All-Female Ghostbusters Reboot Officially Happening
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I've found all of Feig's work criminally unfunny, so this is a major disappointment. I'm all for a fresh take on the Ghostbusters, it's a great concept that hasn't been run into the ground, and with the female cast you've got an amazing potential. However, with Feig at the helm I can't help but suspect that this will be gimmicky and derivative.
No, I feel this way, but I don't think that this is the case - I was under the impression that this is more of a sequel than a remake, so the characters will be different. If it's actually the same characters, then yeah, it's exploitative.Lightknight said:
I'm terrified that they're going to cast this person:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2313103/?ref_=tt_cl_t9
Please lord no... one of the few actors/actresses who's appearance in a film impacts my desire to watch it or not.
This is gonna suck. It was the original cast that made it work in the first place and Hollywood are terrible at writing funny female characters because their formula for it sucks.
If anything it seems like a reboot for the sake of a reboot which is amongst the worst reasons to make movie.
If anything it seems like a reboot for the sake of a reboot which is amongst the worst reasons to make movie.
She won an Oscar for best actress. Popularity is not measured by whether or not you've heard of them.8bitOwl said:
You're right, it didn't. Because I didn't call you a straight white dude.NuclearKangaroo said:
It wasn't clear, and I didn't accuse you of supporting slavery. Did you actually read what I said or did you just skim for buzzwords?
That's not what the people who opposed abolition were saying. Do you know what abolition is?
Do I need to prove a claim I'm not making? If so, why?
I wonder why you'd see more of the majority talking about something than the minority.
I mean, aside from the specific example that you personally seem to tune out and misrepresent people who disagree with you. I mean in a broader sense.
Sweet. I know black people, gays, women, etc. who are bothered by THING. Does that mean I have a right to talk, or do I need your permission specifically? Hell, I'm a half-native, bisexual transsexual. Why do I get called a social justice warrior? Do I have to get written permission from myself to talk about issues pertaining to myself?NuclearKangaroo said:
This definition of "SJW" holds about as much water as a sieve.
I meant you specifically. Popularity isn't measured by whether or not 8bitOwl has heard of them.8bitOwl said:
I could've worded that better.
yeah that "white straight male" comment just came out of nowhereZachary Amaranth said:
i dont believe you
Zachary Amaranth said:
yes you didnt accuse me of supporting slavery, you only questioned whenever i was pro-slavery or notZachary Amaranth said:
totally different
oh, now we are talking about what the anti-abolitionists say?, did you get tired of talking about video games already?Zachary Amaranth said:
because non-whites live only in america...Zachary Amaranth said:
i live in a country full of non-whites, ive lived here my entire life, whites are actually a minority here, ive yet to hear the first person complain about the skin color of the main character of a video game
yes, because if you are going to argue certain people get offended by certain thing, you should ask certain people first, i thought it was obviousZachary Amaranth said:
show me a survey and then you will have a point about why X is offensive to certain people
Of course it didn't come out of nowhere. You were complaining about pandering. I pointed out how people tend to complain about pandering only when it's not straight white dudes. Your race comes into that equation nowhere.NuclearKangaroo said:
And of course you don't believe me. You tend to work backwards from a conclusion.
It is totally different, especially since I just questioned whether you understood what the words "social justice" meant.
If you can't argue the point you just tried to make, don't try shifting things around. You were just arguing about slavery yourself. As it is, I gave an example of black people against the abolitionist movement, and you came back with "well, they should choose if they want to be slaves!" even though that wouldn't have just meant slavery for them, but any black unlucky enough to be in a slave state.
If you're just trying to distract from how utterly ridiculous your argument was, it didn't work.
And I said that where?
And you didn't specify you were talking about your country.
Ohhhh, I get it now, you're assuming I did what you did. Nope. Talking about the internet here. More specifically, gaming. Hey, didn't you just fake chastise me for shifting away from gaming? If you wanted me to talk about something else, maybe you should have specified. What your skin tone is and where you live are completely immaterial to me. But you do bring up a good point. Where exactly are you seeing these people if not in your country?
Unless you're saying that the people I know who are bothered don't count, this seems redundant and again like you're not reading what I said.
Unless it's your testimony that no people of colour, LGBT individuals, or women are offended, this is pointless and unnecessary. You've had people on this very site indicate they have a problem. Other people in the same groups not having a problem does not negate this, unless in an all-or-nothing argument.
And since you will inevitably point to the first sentence of that last paragraph, I do not think that is your belief. I am using it to illustrate how pointless what you said is. Because really, the only way it's not is if you either think nobody is bothered or you're claiming I believe everyone is. The latter's outright false, leaving only the former. And if it really is the case, you can settle it here by saying it doesn't matter unless everyone's offended.
Either way, I don't care. That people have leveled objections is sufficient. And frankly, I think trying to make this argument is a last clutch at straws.
I'm pretty skeptical of this to be honest. This is the laziest way to deal with the issue of under representation. Rather than creating strong unique female characters in their own right, it's just "hey what if these well known characters were all girls instead! Brilliant" Imagine if instead of making an all female Ghostbusters, it was instead an all black Ghostbusters team. That would get really awkward really quick for most consumers, and I feel the same way about this idea.
The second and definitely largest issue facing this idea is how the production will handle the gender angle. My guess; terribly. The writers won't be writing female characters, they'll be writing female stereotypes and exaggerate every feminine aspect to reinforce the idea to the audience. So many female centered films before this have failed for that reason and I see the same thing happening again with this.
Now, I'm not saying this shouldn't be made. Its an interesting idea and it's worth experimenting with well known properties and definitely good to at least /attempt/ to make good female characters. If nothing else, this film will be a learning experience and a good example for future films with female protagonists (Still waiting on that, Marvel. I know you can do it)
The second and definitely largest issue facing this idea is how the production will handle the gender angle. My guess; terribly. The writers won't be writing female characters, they'll be writing female stereotypes and exaggerate every feminine aspect to reinforce the idea to the audience. So many female centered films before this have failed for that reason and I see the same thing happening again with this.
Now, I'm not saying this shouldn't be made. Its an interesting idea and it's worth experimenting with well known properties and definitely good to at least /attempt/ to make good female characters. If nothing else, this film will be a learning experience and a good example for future films with female protagonists (Still waiting on that, Marvel. I know you can do it)
