mangries on twitter are currently in conspiracy theory mode, claiming that any critic who didn't hate the movie is being bought off and any pictures you see of the stars with little girls dressed as ghostbusters is staged with the children or their parents being bought off.
I saw an angry review about this movie, from a guy, who said he loved the concept of a female cast, but what they did was make them male bashing. They have the pretty boy receptionist that is dumb as a post and then apparently kill the big baddie by shooting it in a private place.
I am all for female empowerment, but not by bashing guys. Just seems like low blows. Of course that is just from that one review.
I have read others that really liked it. I won't pay to see it in the theater, but will probably watch it when it comes out on Netflix.
I have been watching trailers and clips on youtube. One of the other actresses describes Chris Hemsworth's character as a 'Ken doll with the insides scooped out.' He describes his character as a 'dumb puppy dog.' Really?
I'm not convinced that the above really connotes "male bashing". Having a dumb male character doesn't necessarily mean anything. Particularly within the context of gender reversal when the original female receptionist character was ditzy. Isn't it just riffing on that?
Maybe destroying a big baddie by its genitals is some kind of comment about gender, but what? Castration? Is that what you're suggesting?
It's also kind of disappointing that even though this movie is finally out, people are still judging it and shitting on it without seeing it. It feels like people are pre-emptively hating it, based on certain biases.
I don't think the "genders reversed" argument counts for much, because it assumes a certain amount of equality, where there has been none.
Women have always been - and still are - grossly underrepresented in film roles. Furthermore, women are far more at risk of violence by men, than men are by women. (Although it should be noted that men are at far greater risk of violence by other men, yet I'm not sure if there's any kind of movement to minimise male-on-male violence, or film representation of it).
I just don't think it furthers gender equality by portraying men the way women have been portrayed in the past. Because that is a role reversal. That was my argument. I don't think it is appropriate to attack genitals to prove a point about the strength of the women. It seems like a cheap shot.
Guys can be dumb, girls can be dumb. That is equal. What I would like to see in movies is where men and women are both smart (or dumb as the case may be) and they work together to arrive at a solution to a problem. Not where there must be one gender better than the other. That is where I would like movies to go. But there seems to be this opposition to that a lot of times and I think, from what I have seen and read, that this movie portrays and plays into those stereotypes.
But you are right, I haven't seen it so I shouldn't bash the film. And it is supposed to be a comedy so perhaps that is the reason for a lot of choices.
Here is the trailers and clips thing (one of them) that I watched on youtube that brought me to some of the conclusions. Watch it if you want, you don't have to at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxxbRuXaSsI
I do think that there needs to be more women in lead roles that aren't Lifetime movies.
I am not sure what your point about men on women violence has to do about the movie, but will accept that the statement in itself is true.
PS. I am so glad we can have a discussion about this without being mean. Loving Imzy :)
I'm going to see the movie myself on Saturday, so I'll draw my conclusions from watching the actual movie. Rather than YouTube reviews.
From your comments it seems that you think that there is some kind of battle of the genders in the movie, in which women are positioned as better than men, would that be fair to say? That seems like a fairly strong reading - do you believe the same about the original? From what I recall, the only women in the movie are the ditzy receptionist, Sigourney Weaver's girl-next-door turned seductress, and Gozer, the big baddie. Seems kind of limited too. Does that concern you?
My point about the violence and gender reversal is this: you simply can't "reverse" the genders because the position of men and women is so fundamentally different. There is a reason that there is great sensitivity about the portrayal of male violence against women, and that is because (in my country), male violence is the primary cause of death for women under the age of 45. Two women are murdered a week, nearly all by men. 1 out of 7 women has been sexually assaulted, primarily be men. The "reverse" is actually statistically difficult to track: women do not assault and murder men anywhere near the frequency by which male on female violence occurs. That is why it is difficult to simply "reverse the genders" because reality is highly gendered.
I don't think there is a battle of genders in the movie. I think that they made women look better by making the men look weak and I don't think that helps women look better or equal when they do that by bashing men. It is like bullies making fun of people in order to feel better about themselves. Neither needs to happen because, in my opinion, men and women should be treated equally in movies. Whether if that is their intelligence, silliness, sluttiness, or by the amount of violence they inflict.
I am not talking about the originals because they didn't claim to be anything they weren't. This movie has been marketed as a woman's Ghostbusters. But from what I can tell they just put women into (traditionally) male roles and visa versa. When what I was hoping for was something more equal across the board. In the first one the receptionist (Annie Potts) took no crap from anyone, she wasn't ditzy at all like the receptionist in this one. Sigourney Weaver's character was a classically trained violinist and in a world class orchestra, and Gozer was a demon. None of those typical for the 80s.
But I can see that your argument is that they should be treated differently because they are different. Because men are more violent then women, which statistically is true. I can understand by the statistics that you provide that you have no issue with seeing something where men are seen as a weaker gender. Where they are oogled over for their looks and are kept around, even if they are iept at their job, because of that. Where women take out the big baddie by shooting him the genitals because that may be what some men deserve.
I am hoping that someday more movies and television shows are made where genders act equally in many forms and they don't try to have one gender be 'better' than the other. Because that is what our children see and recreate. When people stop acting like others are different, better, stronger, more violent, ditzy, or anything else then maybe things won't be so different. I know that, unfortunately, that isn't a reality always in life, but I can hope that someday it will be.
I would love to hear what you think about the movie. Because you are right, I shouldn't just take what reviewers on youtube say as fact. I don't know anyone else who has plans to see it at the moment.
You are drawing fairly strong conclusions about a movie you haven't seen.
You also presume to know my opinion about a number of things, and you're incorrect.
You're also confusing "treatment" for context. I am not suggesting people should be treated differently due to their gender, I am suggesting conclusions drawn about a cultural piece should be understood within their socio-cultural context.
I'll be blunt with you: it seems you have firmly made your mind up about this movie before you have even seen it, if you ever choose to see it. And I think that's disappointing because, from my point of view, this movie has become a bit of a cultural touchstone, the Ellen Pao of 2016, simply because the level of critique and contempt directed at it. Even before it was released, even the trailer was released. Many seemed to make their minds up about it when it was announced. So it's frustrating to see yet another internet comment harshly judging this movie without the commenter even seeing it.
I think that you also presume to know my opinion about a number of this as well and you are also incorrect about me.
I was hoping to open a discussion about gender equality in this movie as it advertised itself as a woman's movie. Women in lead roles is a big deal and it is great that this movie has that. What is not okay is that they seemed to deliberately make themselves look bad ass by making men look stupid, cowardly, and evil. I don't think it helps to make one group of people look good by bashing on the other group. I didn't set up the movie to be this way, it was their advertising that did thus it is going to be looked at. I haven't seen the movie, but did get this information from professional reviews who pay attention to things like socio-cultural context. And from the clips that I have seen and the statements that actors have made I don't think it is too harsh.
I am not quite sure why you are taking my opinion about Ghostbusters so personally. I did not mean to make this personal at all, but am now starting to take offense to the fact that you are making blanket statements about me, which isn't the topic of this thread at all. However, I also understand that tone is completely lost in text.
But since you have chosen to call me out specifically I will respond. You are making assumptions about me that are also incorrect and you don't know anything about me. Perhaps that is your point, that I haven't seen the movie so I should have no opinion about it. Are you trying to make a point that you shouldn't say anything about me since you don't know me? Not sure what you are going for here but let's be clear: I make no assumptions about you other than the fact that you are reserving judgement on this movie until you have seen it.
I hope you enjoy it. Movies should be fun and entertaining. Maybe I am wrong. I'm okay with being wrong. I won't be going to the theater to see this movie, primarily because I wish Hollywood would come up with new ideas and stop remaking things, but that is a whole other issue.
Since we are just going back and forth I will say good bye at this point. Have a great weekend, enjoy the movie! :)
What things do I presume to know about you? What am I incorrect about?
I am not taking anything personally? I stated that you are incorrect with the following statements: "your argument is that they should be treated differently because they are different. Because men are more violent then women". You are mistakenly conflating two separate but related positions.
"Perhaps that is your point, that I haven't seen the movie so I should have no opinion about it."
That's close to my point. You can have any opinion you want about it, but the more informed you are about an opinion, the more weight others will give to it. The less informed it is, the less weight others give to it.
mangries on twitter are currently in conspiracy theory mode, claiming that any critic who didn't hate the movie is being bought off and any pictures you see of the stars with little girls dressed as ghostbusters is staged with the children or their parents being bought off.
I know, so sad. Any reason to hate on it, any reason to shit on it. People are finding any way to shit on it, even if they haven't seen it yet.
I saw an angry review about this movie, from a guy, who said he loved the concept of a female cast, but what they did was make them male bashing. They have the pretty boy receptionist that is dumb as a post and then apparently kill the big baddie by shooting it in a private place.
I am all for female empowerment, but not by bashing guys. Just seems like low blows. Of course that is just from that one review.
I have read others that really liked it. I won't pay to see it in the theater, but will probably watch it when it comes out on Netflix.
I have not seen the movie but if that's the case I probably don't want to see it :(
Wish there were more movies which empowered women without male bashing
That is what I think. Men and women really need to be on the same team, not in opposition of one another. That isn't helping at all.
I have been watching trailers and clips on youtube. One of the other actresses describes Chris Hemsworth's character as a 'Ken doll with the insides scooped out.' He describes his character as a 'dumb puppy dog.' Really?
Yes. We need to reach an age of gender equality.
That's sad :( this type of negative portrayal affects both genders badly
Is there something intrinsically wrong with having a dumb, male character?
I'm not convinced that the above really connotes "male bashing". Having a dumb male character doesn't necessarily mean anything. Particularly within the context of gender reversal when the original female receptionist character was ditzy. Isn't it just riffing on that?
Maybe destroying a big baddie by its genitals is some kind of comment about gender, but what? Castration? Is that what you're suggesting?
It's also kind of disappointing that even though this movie is finally out, people are still judging it and shitting on it without seeing it. It feels like people are pre-emptively hating it, based on certain biases.
You make some very valid points.
I'm just wondering, what if the genders were reversed here. Would people feel the same about the movie?
I don't think the "genders reversed" argument counts for much, because it assumes a certain amount of equality, where there has been none.
Women have always been - and still are - grossly underrepresented in film roles. Furthermore, women are far more at risk of violence by men, than men are by women. (Although it should be noted that men are at far greater risk of violence by other men, yet I'm not sure if there's any kind of movement to minimise male-on-male violence, or film representation of it).
I just don't think it furthers gender equality by portraying men the way women have been portrayed in the past. Because that is a role reversal. That was my argument. I don't think it is appropriate to attack genitals to prove a point about the strength of the women. It seems like a cheap shot.
Guys can be dumb, girls can be dumb. That is equal. What I would like to see in movies is where men and women are both smart (or dumb as the case may be) and they work together to arrive at a solution to a problem. Not where there must be one gender better than the other. That is where I would like movies to go. But there seems to be this opposition to that a lot of times and I think, from what I have seen and read, that this movie portrays and plays into those stereotypes.
But you are right, I haven't seen it so I shouldn't bash the film. And it is supposed to be a comedy so perhaps that is the reason for a lot of choices.
Here is the trailers and clips thing (one of them) that I watched on youtube that brought me to some of the conclusions. Watch it if you want, you don't have to at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxxbRuXaSsI
I do think that there needs to be more women in lead roles that aren't Lifetime movies.
I am not sure what your point about men on women violence has to do about the movie, but will accept that the statement in itself is true.
PS. I am so glad we can have a discussion about this without being mean. Loving Imzy :)
I'm going to see the movie myself on Saturday, so I'll draw my conclusions from watching the actual movie. Rather than YouTube reviews.
From your comments it seems that you think that there is some kind of battle of the genders in the movie, in which women are positioned as better than men, would that be fair to say? That seems like a fairly strong reading - do you believe the same about the original? From what I recall, the only women in the movie are the ditzy receptionist, Sigourney Weaver's girl-next-door turned seductress, and Gozer, the big baddie. Seems kind of limited too. Does that concern you?
My point about the violence and gender reversal is this: you simply can't "reverse" the genders because the position of men and women is so fundamentally different. There is a reason that there is great sensitivity about the portrayal of male violence against women, and that is because (in my country), male violence is the primary cause of death for women under the age of 45. Two women are murdered a week, nearly all by men. 1 out of 7 women has been sexually assaulted, primarily be men. The "reverse" is actually statistically difficult to track: women do not assault and murder men anywhere near the frequency by which male on female violence occurs. That is why it is difficult to simply "reverse the genders" because reality is highly gendered.
I don't think there is a battle of genders in the movie. I think that they made women look better by making the men look weak and I don't think that helps women look better or equal when they do that by bashing men. It is like bullies making fun of people in order to feel better about themselves. Neither needs to happen because, in my opinion, men and women should be treated equally in movies. Whether if that is their intelligence, silliness, sluttiness, or by the amount of violence they inflict.
I am not talking about the originals because they didn't claim to be anything they weren't. This movie has been marketed as a woman's Ghostbusters. But from what I can tell they just put women into (traditionally) male roles and visa versa. When what I was hoping for was something more equal across the board. In the first one the receptionist (Annie Potts) took no crap from anyone, she wasn't ditzy at all like the receptionist in this one. Sigourney Weaver's character was a classically trained violinist and in a world class orchestra, and Gozer was a demon. None of those typical for the 80s.
But I can see that your argument is that they should be treated differently because they are different. Because men are more violent then women, which statistically is true. I can understand by the statistics that you provide that you have no issue with seeing something where men are seen as a weaker gender. Where they are oogled over for their looks and are kept around, even if they are iept at their job, because of that. Where women take out the big baddie by shooting him the genitals because that may be what some men deserve.
I am hoping that someday more movies and television shows are made where genders act equally in many forms and they don't try to have one gender be 'better' than the other. Because that is what our children see and recreate. When people stop acting like others are different, better, stronger, more violent, ditzy, or anything else then maybe things won't be so different. I know that, unfortunately, that isn't a reality always in life, but I can hope that someday it will be.
I would love to hear what you think about the movie. Because you are right, I shouldn't just take what reviewers on youtube say as fact. I don't know anyone else who has plans to see it at the moment.
A few points:
You are drawing fairly strong conclusions about a movie you haven't seen.
You also presume to know my opinion about a number of things, and you're incorrect.
You're also confusing "treatment" for context. I am not suggesting people should be treated differently due to their gender, I am suggesting conclusions drawn about a cultural piece should be understood within their socio-cultural context.
I'll be blunt with you: it seems you have firmly made your mind up about this movie before you have even seen it, if you ever choose to see it. And I think that's disappointing because, from my point of view, this movie has become a bit of a cultural touchstone, the Ellen Pao of 2016, simply because the level of critique and contempt directed at it. Even before it was released, even the trailer was released. Many seemed to make their minds up about it when it was announced. So it's frustrating to see yet another internet comment harshly judging this movie without the commenter even seeing it.
I think that you also presume to know my opinion about a number of this as well and you are also incorrect about me.
I was hoping to open a discussion about gender equality in this movie as it advertised itself as a woman's movie. Women in lead roles is a big deal and it is great that this movie has that. What is not okay is that they seemed to deliberately make themselves look bad ass by making men look stupid, cowardly, and evil. I don't think it helps to make one group of people look good by bashing on the other group. I didn't set up the movie to be this way, it was their advertising that did thus it is going to be looked at. I haven't seen the movie, but did get this information from professional reviews who pay attention to things like socio-cultural context. And from the clips that I have seen and the statements that actors have made I don't think it is too harsh.
I am not quite sure why you are taking my opinion about Ghostbusters so personally. I did not mean to make this personal at all, but am now starting to take offense to the fact that you are making blanket statements about me, which isn't the topic of this thread at all. However, I also understand that tone is completely lost in text.
But since you have chosen to call me out specifically I will respond. You are making assumptions about me that are also incorrect and you don't know anything about me. Perhaps that is your point, that I haven't seen the movie so I should have no opinion about it. Are you trying to make a point that you shouldn't say anything about me since you don't know me? Not sure what you are going for here but let's be clear: I make no assumptions about you other than the fact that you are reserving judgement on this movie until you have seen it.
I hope you enjoy it. Movies should be fun and entertaining. Maybe I am wrong. I'm okay with being wrong. I won't be going to the theater to see this movie, primarily because I wish Hollywood would come up with new ideas and stop remaking things, but that is a whole other issue.
Since we are just going back and forth I will say good bye at this point. Have a great weekend, enjoy the movie! :)
What things do I presume to know about you? What am I incorrect about?
I am not taking anything personally? I stated that you are incorrect with the following statements: "your argument is that they should be treated differently because they are different. Because men are more violent then women". You are mistakenly conflating two separate but related positions.
"Perhaps that is your point, that I haven't seen the movie so I should have no opinion about it."
That's close to my point. You can have any opinion you want about it, but the more informed you are about an opinion, the more weight others will give to it. The less informed it is, the less weight others give to it.