Fans "Fix" Ghostbusters Trailer With Recut

[RJ 17]

or they have movies revolving only about being female and about womanly things

You mean kinda like how this Ghostbusters movie went with an all female cast for no discernible reason other than to let them say "We took a franchise with an all male cast and made it all female"? :3

But why is it that if they make a new Alien movie and give it a male protagonist, NOBODY would say it's sexist because the lead in the Alien movies is supposed to be a woman?
Nobody.

I'm guessing by "nobody" you actually meant to say "every feminist on the internet and/or everyone who is sympathetic to feminist causes."

Seriously, if they remade Alien and cast Ripley as a guy, Tumblr alone would literally shit a brick. An actual kiln-fired brick would be shat out of your computer screen the moment you access a Tumblr site.

Look, I honestly don't care that it's a female cast. That's not why this movie is going to be terrible. This movie is going to be terrible because of a shitty half-assed script written by people who just want to cash in on some nostalgia.

If Harold Ramis - writer of the original Ghostbusters, in case you're unfamiliar - wrote the script for this movie and had 4 women as the lead, you couldn't keep me out of the movie theater. I'd fight someone in front of their own mother to get in and watch the show because I'd know it would be hilarious.

 

[Redryhno]

So your problems with chick flicks is that they're over-exaggerated? That's the feel I'm getting here. It's sorta like hating action movies for the stupidity involved in them.

No, I hate chick flicks because instead of treating women as human beings, they treat them as women. As if that made them so different they need movies juuuust for them. It's like a movie telling me "women am I right? Babiez! Boyfriendz! Clothez! Pinkz!". It makes me roll my eyes.

And yes, I do need the definition, I specifically asked for what you meant by that so that I can understand where you're coming from and we can, ya know, get this thing somewhat sorted out and get on with the real discussion.

A comedian that is not objectified.


ob?jec?ti?fy (əb-jĕk′tə-fī&#8242
tr.v. ob?jec?ti?fied, ob?jec?ti?fy?ing, ob?jec?ti?fies
1. To present or regard as an object: "Because we have objectified animals, we are able to treat them impersonally" (Barry Lopez).


See also:

Objectification is a term to describe seeing human beings as objects. Representations show people, not as individuals, but as things to be owned, sold, used, etc.

Sexual objectification is the objectification of persons generally based on their sexual attributes. Women are far more likely than men to be objectified and judged by a perceived sexual attractiveness rather than values such as intellectual ability. Sexual objectification of women is found in media, in advertising, and not surprisingly, even in news.

So no more than normal for actors everywhere? What exactly is the problem then? And again, all I'm getting from you not liking chick flicks is the over-exaggeration, nothing wrong with it, but if that's your sole reason for not liking them I have trouble seeing what you DO like.

So now that we've gotten that out of the way, why is Whoopie not objectified? Because at the moment this is really starting to feel like your "BLIZZARD IS SECRETLY SIMULTANEOUSLY SCARED AND IN AWE OF VAGES BECAUSE ALL THE BAD GUYS HAVE VAGES IN THEIR DESIGN" thread again.

 

[Zenja]

As someone who is kinda looking forwards to this movie, it really disheartens me to see so many people already bashing it. It's as if people wanted this movie to fail BEFORE the trailer was even released.

And yes, I will not lie, one of the main reasons I'm intrigued by this movie is the all-female lead cast of non-objectified comedians. If you think I'm lame for liking a movie for this reason, then please point me out to other comedy movies with non-objectified female protagonists. Whoopy Goldberg is the only example I can think of.

However, they aren't exactly bypassing objectification due to Hemsworth. It is fine if the shoe goes on the other foot, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking this movie is 'above something' that it isn't. It objectifies one sex at the expense of another just the same. It also depends on what you mean by objectified. Being in front of the camera often will make you want to look your best anyways. Additionally, audiences tend to react more favorably to physically attractive characters. Drew Barrymore seems right up your alley.

To be honest, I think female comedians don't tend to get lead roles often because for some reason most female comedians feel a need to make their jokes about being a woman or woman related. Many blue collar male comedians do this too though. But very few female comedians can get through an act without having to reference their gender for the punchline. This tactic unfortunately somewhat alienates half of your audience.

 

[Redryhno]

I'm guessing by "nobody" you actually meant to say "every feminist on the internet and/or everyone who is sympathetic to feminist causes."

Seriously, if they remade Alien and cast Ripley as a guy, Tumblr alone would literally shit a brick. An actual kiln-fired brick would be shat out of your computer screen the moment you access a Tumblr site.

Look, I honestly don't care that it's a female cast. That's not why this movie is going to be terrible. This movie is going to be terrible because of a shitty half-assed script written by people who just want to cash in on some nostalgia.

If Harold Ramis - writer of the original Ghostbusters, in case you're unfamiliar - wrote the script for this movie and had 4 women as the lead, you couldn't keep me out of the movie theater. I'd fight someone in front of their own mother to get in and watch the show because I'd know it would be hilarious.

Eh, I'd still be slightly against it if the marketing and attitude towards anyone saying it looks off were the same as it is now, but it would certainly take away alot of my reservations about it. But McCarthy and Wiig in it as leading roles would still be there for me.

I think the only way this would've been an easy sell for me would be Akroyd, Ramis, and Moranis somehow involved in it. Murray was great as Venkman, but everything I've heard about it since has largely been that he did it as a favor more than anything else and that they were the ones behind the great parts.

 

[Casual Shinji]

As I said, the ONLY movies I can think of that feature female leads in non-sexualized roles are Alien, Aliens and the Whoopy Goldberg movies.

You miss the the end of Alien, where Ripley strips down to a pair of undies that seem composed of nothing but tissue paper? Not that I have anything against that scene in particular, but if that doesn't fit your definition of sexualization I don't know what does.

Seriously, if they remade Alien and cast Ripley as a guy, Tumblr alone would literally shit a brick. An actual kiln-fired brick would be shat out of your computer screen the moment you access a Tumblr site.

Ironically, in the original draft of Alien both Ripley and Lambert where men, but they swapped their gender due to the rise of feminism (before it was such a plague ridden word).

Edit. Damn, someone beat me to the punch.

 

[RJ 17]

Seriously, if they remade Alien and cast Ripley as a guy, Tumblr alone would literally shit a brick. An actual kiln-fired brick would be shat out of your computer screen the moment you access a Tumblr site.

Ironically, in the original draft of Alien both Ripley and Lambert where men, but they swapped their gender due to the rise of feminism (before it was such a plague ridden word).

Edit. Damn, someone beat me to the punch.

Further emphasizing the bricks which would be shat should they remake the movie and cast a dude as Ripley.

 

[Redryhno]

snip

All this talk, and you've yet to try and make anyone understand without accusing them of something. You've yet to answer anything without repeating yourself and still ignore the "WHY" part of people's questions. Is there any way you can explain your feelings without doing those and talking down to anyone that doesn't immediately agree with you?

Also, yeah, I can watch a chick flick, don't particularly care either way about any movie that isn't some kind of comedy or mindfuckery these days though honestly. And I know plenty of women who like them, plenty of guys too whether they will fully admit it or not. And they can be a stereotype or not, doesn't seem to matter on whether or not they'll watch one. Mom's old guard gearhead into anything that involves tools and creating things with 'em, she loves 'em. Live with two lezzies, one'll watch the hell out of them and is nearly a valley girl and likes them, the other grew up on a ranch/farm/thing and can't stand them. My girlfriend's been into competitive sparring since she was a kid, and she'll watch 'em. Doesn't matter if you're "normal" or not.

And my point was that all actors are objectified by nature of the job. They are stuck in front of a camera for the viewing enjoyment of everyone watching. If that's not being objectified, then I don't know where you're getting yours.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You miss the the end of Alien, where Ripley strips down to a pair of undies that seem composed of nothing but tissue paper? Not that I have anything against that scene in particular, but if that doesn't fit your definition of sexualization I don't know what does.

It didn't feel any more sexualized than when a badass man shows off his abs in an action movie: yes, some will find it sexy, but it wasn't designed to be about sexualization and it wasn't about making the hero a sex object.

And that just goes to show how subjective that line in the sand is, and how there aren't any ironclad rules on this subject. You ever wonder why those action movies featuring bare chested men often get jokingly accused of having gay subtext?

Also, rather than a sexualized scene, it felt a nudity scene: it was sexualized the way a hospital visit can be.

Oh totally. That scene was about literally showing how naked Ripley was against the alien threat.

Also, you didn't see Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Three main female characters, four if you count Phasma, none of whom are sexualized in any way. And that was the biggest movie of the year.

 

[Winthrop]

Off Topic: I don't think Juno was super sexualized in Juno. I mean she was pregnant so maybe you could argue she was sexualized because the plot revolved her having sex and there was a scene where a man came onto her, but it was written to make you feel uncomfortable, not turned on. Very predatory. If you haven't seen it I recommend it.

The entire movie is about her being pregnant? And of course there's a predatory rapey scene, because it's pretty much a mandatory scene when a woman is involved (yet somehow it never happens to male protagonists).

I might be entirely wrong, but judging only on the premise, that's a click flick if I ever saw one! Maybe disguised as a movie that men can watch because the protagonist is cute and pregnant fetish, I dunno.
Either way, it doesn't sit well with me. One thing is to put womenly things in a movie that has women protagonists: that's logical. And a very different thing is to center the entire movie about those womenly things.

Well shes a teenager in highschool and its sort of about her trying to deal with her teenage pregnancy and what she should do with the child. The movie is focused on her as she is the star but you do see the father's reactions and struggles as well. You can call it a chick flick I suppose, but it wouldn't do the film justice and I think most people would disagree with that. My point is that it is a good (won the oscar for best original screenplay), funny movie and she is a strong lead who isn't sexualized. I wasn't using it to prove a point, but I thought I would recommend it as it seems like the kind of movie you are looking for. Its not exactly rapey either, at least not in the way you are picturing. Without trying to give to much of the plot away there is an adult man who expresses interest in her. Not in a violent way, but in a sort of grooming her sort of way. Always being just a little TOO friendly, trying to get her alone to talk about her personal issues things like that. I'm not trying to argue a point with the movie, but its just a great film and it seemed like it was what you were looking for. A funny comedy staring a woman who isn't sexualized. I'm not trying to say that the fact that one exists invalidates your opinions, just letting you know its a good movie.

As for why statutory rape isn't seen with male protagonists, I think this is because the reaction from society seems to be "oh I would have loved that when I was a teenager!" A middle school teacher in my home town was arrested about 6 years ago for having sex with a lot of the guys on the football team and that was the reaction. People treated it like a joke. Also, as far as movies addressing rape of the nonstatutory variety for men, it is seen in a lot of prison movies. Horrible Bosses I hear has male rape as a major plot point but I have not actually seen it. I do agree that rape is seen much more often with a female protagonist than a male however.

As for the other point about whether the original ghostbusters were objectified, I'd say no but I would also argue that the vast majority of comedies staring women wouldn't be considered objectifying with men in the place of the women either. And some gags staring men, like a lot of the things in Seth Rogan movies (him being forced to shove things up his ass in the interview comes to mind), would be considered objectifying if done to women but are not seen as such when done to men. Heck even the stuff with Trump and Rubio arguing about penis length at the presidential debate is regarded as hysterical, but I think if Rubio had instead said that Hillary's breasts were too small it would be WAY over the line. Actually jokes about penis length are pretty common come to think of it, but I've never seen it as objectifying. That all is probably an issue right there, but I think most people would agree with me on that. Maybe its because of the larger number of comedies staring men it feels like less of an issue when they have sexual humor applied to them.

 

[Zenja]

No, but it does lend credit to the notion that this fan outlash detected something amiss.

Did someone call my na...oh, no. My bad.

If they "called it" back then and back then people were like "You don't know that yet" - and now this disaster shows up, why not just concede that they were right back then?

Because when you make a claim without evidence, being "right" after the fact doesn't validate your prior stance. That's a borderline sharpshooter fallacy right there. It's like those articles that claim the Simpsons predicted 9-11, or that Back to the Future predicted the Cubs would win the World Series in 2015. I threw in that one because it's about as valid a "prediction," and it didn't pan out.

Claiming that they must have somehow intuited something wrong, rather than this validating their prejudices, is faulty reasoning.

Well, my point was the guy who calls head on a coin toss is right if it lands on heads even though we all know it was based on luck. Those who said that it may end up being good initially surely wouldn't take that opportunity to rub it in the face of the (sexist) doubters if this trailer looked fantastic would they? Sure they would. If the trailer was good this whole thread would be about how people's reaction was sexist and this looks fantastic. It isn't like whoever is right this time is owed being right next time. It is a guessing game. Right now though, gender politics is running strong throughout all media. Not all of it is particularly well crafted and when it fails, it tends to be facepalm worthy as it usually ends up being sexist itself. Failures tend to be the poster children of why this is a bad thing to do for the sake of it.

This movie clearly is a matter of gender politics. It isn't like they billed this primarily as a ghostbusters reboot or sequel. From the day of its an announcement "all female cast" was the primary focal point of all media around it, clearly stating this is an issue of gender politics. This movie is gender bending for the sake of gender bending. 50/50 chance that this could end in disaster. But it seems where 1 side wants to say this is 100% fail, the other side likes to say that any criticism is 100% misogyny. Even if this is a prime example of why gender politics can end badly, it doesn't mean gender politics hold no merit. It's always run from end of the spectrum to the other and not stopping in that neutral territory in between.

I do think that there is some credit to be lended in that announcing "all female cast" in the name of 'gender equality' to be an intuitive problem. I don't understand why this wasn't just bring in a female or two onto a new team of ghostbusters. 2 guys, 2 girls ideally since we are trying to be PC. I don't see anything wrong with making them all women if you decide to but I dont think that should be the primary thing you need to focus your press on. Its not like the first ghostbusters advertised being all male as if that was something important to the plot. We never got any plot info, we got "look at these women being ghostbusters! women can do it too!" and that was about it. Everything else as far as the premise goes was wait and see. Most movies when tackling nostalgic material will give you a premise of the plot. Like Egon's daughter and her friends are trying to save him from being committed into a psychiatric ward because he has been monitoring ghost stuff in his basement and has been scaring his neighbors. That is all we get but it is an actual focus of the plot. Not simply "women/men ghostbusters, 'nuff said, get excited!". So I will lend credit to those who raised an eyebrow to that very weak premise. That is a bad premise to release to the public, as it sends a poor message about the movie's focus. Now that said, it is still 50/50 chance.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Meanwhile, people act like the idea of a blatant cash grab based entirely around nostalgia is a new concept, as if the transformers movies, ninja turtles movies, smurf movies, "more movies I'm happy to forget" never existed. Get over it, just like the nostalgia-burdened 30 year olds got over those.

Well, people bitched about all of those movies too (plus Total Recall and Robocop). Hell, people are STILL complaining about Transformers, and the last movie came out 2 years ago.

But anyway, it's sort of bad that in order to "improve" your trailer, you have to cut it from 2:30 to 0:52, and basically all the jokes that are supposed to sell the movie in the first place.

 

[Redryhno]

Honestly, that trailer isn't that much better. Granted, the joke cuts were more entertaining, and they got rid of the awkward exposition, but the rapid cuts are downright nauseating.

Meanwhile, people act like the idea of a blatant cash grab based entirely around nostalgia is a new concept, as if the transformers movies, ninja turtles movies, smurf movies, "more movies I'm happy to forget" never existed. Get over it, just like the nostalgia-burdened 30 year olds got over those.

You see a blatant attack on your childhood (as if Melissa McCarthy would personally come to your house and smash all your ghostbusters dvds), I see a harmless movie that will give little girls a handful of cool female heroes to idolize for a couple years. I can't wait to see all the little ghostbusters running around this halloween.

Except people DID complain about those, and were right for pretty much all of them.

It's filled to the brim with stereotypes that would be getting torn to shreds were it any other movie that marketed itself in any other way. Like seriously, look at it as anything other than female Ghostbusters and you can bet your ass it'd be getting ripped apart for so many of the things in it.

 

[Redryhno]

Except people DID complain about those, and were right for pretty much all of them.

That's the thing though. Hollywood is gonna profit off of geek's shitty obsession with the nostalgia over their misspent youth regardless of how much the denizens of the internet ***** about it. Did bitching about Transformers stop TMNT? Nope. Did bitching about TMNT stop ghostbusters? Nope. Did bitching about every single late-arrival comedy movie sequel stop Zoolander 2 from sucking? nope.

you're yelling against the wind here. salt's bad for your diet

So what you're saying is that don't bother trying to voice your displeasure with anything, just let it sit? Right.

Because I haven't seen so many people in this thread claiming it'll be a good movie run through any boxart that has the slightest bit of something they deem unfit in it and run around screaming at the top of their lungs about how it needs to be removed from it.

Also I think the only one getting salt in their diet at the moment is you.

 

[Redryhno]

Except people DID complain about those, and were right for pretty much all of them.

That's the thing though. Hollywood is gonna profit off of geek's shitty obsession with the nostalgia over their misspent youth regardless of how much the denizens of the internet ***** about it. Did bitching about Transformers stop TMNT? Nope. Did bitching about TMNT stop ghostbusters? Nope. Did bitching about every single late-arrival comedy movie sequel stop Zoolander 2 from sucking? nope.

you're yelling against the wind here. salt's bad for your diet

So what you're saying is that don't bother trying to voice your displeasure with anything, just let it sit? Right.

Because I haven't seen so many people in this thread claiming it'll be a good movie run through any boxart that has the slightest bit of something they deem unfit in it and run around screaming at the top of their lungs about how it needs to be removed from it.

Also I think the only one getting salt in their diet at the moment is you.

"I'm not upset! Your upset for pointing out how upset I am!"

joke aside, I had figured someone would probably try to equate "SJWs" trying to alter games with this. The thing is, trying to work to create a more equal videogame culture isn't the same as complaining about how some disconnected 75 year old hollywood executive decided to use your childhood-filtered nostalgia to get asses into movie seats.

I said people, I didn't say a damn thing about SJW's buddy. I said voicing displeasure, not about forcing change.

But whatever, you've made up your mind on why people are upset about this. Some are just sick of seeing shitty reboots being hailed as worthy because it hits checkboxes or they consider the original unfit.

 

[Fox12]

EDIT: The delivery of "It's a Cadillac!" was kind of funny, though, I guess.

That only makes it worse. Imagine a silent reaction shot of the main cast, followed by "It's a Cadillac!" Way funnier then what we got. The comedic timing would be better, and the payoff would have been greater, since we'd get a contrast between their silence and her random, excited, unexpected outburst. Dissecting a joke ruins it. Also, where's the horror? I think people forget that the original Ghost busters was creepy. That's part of why it worked so well. It had a weird balance of different elements that made it work. It's the perfect Halloween movie.

I don't care to see this movie. We're getting fat jokes from one actress, and stereotypical black lady jokes from another. Neither are funny.

 

[Politrukk]

It is better but only because they cut out most parts where the characters actually say anything except for the two appropriate enough quirky bits.

edit:

Let me point out that you could have cast Charlize Theron, Scarlett Johansson,Kate Winslet and Jada Pinkett Smith who are all at least mildly good looking and passable actors...

And it still would have sucked with the same lines and exposition.

Never mind the fact that Jada Pinkett Smith would have punched you for the entire black womans dialogue.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

And that just goes to show how subjective that line in the sand is, and how there aren't any ironclad rules on this subject. You ever wonder why those action movies featuring bare chested men often get jokingly accused of having gay subtext?

"Jokingly" being the keyword there.

Also, you didn't see Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Three main female characters, four if you count Phasma, none of whom are sexualized in any way. And that was the biggest movie of the year.

Haven't seen that movie because, contrarily to what one might suspect about me, I'm not gonna like a movie only because it has positive female characters.... if the movie itself sucks.

But yeah, I heard it has positive female characters. And do you know how I found out about it? By reading a blogger complaining that the movie lacked attractive babes.

How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it yet?

 

[Casual Shinji]

But yeah, I heard it has positive female characters. And do you know how I found out about it? By reading a blogger complaining that the movie lacked attractive babes.

So wait, a blogger wrote about the positive depiction of the female characters... and then complained about them not being hot? I don't know where you're finding these weirdos, but I would suggest you don't take their view as the view of (male) movie audiences as a whole. And also, just stop reading them.

How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it yet?

How do you know the new Ghostbusters is so bad if you haven't seen it yet?

The signs. The hefty, hefty signs that remind one of Pixels and other Billy Madison productions. And the overall cheapness of the sets, the visual effects, and the costumes that remind one of not Ghostbusters.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

How do you know it sucks if you haven't seen it yet?

How do you know the new Ghostbusters is so bad if you haven't seen it yet?

I don't know it will be bad, and unless I've forgotten about some kind of post somewhere, I don't believe I've said it will be bad. The only two posts about it I've made are as follows.

Eh, I'm not really that much of a fan of the originals; having seen them ages ago I can't really remember much from it at all. Even so, I didn't so much as smirk once through out the trailer, and found myself lightly cringing a couple of times.
I'll wait until it's released before deciding whether it's a travesty (and even then I'll be based on reviews, since I have absolutely no interest in seeing it anyway).

It won't change the quality of the film itself. Speaking of the quality of the film, I would have thought it would take at least a few weeks to become absolutely sick of the raging echo chamber surrounding this film, but apparently days would have been a better estimate.

Basically, I'm pretty much indifferent to this movie, despite it apparently being the worst reboot ever ... until the next worst reboot ever.

Even so, I get what you're saying, you've based your opinion on info surrounding the film, and there is plenty of that, but it just seems weird to declare that a movie "sucks" when you've never seen it and the overall reception is pretty good.

Eh, I'm not going to bother arguing with you. I found the movie to be ... fine, I suppose. It held my attention but never challenged me on any level, so if you aren't interested you aren't really missing anything.

 

[Casual Shinji]

oooo I totes forgot about Total Recall.

The total recall reboot sucked simply because if they had the materials science to tunnel close enough to the center of the earth to hit microgravity during transition, there should have damn well been space elevators everywhere and people living in space habitats.

Them's the wrong quote.