the first place or that some of that degenerate behavior is a response to actual sexism.

Like you, like this:



Don't be a coward, hiding behind insinuation. If you've got something to say then come out and say it, otherwise shut the fuck up.

I didn't think I was hiding.

Motivated in that you wanted it to be bad. You don't want it to get good ratings. Perhaps due to sexism. Though, from the looks of it, it seems slightly more complicated than an immediate aversion to the female cast. More like irritation over the ensuing discussion about sexism where you are insufficiently appreciate the side complaining about sexism. Like one of those guys who interprets any talk of sexism to railroad the discussion into a monolouge about how you personally aren't a sexist.

And no, I'm clearly not one of those people. I said the it didn't look good, and I didn't like the idea, and I didn't want to see it. And I expected to be bad (78% was better than my bet). I don't care if you don't see it. I don't care if you see it and say it's bad. I do take issue with people expressing negative views about the female casting. I take issue with people trying to assert that there is no meaningful distortion coming from that (you'd fall into this category at least).

You could say the same thing about a woman hitting a woman. Would it garner the same reaction from the public if a man did it? Absolutely not. And if a man did that and it was made into a joke, it would be considered sexist/misogynistic.

Do you think that's unfair?

 

[Crabs]

And everything he said about that film at the time—it has great special effects and production design but it's too long, there are so many characters being introduced at the same time that their development suffers and the audience doesn't really give a crap about any of them, and it's "bogged down under the weight of all those mystical speeches"—is absolutely true. He admitted he was not a fan of the books, and Roger Ebert pointed out to him that dedicated fans of the books wouldn't care about the faults Roeper found because they'd be too engrossed with seeing a faithful adaptation on screen to care; Ebert was right, and Roeper admitted as much. Roeper later changed his mind about the characterization after seeing the rest of the trilogy of films, knowing it eventually all led somewhere, but at the time, in a vacuum, he was right.

I agree with Roeper's assessment wholeheartedly, especially as someone who got bored reading "The Hobbit" and never finished it. I've never read the "Lord of the Rings" books and have no intention to, and I have no intention of ever revisiting the films because they were, exactly as Roeper said: very pretty, very well made, but "weighed down" by a mystical backstory that doesn't resonate with me and waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

I'm glad you brought this up because it really gets to the heart of the matter of why I refuse to see this new Ghostbusters movie: I'm a fan of the original one. I have a personal list of five favourite movies; it hasn't changed since I was a teenager, and the original Ghostbusters is firmly ensconced on it. If Peter Jackson made The Lord of the Rings films a slapstick comedy full of toilet humour you'd probably be pretty cranky about it.[/quote[

*sigh*

I think basically because you happened to be in the minority of people who agreed with Roeper on that, you missed the point entirely.

The point is basically: Why do I care that Richard Roeper said something? So did a bunch of critics. And we're back to 78%. Some guy saying something is not a retort to 87 people including that guy saying something.



The second one wasn't even that good, and Bill Murray hated it. Never the less, ever since then, there have been talks about a third Ghostbusters, and no one seemed to care until one finally got underway with a female cast.

I find it hard to believe that there are so many people valiantly defending a classic work of art in this case. Like I said, you talking about standard stuff. And actually some reboots have lately been made of some really culturally significant stuff. You know, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc... But this one is total garbage before anyone's seen it. This one can't be any good even after reviews put it at 78%.



Yes, that has unfortunately happened sometimes. It doesn't change the sexism in the first place or that some of that degenerate behavior is a response to actual sexism.



I didn't think I was hiding.

Motivated in that you wanted it to be bad. You don't want it to get good ratings. Perhaps due to sexism. Though, from the looks of it, it seems slightly more complicated than an immediate aversion to the female cast. More like irritation over the ensuing discussion about sexism where you are insufficiently appreciate the side complaining about sexism. Like one of those guys who interprets any talk of sexism to railroad the discussion into a monolouge about how you personally aren't a sexist.

And no, I'm clearly not one of those people. I said the it didn't look good, and I didn't like the idea, and I didn't want to see it. And I expected to be bad (78% was better than my bet). I don't care if you don't see it. I don't care if you see it and say it's bad. I do take issue with people expressing negative views about the female casting. I take issue with people trying to assert that there is no meaningful distortion coming from that (you'd fall into this category at least).

Let's be honest here. Everyone knows you're a staunch feminist and if this cast wasn't female, you likely wouldn't be defending this movie at all. James Rolfe did a video explaining why this movie looks terrible (and didn't even mention the female cast) and he still got hammered with accusations of sexism from every corner of the internet. In short, if you dislike this movie for any reason you'll be labeled a misogynist.

Do you think that's unfair?

You're just going in circles. Are you denying that it was sexist/misandristc of Paul Feig to have McCarthy shoot the male ghost in the groin? Or are you denying that it would've been misogynistic had the original GB's done that to a female?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Let's be honest here.

Always am.

Everyone knows you're a staunch feminist and if this cast wasn't female, you likely wouldn't be defending this movie at all.

Oooo, you can assert what everyone thinks!

This is sort of right. I will accept the label a feminist. And I will say that there'd likely be nothing for me to have to defend if the cast were male, because people would never have said stupid sexist shit, and I don't generally get involved in arguments over art for art's sake.

James Rolfe did a video explaining why this movie looks terrible (and didn't mention the female cast at all) and he still got hammered with accusations of sexism from every corner of the internet.

If it was unfair, you can partly blame the assholes who sowed the climate of suspicion in the first place. You can also wonder why Rolfe went out of his way to do that with this and only this film, and not others, especially since he made a person out of deliberately regarding things he considered bad. That would be at least some justification for questioning his motives.

In short, you can't dislike this movie for any reason and not be labeled a misogynist.

Probably from some people. I'm not one of them. I'd also venture to guess their numbers are surpassed by people who automatically hate this movie because of the female casting or the idea that this movie has a female cast for some kind of feminist agenda (which is sort of secondary claim from the first).

You're just going in circles. Are you denying that it was sexist/misandristc of Paul Feig to have McCarthy shoot the logo ghost in the groin?

Yes, because that sort of gag is really trite and probably would have been in the movie regardless.

Or are you denying that the reverse would be considered misogynistic?

It might be. A little apples to oranges I think. It would certainly be more surprising because that's not really a thing you see much (and not for sexist reasons since hit-in-ball jokes usually seem to be in gender devoid contexts).

The point in the first place is that with the female cast involved, you've already made up your mind to read way more into everything that you would have, or probably should have.

This is the do-si-do that often happens around these controversies. Somebody says something sexist. People push back. The people who originally said something sexist now claim they are actually the ones pushing back against an aggressive feminist agenda.

 

[Crabs]

Always am.



Oooo, you can assert what everyone thinks!

This is sort of right. I will accept the label a feminist. And I will say that there'd likely be nothing for me to have to defend if the cast were male, because people would never have said stupid sexist shit, and I don't generally get involved in arguments over art for art's sake.



If it was unfair, you can partly blame the assholes who sowed the climate of suspicion in the first place. You can also wonder why Rolfe went out of his way to do that with this and only this film, and not others, especially since he made a person out of deliberately regarding things he considered bad. That would be at least some justification for questioning his motives.



Probably from some people. I'm not one of them. I'd also venture to guess their numbers are surpassed by people who automatically hate this movie because of the female casting or the idea that this movie has a female cast for some kind of feminist agenda (which is sort of secondary claim from the first).




Yes, because that sort of gag is really trite and probably would have been in the movie regardless.



It might be. A little apples to oranges I think. It would certainly be more surprising because that's not really a thing you see much (and not for sexist reasons since hit-in-ball jokes usually seem to be in gender devoid contexts).

The point in the first place is that with the female cast involved, you've already made up your mind to read way more into everything that you would have, or probably should have.

This is the do-si-do that often happens around these controversies. Somebody says something sexist. People push back. The people who originally said something sexist now claim they are actually the ones pushing back against an aggressive feminist agenda.

So James Rolfe was being sexist because he didn't mention women at all? Therefore, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

And I was correct in assuming that you don't find McCarthy shooting the main villain in the groin sexist, but had the original GB's done that to a female, it "might've been" sexist because that's different. Do you even realize how hypocritical that is?

You probably don't see the double-standard in this video either. I swear, you fucking feminazis are all the same.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

So you're jumping on the same boat? James Rolfe was being sexist BECAUSE he didn't mention women at all. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Umm. I explicitly never said those words. I never said the issue with his commentary had to do with mentioning women or not mentioning women.I said the fact that he did not make this kind of response to any other film, in spite of his whole shtick with confronting terrible media, is what raises questions. It comes back to the same nagging question, why this thing and not others? What's different about this one?

And at this point, with the climate that has been created (thanks in large part to sexists, I will keep reminding people), it would be at least naive for him to not account for that. Such is life. It might not help that he has shared screen time with some Youtube creators who are much more explicitly about decrying so-called SJWs, either. There's probably that, too.

And I was correct in assuming that you don't find Paul Feig's decision to have McCarthy shoot the logo ghost in the groin sexist, but had the original GB's done the same thing to a female, it "might've been" sexist because that's different. Do you even realize that hypocritical?

Well, you actually asked what would have been considered misogynistic, not what I thought actually was. Unless there were other contextual suggestions, I'm not sure I would consider it misogynistic myself.

But like I said, the difference also exists in how utterly generic the whole dick joke thing is, too.

You probably don't even see the double-standard in this video either.

No, I see what's wrong with that. It's sort of comparable to how people can't take men being sexually assaulted seriously. That is something that's wrong.

EDIT: You know, before there's even a response. I'm going to already give you the assignment of telling what the difference is between the video above and the joke you're complaining about in the Ghostbusters movie.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

It's over.

This story is over.

The movie came out. It had moderately good reviews. History happened. It has come and gone.

I'm sorry (but not sorry) for everyone who wanted this movie to get bad reviews more than they even wanted a good movie.

 

[93JC]

*sigh*

I think basically because you happened to be in the minority of people who agreed with Roeper on that, you missed the point entirely.

The point is basically: Why do I care that Richard Roeper said something? So did a bunch of critics. And we're back to 78%. Some guy saying something is not a retort to 87 people including that guy saying something.

*SIIIIIIIIIIGH*

You should care because he reviewed the movie without getting bogged down in the bullshit about sexism, racism, feminism, etc. He touched on it, he said "there has been controversy", and then he elaborated on why—standing completely alone, aside of all that bullshit, and on its merits alone—he believes it's (in his words) "one of the worst movies of the year for multiple other reasons".

Remember what I said about puff pieces? I'll start quoting from the most recent positive reviews aggregated on Rotten Tomatoes. See if you can figure out the common theme. (These excerpts all happen to be the very first paragraphs of the articles.)

"GHOSTBUSTERS REVIEW – AND THE MOVIE IS A GIDDY, HIGH-SPIRITED HOOT" by Luke Buckmaster — dailyreview.com.au

Much has been made of Ghostbusters returning to the big screen with a female-led cast and the retilting of the gender scales complete with Chris Hemsworth playing a himbo receptionist. According to the grapevine, diehard fanboys of the original are currently gathered in man caves cussing and moaning about feminazis taking control, in between swigs of Coke and mouthfuls of Domino’s pizza.​

"The new “Ghostbusters” delivers: It’s a cheerful exercise in feminist nostalgia — except, wait, is that possible?" by Andrew O'Hehir — Salon.com

Is Paul Feig’s “Ghostbusters” remake, supposedly shrouded in supposed controversy ever since its supposedly subversive casting was announced, an exercise in feminism or in nostalgia? If this highly entertaining summer retread proves anything, it proves that those things are not incompatible. In some respects Feig’s film is an overly dutiful and respectful homage to the 1984 hit that represented a fusion of the National Lampoon spirit with Hollywood, and is now regarded as a comedy classic. Ivan Reitman, who directed the earlier film, helped produce this one, and at this point it can’t possibly be a spoiler to tell you that Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson appear in cameo roles. (Only the Ghostbusters, sadly, could make contact with original co-writer and co-star Harold Ramis.)

But at other times, including most of its better moments, Feig’s “Ghostbusters” is a goofy, free-floating romp with an anarchic spirit of its own, a fresh set of scares and laffs and a moderate dose of girl power that is unlikely to seem confrontational to anyone beyond the most confirmed basement-dwelling Gamergate troll. (Did I just indiscriminately slime an entire subset of the male Internet population? Oops.)​

"Movie review: 'Ghostbusters' reboot is a hoot" by Katie Walsh — Tribune News Service

Much of the conversation around the gender-swapped remake of "Ghostbusters" has been protests from (mostly) male fans of the original, who don't want to see women in the roles popularized by Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson in the 1984 original. But what's the fun in re-creating a direct facsimile of a piece of art or entertainment?​

"‘Ghostbusters’ Review: ‘Bustin Will Make You Feel Good" by Matt Goldberg — collider.com

There’s no way to set Ghostbusters 2016 apart from its controversy. There’s a vocal minority who sees the original as sacred, and they view this iteration as an abomination. On one level, I can sympathize. If someone tried to remake The Graduate or The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, I would question the wisdom of that decision. Those movies are personal favorites of mine as well as undisputed classics, so remaking them can be seen as a decision made out of avarice, and I am shocked that studios are in the business of making money. And then if you change the dynamics, well then we’re off to the races. Now the film is being turned into a social statement, and heaven forbid art ever make us think about the state of society.

For the people who are opposed to Ghostbusters 2016, there’s nothing I can say that can convince you that Paul Feig’s remake has both a genuine love for the original but also tries to do something new and worthwhile. If you’re someone who’s leaving negative reviews on IMDb or Internet comments sections without having seen the film, then your mind is made up. You can come up with reasons to dismiss this positive review (“He’s part of the feminist agenda!”; “He was paid off!”; “He’s in the pocket of Big Woman!”), and I leave you to it.​

"Ghostbusters movie review: boo yeah!" by Maryann Johanson — FlickFilosopher.com

My reaction to the idea of an all-female Ghostbusters reboot? I am desperate for movies about women doing all sorts of things — including silly stuff like engaging in experimental particle physics, playing around with total protonic reversal, and saving New York City — but I would also like women to get their own stories and the opportunity to create their own iconic characters. I knew that even if this remake turned out to be completely amazing, any success would come with an asterisk.​

Notice it yet? Notice how none of them can separate their reviews from the gender bullshit? The one even starts his review off with "There’s no way to set Ghostbusters 2016 apart from its controversy." How 'bout you fucking try, Matt Goldberg of collider.com?

Do you not see the problem inherent in this? No, you don't, I know you don't because you say as much, but lets move on and I'll come back to it.

The second one wasn't even that good, and Bill Murray hated it. Never the less, ever since then, there have been talks about a third Ghostbusters, and no one seemed to care until one finally got underway with a female cast.

You didn't care about a third Ghostbusters; many people did. I did.

I find it hard to believe that there are so many people valiantly defending a classic work of art in this case. Like I said, you talking about standard stuff. And actually some reboots have lately been made of some really culturally significant stuff. You know, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc... But this one is total garbage before anyone's seen it. This one can't be any good even after reviews put it at 78%.

Really? You find it that hard to believe when the very same "reboots" you make mention of were vociferously criticized for being lame cash-ins? Are you fucking kidding me? Star Wars?! People HATED the Star Wars 'prequels'! Star Trek Into Darkness was lambasted for being a lame re-tread of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And have you not considered that all of these lame reboots and sequels have contributed to the hate for the new Ghostbusters, that maybe people are finally fed up with it all and are saying "enough's enough"?

I didn't think I was hiding.

Oh but you were. We all know what you were insinuating: I hate the movie and I've never even seen it, so I must be a sexist. You were just too much of a chicken-shit to say it in so few words. But...

Motivated in that you wanted it to be bad. You don't want it to get good ratings. Perhaps due to sexism.

… there you go. That wasn't so hard now was it?

Though, from the looks of it, it seems slightly more complicated than an immediate aversion to the female cast. More like irritation over the ensuing discussion about sexism where you are insufficiently appreciate the side complaining about sexism. Like one of those guys who interprets any talk of sexism to railroad the discussion into a monolouge about how you personally aren't a sexist.

Remember all those review excerpts from above, and how I said we'd come back to them? Let's come back to them now.

Did you notice how those piece of shit articles start off by slagging anyone who dares disagree? You probably didn't, so I'll summarize for you. Luke Buckmaster says detractors of the movie are "in man caves cussing and moaning about feminazis taking control, in between swigs of Coke and mouthfuls of Domino’s pizza." Andrew O'Hehir says it's "a moderate dose of girl power that is unlikely to seem confrontational to anyone beyond the most confirmed basement-dwelling Gamergate troll. (Did I just indiscriminately slime an entire subset of the male Internet population? Oops.)" Oops! Katie Walsh says "the conversation around [the film] has been protests from (mostly) male fans of the original, who don't want to see women in the [lead] roles". Matt Goldberg fucking shrouds himself in it, saying "You can come up with reasons to dismiss this positive review (“He’s part of the feminist agenda!”; “He was paid off!”; “He’s in the pocket of Big Woman!”), and I leave you to it."

So why the fuck do you think I feel like I have to defend myself as "not a sexist" when their narrative, and yours, paints me and anyone else as a fucking sexist for deigning to have a problem with what looks like a stupid movie that's cashing in on the reputation and name of A MOVIE THAT I'M A HUGE FAN OF!?!?

DUH! Are you that fucking dense?

I take issue with people trying to assert that there is no meaningful distortion coming from that (you'd fall into this category at least).

And I take issue with people trying to assert that any meaningful criticism of the film, coming from any man, is coming from a place of sexism or misogyny. And you didn't fall into that, you dove head first into it and bathed yourself in it like a pig in shit.

My problem with you is succinctly captured in this quote: "You don't want it to get good ratings. Perhaps due to sexism." It's a lame strawman, and you're a gutless coward for using it. It's like if I said, "You don't want to accept that there is legitimate criticism of this film. Perhaps due to pederasty."

I desperately wanted this movie to be good, and I'm profoundly sad that it's not.

 

[Beorn]

 

[Crabs]

I just want to know how many of these critics on Rotten Tomatoes are being paid by SONY to give positive reviews, like this douchebag:

For those who don’t remember, David Manning was a fake critic Sony invented to put positive review quotes on movies that weren’t really being well reviewed, such as Rob Schneider’s comedy The Animal that he called “Another Winner!”. Sony was caught doing this, sued, and actually settled out of court and gave anyone who saw a David Manning movie a $5 refund.

Fast forward to the 2016 Ghostbusters, and it looks like Sony possibly produced a positive Ghostbusters review in the light of the movie being trashed by real critics. It was posted to the “Island Arcade” YouTube channel, as well as uploaded to multiple other channels, just a few hours after the first real review went viral on the internet.

A user on the Midnight’s Edge Facebook group did some digging and they discovered this about the review and reviewer:

-The guy has never reviewed a movie before on the channel, and never mentioned Ghostbusters before this.
-The first video on the channel was posted 10 months ago. Ghostbusters began production on June 18, 2015. That means this channel was created right after the movie began production.
-The channel has averaged less than 1,000 views on any previous video.
-The channel (as of this writing) had only 348 subs, yet was invited to an official Sony screening of Ghostbusters.

They point out that it’s highly suspicious that a small and unknown YouTube channel can produce such well produced opinion just hours after a very negative review went viral and right before the official UK release of the movie. Even more suspicious? They found the LinkedIn profile of the reviewer and he describes himself as this:

“I’m an Integrated marketing professional with a strong background in public relations, convention management, and social media. I work with nonprofits to identify emerging media trends to create targeted integrated marketing campaigns for sci-fi and fantasy culture. In other words, if there were two sides to the marketing force, I would forever choose the path of the Jedi. Also, I own a Tardis.”

And here he is with the director of Ghostbusters taken from his Twitter:

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

 

[Crabs]

I just want to know how many of these critics on Rotten Tomatoes are being paid by SONY to give positive reviews, like this douchebag:

For those who don’t remember, David Manning was a fake critic Sony invented to put positive review quotes on movies that weren’t really being well reviewed, such as Rob Schneider’s comedy The Animal that he called “Another Winner!”. Sony was caught doing this, sued, and actually settled out of court and gave anyone who saw a David Manning movie a $5 refund.

Fast forward to the 2016 Ghostbusters, and it looks like Sony possibly produced a positive Ghostbusters review in the light of the movie being trashed by real critics. It was posted to the “Island Arcade” YouTube channel, as well as uploaded to multiple other channels, just a few hours after the first real review went viral on the internet.

A user on the Midnight’s Edge Facebook group did some digging and they discovered this about the review and reviewer:

-The guy has never reviewed a movie before on the channel, and never mentioned Ghostbusters before this.
-The first video on the channel was posted 10 months ago. Ghostbusters began production on June 18, 2015. That means this channel was created right after the movie began production.
-The channel has averaged less than 1,000 views on any previous video.
-The channel (as of this writing) had only 348 subs, yet was invited to an official Sony screening of Ghostbusters.

They point out that it’s highly suspicious that a small and unknown YouTube channel can produce such well produced opinion just hours after a very negative review went viral and right before the official UK release of the movie. Even more suspicious? They found the LinkedIn profile of the reviewer and he describes himself as this:

“I’m an Integrated marketing professional with a strong background in public relations, convention management, and social media. I work with nonprofits to identify emerging media trends to create targeted integrated marketing campaigns for sci-fi and fantasy culture. In other words, if there were two sides to the marketing force, I would forever choose the path of the Jedi. Also, I own a Tardis.”

And here he is with the director of Ghostbusters taken from his Twitter:

I'm lovin' the comments on his video.

 

[Bush]

That depends greatly on how he plays with them.

If he straps them to firecrackers and moves straight on to the 80s male action figures (I've been keeping in my closet for 25 years because my childhood is sacred and there's no goddamned way I'll allow it to become tainted (double entendre)), that might be acceptable.

Son, this Egon Spangler action figure belonged to me. Now I want you to have it. And you'll pass it on to your boy years from now. And so my childhood will forever be preserved.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I assume @Ghost is opposed to this movie on principle. She doesn't seem like the type to enjoy being busted.

 

[Lillia Umland]

I can't to see this movie! I practically grew up with it!