Done Deal Pro Forums

Done Deal Pro Forums (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/index.php)
-   Films (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Ghostbusters Trailer (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=80430)

UpandComing 07-20-2016 09:11 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940712)
A lot of subcultures have a bunch of a**holes, but all Feig could have done was to take the high ground and IGNORE THE CRITICISM. As for Gamergate, it's nothing more than a consumer backlash movement against video game reviewers who are against aggressive masculinity/sexuality in video games. The reviewers panicked, calling their critics misogynistic. As for minority casting, I know Nick Fury and Johnny Storm are white, but I also know there are African-American superheroes who can hold their ground, and should get more of a spotlight.

These are some of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

a) Feig was asked directly about sexism in geek culture; he was just responding honestly to a very ugly and high-profile trend. He didn't say all geeks are ***holes. If you're not a sexist, then guess what? You shouldn't have been offended. The fact that you were tells me a lot.

b) Regarding GamerGate, you've gotta be kidding me. That "consumer backlash movement" you refer to consisted of hacking of female reviewers; threats of assault, rape, and murder; and the revealing of personal information that threatened the personal safety of the reviewers. If you think anything the reviewers said justified that, and that those actions represent some kind of "movement", then you are truly sick in the head.

c) You saying that some African-American superheroes should get "more of a spotlight" is just your way of saying white comic book characters should never be reimagined. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. Guess what? The vast majority of comic book characters are white. That's merely because most of the creators were white. The most well-known characters are also white. Why would a movie studio take a chance on some lesser-known black comic book characters? And why does it matter if they change the ethnicity of a white character, if the ethnicity is not a defining feature of the character? You have no logical answer to that question. You share the same idiotic mentality of many, which is that "because that's how things were, that's the way they always should be."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940712)
No. Calling guys "baby-men" doesn't help your argument. When I posted the reasonable, equality idea that there should have been two men and two women as the leads, you got on your high s***-horse about sexism, which is a problem, but it doesn't exist everywhere. The original 1984 film wasn't "anti-women". It was a dumb, sci-fi comedy that a lot of guys and some women liked. Not every woman HAS to like everything men are interested in as much as not every men HAS to like everything women are interested in.Hell, not every man thinks the same and not every woman thinks the same. People are so obsessed with identity, they forget about individualism and try to project their paranoid anxieties on everyone else. I don't need a movie to tell me I have to be nice to women and, with the many societal advantages (and better movies) out there, not every woman HAS to see this film.

There is no rational, logical argument as to why there should've been two men and two women in the leads. If that was the case, then the original movie should've had two men and two women in the leads also. Your argument makes absolutely no sense. It is all based on emotion.

UpandComing 07-20-2016 10:12 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
BTW, some stats regarding the opening weekend audience:

*"And while the film’s audience was 57 percent female, that seems less than expected considering The Heat drew in a 65 percent female audience during its opening weekend." Hear that? Men made up 43% of the audience, almost half.

*"Metrics reveal that Ghostbusters key demos – both male and female – who came out specifically for the actresses gave the same score of B+ for the cast. Meanwhile, the demographic that consists of many of the anti-Ghostbusters backlash males over 25, 35-49, and 50+ gave the film a B score."
Whaddya know? Many men actually liked it!

https://www.inverse.com/article/1839...end-box-office

Data like this makes it very clear that the backlash doesn't represent most men, but rather a small, extremely loud minority. It's good to put things in perspective.

carcar 07-20-2016 10:33 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940712)
As for Gamergate, it's nothing more than a consumer backlash movement against video game reviewers who are against aggressive masculinity/sexuality in video games.

It's not nothing more than that. It was a targeted campaign of intense harassment that tipped into criminal.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940712)
The original 1984 film wasn't "anti-women". It was a dumb, sci-fi comedy that a lot of guys and some women liked.

Guess what? The current film also a dumb, sci-fi comedy and is not anti-male any more than the first one was. The antagonists are entrenched establishment naysayers. Yes, most of them are male, (a change from the first, since they were ALL male in that one) BUT SO WERE THE ANTAGONISTS IN THE FIRST MOVIE.

Madbandit 07-20-2016 02:04 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 940718)
Hollywood flips with scripts on reboots all the time. That's why they're called "reboots" -- it indicates that there is something new. The original "21 Jump Street" show had an Asian guy and a black woman as part of the core team of detectives. The movie reboot has a core team of guess what -- two white guys. Is that black-person hating? Asian-hating? Woman-hating? No, it's just a different spin on the original for a modern audience.

Making the gender-switch for Ghostbusters wasn't automatically "man-hating" -- it was just trying something different. If you think it was "man-hating", then it shows that you think that the mere presence of women where men used to be equals a problem -- which means, guess what -- you really don't know how much of a sexist you are.


That is a hysterical argument because, if you really think about it, having an Asian guy and a black woman and a black man as the captain on the show was pretty groundbreaking at the time when no one have a damn about diversity to start off with. I didn't care at the time, because I liked Stephen J. Cannell's work. The movies were okay.

Madbandit 07-20-2016 02:07 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carcar (Post 940723)
It's not nothing more than that. It was a targeted campaign of intense harassment that tipped into criminal.




Guess what? The current film also a dumb, sci-fi comedy and is not anti-male any more than the first one was. The antagonists are entrenched establishment naysayers. Yes, most of them are male, (a change from the first, since they were ALL male in that one) BUT SO WERE THE ANTAGONISTS IN THE FIRST MOVIE.


One: No one associated with the group has been arrested. Two, I know the movie spoilers. Ergo, I have no interest in the reboot.

Madbandit 07-20-2016 02:40 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 940720)
These are some of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

a) Feig was asked directly about sexism in geek culture; he was just responding honestly to a very ugly and high-profile trend. He didn't say all geeks are ***holes. If you're not a sexist, then guess what? You shouldn't have been offended. The fact that you were tells me a lot.

b) Regarding GamerGate, you've gotta be kidding me. That "consumer backlash movement" you refer to consisted of hacking of female reviewers; threats of assault, rape, and murder; and the revealing of personal information that threatened the personal safety of the reviewers. If you think anything the reviewers said justified that, and that those actions represent some kind of "movement", then you are truly sick in the head.

c) You saying that some African-American superheroes should get "more of a spotlight" is just your way of saying white comic book characters should never be reimagined. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. Guess what? The vast majority of comic book characters are white. That's merely because most of the creators were white. The most well-known characters are also white. Why would a movie studio take a chance on some lesser-known black comic book characters? And why does it matter if they change the ethnicity of a white character, if the ethnicity is not a defining feature of the character? You have no logical answer to that question. You share the same idiotic mentality of many, which is that "because that's how things were, that's the way they always should be."



There is no rational, logical argument as to why there should've been two men and two women in the leads. If that was the case, then the original movie should've had two men and two women in the leads also. Your argument makes absolutely no sense. It is all based on emotion.


B.S.

1) I didn't take Feig's insult personally. It just looks bad when you insult a good amount of a potential audience.

2) I don't give a damn about what a comic book character looks like as long as their interesting. Giving already established minority heroes a spotlight isn't a bad thing, since not a lot of people read comic books, let alone read. I've read comic books for a long time, and I KNOW there are diverse characters. Changing the identity of an established superhero to me, as an African-American, seems lazy.
.
3) No one's been killed, sexually assaulted or punched under the banner of Gamergate. They have been hurt feelings and unfounded death threats. If you want to regulate the verbal rows on the Internet to the point where anybody could be arrested, go right ahead. If you want to live in an Orwellian world, fine. Count me out.

4) All I posed was a healthy, gender-equal idea, but YOU took it as an insult, which tells me a lot. Sure, I have a bit of passion. Everyone does. I just don't feel making a cinematic essay on feminism is an entertaining story idea. A good story and relatable characters does. You obviously do. Fine. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you. This reboot won't help women in the first world, IMHO, and you couldn't pay me enough money in the world to watch it. Have a nice day.

.

carcar 07-20-2016 02:52 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940736)
B.S.

3) No one's been killed, sexually assaulted or punched under the banner of Gamergate. They have been hurt feelings and unfounded death threats. If you want to regulate the verbal rows on the Internet to the point where anybody could be arrested, go right ahead. If you want to live in an Orwellian world, fine. Count me out.
.

People have lost their jobs. Doxxing people and having strangers show up on your door puts them in genuine danger, even if YOU think the death threats are unfounded.

And I've been following Feig for a few years. I saw the nastiness and brutal insults they hurled at him until he had to say something. He did not strike first. He made a cheerful little movie, that's all. Just like Leslie Jones.

There's an Orwellian side to the other side too, that one that threatens and abuses people so severely, they're afraid for their own voices and safety. And to speak up for others, for fear they'll be next.

Madbandit 07-20-2016 06:30 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carcar (Post 940737)
People have lost their jobs. Doxxing people and having strangers show up on your door puts them in genuine danger, even if YOU think the death threats are unfounded.

And I've been following Feig for a few years. I saw the nastiness and brutal insults they hurled at him until he had to say something. He did not strike first. He made a cheerful little movie, that's all. Just like Leslie Jones.

There's an Orwellian side to the other side too, that one that threatens and abuses people so severely, they're afraid for their own voices and safety. And to speak up for others, for fear they'll be next.

Don't you have to be in some soft of authority in order to have an Orwellian complex? I don't sanction death threats or doxxing, but those who do it weren't associated with Gamergate. Who were the ones that lost their jobs anyway?

As for Feig and Jones (the latter who should have been more professional when the s***,-storm hit), to think they're above REASONABLE criticism is naive. If it's crude criticism, they should best ignore it. Hurting someone's feelings isn't a criminal offense. If the criticism involves concrete death threats, then it's serious.

UpandComing 07-20-2016 08:26 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940736)
I've read comic books for a long time, and I KNOW there are diverse characters. Changing the identity of an established superhero to me, as an African-American, seems lazy.

There may be a lot of diverse characters, but Hollywood isn't going to make movies about every character. Just the most well-known ones, most of whom happen to be white. So it's rather to pointless to complain about changing the ethnicity to a person of color, when the alternative would be fewer (or no) comic book movies featuring people of color. I mean, Todd McFarlane announced a new bigscreen Spawn movie last year, but look how long that idea took to get off the ground -- 20 years! If there's that much reluctance to bring back a black superhero as well known as Spawn, why do you think Hollywood would be invested in lower-profile characters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940736)
No one's been killed, sexually assaulted or punched under the banner of Gamergate. They have been hurt feelings and unfounded death threats. If you want to regulate the verbal rows on the Internet to the point where anybody could be arrested, go right ahead. If you want to live in an Orwellian world, fine. Count me out.

I used Gamergate as an example of the toxicity that often characterizes geek culture, per Feig's comments. And rape, assault, and murder threats certainly qualify -- you can trivialize it as a "consumer backlash movement" all you want; you wouldn't be so happy if someone said those kinds of things online to your mother, sister, or daughter. Besides, the lack of arrests is not a very strong argument. The law is in an infantile stage when it comes to punishing people who make online promises of harm. If they said those things in real life they would be arrested -- they're called "terroristic threats", or "menacing."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940736)
All I posed was a healthy, gender-equal idea, but YOU took it as an insult, which tells me a lot. Sure, I have a bit of passion. Everyone does. I just don't feel making a cinematic essay on feminism is an entertaining story idea. A good story and relatable characters does.

Again, the first movie had four men in it. You don't see that as a "man-promoting" image, so I don't understand why you see a movie with four women in its as a "cinematic essay on feminism." The only thing that says is that you think the mere idea of women taking over the lead roles is problematic, which frankly, is sexist. No other way around it.

carcar 07-20-2016 09:04 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940761)
Don't you have to be in some soft of authority in order to have an Orwellian complex? I don't sanction death threats or doxxing, but those who do it weren't associated with Gamergate. Who were the ones that lost their jobs anyway?

I would say hacking and publishing people's personal information on the net without their permission, encouraging a mob of harassers, creating bogus accounts and saying despicable things in their name, threatening violence and death, creates an outlaw authority of its own. And these threats are being held over people's head all the time.

allison rapp, for one. I'm not in that world at all, but I know, through circles, women who are dealing with this kind of ongoing harassment on a constant basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940761)
As for Feig and Jones (the latter who should have been more professional when the s***,-storm hit), to think they're above REASONABLE criticism is naive. If it's crude criticism, they should best ignore it. Hurting someone's feelings isn't a criminal offense. If the criticism involves concrete death threats, then it's serious.

I think people ignore it as long as they can. It's bullying, and people reach a point where they HAVE to say something. In the case of a public entity, they HAVE to be out in front, as themselves, to do their job. The level of criticism was unreasonable on this project from the beginning.

What exactly constitutes a concrete death threat to you anyway? Not enough your address is put out on the internets and dozens of anonymous trolls threaten to kill and rape you and your family, your kids? Any knock on the door, any time you go to your car, you're thinking of it.

For someone who purports to be a writer, you're sure having a hard time putting yourself in someone else's shoes.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro