Super Social Analysis: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT in Movies

[VCRTracking]

Word on Big Hero 6. I was a little annoyed/confused about why they felt the need to give Hiro the white aunt. Why couldn't they just make him full Asian? (nothing against half asian people out there) Did they think people wouldn't understand him as a character unless he was somehow white too?

 

And she was played by Maya Rudolph who is half white and half African-American(Her mom was the late Minnie Ripperton).

[ChelseaNH]

Maybe she was a friend-of-the-family "aunt."

[Last Time Lord]

Honestly? Rita is humanoid alien. Just because the actress who played her on the T.V. show was Asian doesn't mean I was expecting Rita on the show to be Asian. And I'm saying this as an Asian guy.

And apparently people of other races have played the part- they are some Latina names there for the list of people who played the part.

I think trying to play a "whitewash" racecard would be ridiculous in this case, because again, nothing was ever indicated that Rita was supposed to be Asian other than her being played by an Asian actress. As she is, again, a humanoid alien witch bent on conquering worlds.

I want to kiss you for this.

In the original show, she was dubbed footage from a Japanese show, which was a cost cutting measure since the budget for the entire initial 40 episode order was roughly $50 and a six pack of Diet Coke.

Bringing up this but ignoring the fact that Kimberly went from White to Indian, Billy went from White to Black, Zack went from Black to Asian, and Trini went from Asian to Latina is disingenuous at best.

Power Rangers has always gone out of its way to be as diverse as possible (to the point that the current series has an Asian caveman) and this cast is diverse, even by Power Rangers standards.

Also, total aside, but Japanese footage Rita was my first TV Crush. I was seven, and wanted a telescope because she used one.

[cynic]

I just saw a commercial for the Academy Awards broadcast. There was a really prominent shot of Lupita holidng her Oscar. They also put in a shot of Michael B Jordan running towards the camera in Creed, even though he's not nominated. It fit because they made the commercial more about films in general and included things like TFA, but it still was obvious what they were doing. You're not slick, Oscars!

[JessePinkman]

I just saw a commercial for the Academy Awards broadcast. There was a really prominent shot of Lupita holidng her Oscar. They also put in a shot of Michael B Jordan running towards the camera in Creed, even though he's not nominated. It fit because they made the commercial more about films in general and included things like TFA, but it still was obvious what they were doing. You're not slick, Oscars!

They've done this with the posters too, lots of POC. And there are gonna be a ton of non-white presenters. It's feels so disingenuous. I'd rather not see us there at all over this pandering (and I know people will say that they just can't win but I hate feeling like POC are foisted on people who clearly have little use for us). Just try again next year, the white people can have 2015 I don't care.

[Ms Blue Jay]

cynic, I love how your posts often so nicely match your username!  I agree with your assessment; just thought that was cute.

[Rick Kitchen]

Does a superhero movie where two women fight each other count as passing the Bechdel test?  If they hurl insults at each other?

[Llywela]

Does a superhero movie where two women fight each other count as passing the Bechdel test?  If they hurl insults at each other?

If they both have names and are talking about something other than a man, then yes.

[AimingforYoko]

John Oliver, as usual, on point.

[ribboninthesky1]

They've done this with the posters too, lots of POC. And there are gonna be a ton of non-white presenters. It's feels so disingenuous. I'd rather not see us there at all over this pandering (and I know people will say that they just can't win but I hate feeling like POC are foisted on people who clearly have little use for us). Just try again next year, the white people can have 2015 I don't care.

 

This is why I wish American minorities could flourish in the industry outside of the mainstream.  Unfortunately, institutional racism is...institutional. Distribution and production are controlled by a few players, who certainly aren't interested in giving up their slice of the pie.  Hollywood has any number of opportunities and reasons to diversify the pool in front of and especially behind the camera.  It might have been a matter of ignorance (of their own making) once upon a time, now it's a choice.         

[raezen]

http://variety.com/2016/scene/vpage/jennifer-lawrence-patricia-arquette-equal-pay-women-dinner-for-equality-1201716149/

Lots of Hollywood folks got together for a Dinner for Equality although their main issue of equality was gender it seems from the article. I agree with Jennifer Lawrence that we don't live in a post feminist society. I really dislike that term.

[xaxat]

I kind of hoped this project had been quietly shelved, but here it is. Zoe Saldana's Controversial Biopic Nina Releases First Trailer

Edited March 2, 2016 by xaxat

[topanga]

I'm actually impressed with Zoe Saldana's performance in the trailer. Did they really have to use dark make up on her, though? It gives her skin a plastic-looking glow. 

[JBC344]

Got to say I wasn't impressed by the trailer.  It may have to do with seeing the AMAZING Nina Simone documentary on Netflix in the last few months, that left me cold with this trailer.  I think if I hadn't seen the documentary and felt like I really got to know Nina, maybe this trailer would have excited me more.

[galax-arena]

Nina Simone's estate continues to be displeased with the movie and Zoe Saldana.

 

ETA: Also, Alex Proyas has been throwing a temper tantrum on facebook over the whitewashing accusations for Gods of Egypt. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by galax-arena

[topanga]

Nina Simone's estate continues to be displeased with the movie and Zoe Saldana.

 

ETA: Also, Alex Proyas has been throwing a temper tantrum on facebook over the whitewashing accusations for Gods of Egypt. 

Okay, those were some great memes.

 

And I do understand the problem with casting a biracial woman to play brown-skinned Nina Simone--implying that aclighter skinned actress is somehow more appealing to viewers. But I also think people were quick to judge Zoe Saldana before a word ever came out of her mouth. Is she the strongest black actress in history? No. But I was impressed with her performance in the trailer. All except that awful brown makeup. 

 

Ironically, some of these outraged viewers were probably some of the same people who said that KeKe Palmer is too dark to play TLC's Chilli and that Gabby Douglas's black girl hair looked horrible at the Olympics And their parents probably thought that Diana Ross was too dark to play Billie Holiday. 

 

Where does it end????

[galax-arena]

And I do understand the problem with casting a biracial woman to play brown-skinned Nina Simone--implying that aclighter skinned actress is somehow more appealing to viewers. But I also think people were quick to judge Zoe Saldana before a word ever came out of her mouth.

The movie didn't even stick with Zoe's light(er) skin, they actually put makeup on her to make her look darker. Which is why there have been allegations of blackface hurled at the movie. And honestly, Zoe has had SO many stupid moments over the years when it comes to similarly sensitive issues, e.g. her attitude towards Colombiana's critics, that I don't really blame anyone for having an instinctive "fuck no" reaction when they found out she was cast.

 

I also don't think the same people taking issue with Zoe were necessarily the ones taking issue with KeKe Palmer and Gabby Douglas. People were upset about the colorism in Zoe's casting. Colorism tends to favor lighter skin. (This doesn't just go for black people, it's a huge problem among Asians too. East Asians look down upon South/Southeast Asians due to skin color.) So IMO it doesn't really make sense that they'd be upset over someone with darker skin taking a light-skinned role, it'd be a bit like being upset over reverse racism.

[topanga]

The movie didn't even stick with Zoe's light(er) skin, they actually put makeup on her to make her look darker. Which is why there have been allegations of blackface hurled at the movie. And honestly, Zoe has had SO many stupid moments over the years when it comes to similarly sensitive issues, e.g. her attitude towards Colombiana's critics, that I don't really blame anyone for having an instinctive "fuck no" reaction when they found out she was cast.

 

I also don't think the same people taking issue with Zoe were necessarily the ones taking issue with KeKe Palmer and Gabby Douglas. People were upset about the colorism in Zoe's casting. Colorism tends to favor lighter skin. (This doesn't just go for black people, it's a huge problem among Asians too. East Asians look down upon South/Southeast Asians due to skin color.) So IMO it doesn't really make sense that they'd be upset over someone with darker skin taking a light-skinned role, it'd be a bit like being upset over reverse racism.

But there were as many (if not more) vocal critics of KeKe Palmer and Gabby Douglas (who wasn't in a movie, I know)--and most of these critics were black. Black women, to be exact. And many of the critics of Zoe Saldana portraying Nina Simone are black women. So maybe they aren't the exact same individuals, but it's the same problem. Black people, especially black women, are saying, "You're too dark to play X," "You're too light to play Y," "Yes, you're a great gymnast who won a gold medal, but your hair is coming out of your regulation ponytail, and because your hair is kinky and you don't have a weave made from an Indian woman's hair, you are soooo ugly."   

 

It's the same message society gives black women, and too many of us are internalizing it. 

 

And I totally agree with you that the dark makeup was a bad idea. 

[xaxat]

My problem with Saldana in that role is that she used all of the tricks white people have historically used to play people of color in the movies.  Wig, nose appliance, darkening makeup. That's the same toolkit used by Mickey Rooney and Johnny Depp. And, personally, that makeup puts her in uncanny valley.

 

In addition, Simone's appearance is a very real part of her story. I was introduced to her music by my parents when I was a kid back in the seventies. Little Girl Blue was the first album of hers I listened to. I was surprised when I found out that this woman,

 

 

 

preferred to look like this.

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by xaxat

[GHScorpiosRule]

East Asians look down upon South/Southeast Asians due to skin color.)

This is so true. Now he isn't from the South, but India's Number One Hero (Action Star/Drama/Comedy) during most of the 70s through the early 90s (Amitabh Bachchan) was rejected by a lot of directors because he was too tall (He's 6'3" when the average height of the heroes was 5'9"), too dark (he wasn't as dark as South Indians, but was dark complexioned (think dark tan)) when the rest of the actors were fair-skinned, and his voice was too baritone, when again, all the other actors he was compared to, were soft spoken. But one director took a chance on him, and the rest is history. He wasn't the most handsome. In comparison (by them) Nose too big, big lips...didn't have ripped abs...but with him? For me? It was the whole package. His voice was mesmerizing and SEXY. The way he carried himself. And fuck if he could do any role. You couldn't type cast him. The picture of him on imdb is soooo misleading. It's so obvious they did something to make him look not as dark. And he had chemistry with every.single.actress he was paired up with. Well, except in the later years, where Bollywood got so egregious with pairing him up with actresses young enough to be his daughter. There were a couple of actresses, who, though not as dark as most South Indian actresses, but dark enough, who were successful. The late Smita Patil, who died far too young due to complications after she gave birth. I remember something about a brain aneurysm or something. I know I still have the article The Washington Post wrote up. Somewhere.

Edited March 4, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Ms Blue Jay]

ETA: Also, Alex Proyas has been throwing a temper tantrum on facebook over the whitewashing accusations for Gods of Egypt. 

 

I was EXTREMELY interested in this so I went to rubberneck.

 

After all of this, will I ever get to the end of the rainbow where it explains why casting all white actors in Gods of Egypt was necessary?

 

Anyone have the decoder ring?  (Bolding is mine.)  Hmm.  I wonder what those reasons are?  (That he mentions at the very bottom.)

 

Alex Proyas

1 March at 22:44 ·

SEEMS LIKE AUDIENCES ARE DIGGING IT

And some people are going back for another screening - in the US, and particularly across Asia and Europe. Thanks for the amazing support for the movie so far - to all those who already love it and have given it a chance (though the sad SJWs and constipated critics have been doing their best to kill it): please keep it up guys. This movie needs you. Thank you for confirming this is a fun adventure and a good time at the movies in all your messages. I really appreciate it. After all, that is exactly why I made this movie: to be enjoyed by people like you.

Cheers

Alex

 

Alex Proyas

28 February at 22:30 ·

NOTHING CONFIRMS RAMPANT STUPIDITY FASTER...

Than reading reviews of my own movies. I usually try to avoid the experience - but this one takes the cake. Often, to my great amusement, a critic will mention my past films in glowing terms, when at the time those same films were savaged, as if to highlight the critic's flawed belief of my descent into mediocrity. You see, my dear fellow FBookers, I have rarely gotten great reviews… on any of my movies, apart from those by reviewers who think for themselves and make up their own opinions. Sadly those type of reviewers are nearly all dead. Good reviews often come many years after the movie has opened. I guess I have the knack of rubbing reviewers the wrong way - always have. This time of course they have bigger axes to grind - they can rip into my movie while trying to make their mainly pale asses look so politically correct by screaming "white-wash!!!” like the deranged idiots they all are. They fail to understand, or chose to pretend to not understand what this movie is, so as to serve some bizarre consensus of opinion which has nothing to do with the movie at all. That’s ok, this modern age of texting will probably make them go the way of the dinosaur or the newspaper shortly - don't movie-goers text their friends with what they thought of a movie? Seems most critics spend their time trying to work out what most people will want to hear. How do you do that? Why these days it is so easy... just surf the net to read other reviews or what bloggers are saying - no matter how misguided an opinion of a movie might be before it actually comes out. Lock a critic in a room with a movie no one has even seen and they will not know what to make of it. Because contrary to what a critic should probably be they have no personal taste or opinion, because they are basing their views on the status quo. None of them are brave enough to say “well I like it” if it goes against consensus. Therefore they are less than worthless. Now that anyone can post their opinion about anything from a movie to a pair of shoes to a hamburger, what value do they have - nothing. Roger Ebert wasn’t bad. He was a true film lover at least, a failed film-maker, which gave him a great deal of insight. His passion for film was contagious and he shared this with his fans. He loved films and his contribution to cinema as a result was positive. Now we have a pack of diseased vultures pecking at the bones of a dying carcass. Trying to peck to the rhythm of the consensus. I applaud any film-goer who values their own opinion enough to not base it on what the pack-mentality say is good or bad.

 

 

Alex Proyas

29 February at 12:40 ·

‪#‎CRITICSSOWHITE‬

Not real. But maybe it should be. Most are white and male, are they not? So as an Egyptian guy, being called a racist by some of these people makes me feel a little queasy.

You know it must be hard to be a movie critic these days. I mean you are subjected to movie after movie to review for a “cynical” public - several every week sometimes - it must really take its toll on one’s nerves. And then there are some movies which come along with bloggers already bitching about them so doesn’t it make things a little easier if you are struggling for something to say? Well why not just say what those bloggers are saying, even if they haven’t seen the movie like you have. That will result in a review that will be received well. Won’t it? Only the film-makers will be annoyed with you. Who cares about them.

This way of thinking is human nature I suppose - it does not surprise me in the least as the web and the Rotten Tomatoes school of criticism supports this idea of reducing someone’s work to a series of stars awarded. I for one do not care about stars. Nor is this my vendetta against all critics. I know there are ones out there who are brave enough to express their own opinions about movies - and I want to encourage them in any way I can to stick to their guns, even if I have to criticise the critics, which for an artist means you will be instantly labelled as “crazy”.

People think I am angry because my film was not reviewed favourably. But you see I do not care if the reviews are positive or negative. I usually don't read them either way. And yes I generally take a fan’s opinion above a critic's. My fans are quite honest with me and tell me if they like something or not. I respect that. And most importantly I can trust their opinion as it is coming from a real place. Nor do I mind the bloggers who criticise for whatever reason - even over the racial controversy. As I have already stated I have sympathy for them, though I do not believe I could have done more in this regards for reasons I have stated elsewhere.

What I'm angry about is consensus reviewing - and how it damages movie making universally. I question the motives behind many critics response to my movie in this case. Some reviews so perfectly reflect the opinions of "hate" bloggers before the movie opened. Wonder why? Bloggers shape critics opinions - there is no denying that - more and more so. And the first professional reviews of a movie can poison the well - so that people are frightened to drink from it. I have seen that happen to many of my friends films recently and particularly to many original fantasy movies released in the past few years. So studios will probably stop making big budget original fantasy movies altogether. As a fan of the genre I think that would be a real shame. And... funny how the people who love to be so negative about films are the ones who have the hardest time being criticised.

(New improved "Paragraphs" courtesy of Angelo Mike)

Edited March 4, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

This I loved, by the way:

 

New York Times:  What It’s Really Like to Work in Hollywood*  

(*If you’re not a straight white man.)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/24/arts/hollywood-diversity-inclusion.html

[galax-arena]

So as an Egyptian guy,

Dude was born in Egypt, but he's Greek. And he moved to Australia when he was three. 

[JessePinkman]

This is so true. Now he isn't from the South, but India's Number One Hero (Action Star/Drama/Comedy) during most of the 70s through the early 90s (Amitabh Bachchan) was rejected by a lot of directors because he was too tall (He's 6'3" when the average height of the heroes was 5'9"), too dark (he wasn't as dark as South Indians, but was dark complexioned (think dark tan)) when the rest of the actors were fair-skinned, and his voice was too baritone, when again, all the other actors he was compared to, were soft spoken.

 

It's funny, the way you describe him is like the American male movie star ideal.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Attention, everyone!

 

 

http://fusion.net/story/276398/ghostbusters-trailer-backlash-sexist-comments/

 

While I'm not unsympathetic, because following in the footsteps of the original Ghostbusters must be just as difficult as following in the footsteps of the first two Terminator movies, I find it more than a little obnoxious that not being totally delighted at the idea of watching Kristen Wiig flail around onscreen for however long translates into being a 'baby-man'. Melissa McCarthy is cool, and the rest of the cast seems fine, but McCarthy was also the best thing about Bridesmaids, in contrast to Wiig's boring drip Annie. What do you call women who don't want to see the remake, if there even is such a thing? Or will women everywhere be attending out of solidarity? And no, I am not kidding.

[GHScorpiosRule]

It's funny, the way you describe him is like the American male movie star ideal.

 

Heh. Back then, I don't think Bollywood was that into copying or wanting its movies or its stars to be just like Hollywood's.  I remember, years ago, a movie with Orlando Bloom and Niam Leeson (his role was very short), set in during the medeival times? Anyhoo, the director, Ridley Scott? didn't want to cast Bachchan because he was Hindu and the character was from the Ottoman Empire, I think. I'm blanking, but I believe the character's name was Saladin.  So I guess the director felt only a person who was Muslim in real life could play a Muslim character? Alrighty then.  Bachchan's a very good actor. In Bollywood, he's played characters who have been Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic.

 

What is really ironic, is that in 2013, he played Meyer Wolfsheim in The Great Gatsby that starred Leonardo DiCaprio.

 

Okay, I did some digging, and here are a couple of pictures of what he looked like back in the late 70s.

 

 

 

 

 

[kili]

What do you call women who don't want to see the remake, if there even is such a thing? Or will women everywhere be attending out of solidarity? And no, I am not kidding.

 

I am a woman who did not like the trailer because the jokes fell flat and the actors looked like they were over-acting. But, the article isn't totally invalid because some of the criticism it highlights seems more angry about the main characters being female than it does about the quality of the film. It's hard to argue that "Woman ruin everything" and "Psssht Female Scientists yeah right" or "Lady Scientists? Isn't the ghost-busting concept imaginative enough" are rational criticisms against the film.

 

So, while not liking the new Ghostbusters does not make one a misogynist, not liking the movie because it features women does. 

[Joe]

 

I remember, years ago, a movie with Orlando Bloom and Niam Leeson (his role was very short), set in during the medeival times? Anyhoo, the director, Ridley Scott? didn't want to cast Bachchan because he was Hindu and the character was from the Ottoman Empire, I think. I'm blanking, but I believe the character's name was Saladin.  So I guess the director felt only a person who was Muslim in real life could play a Muslim character?

Kingdom of Heaven, Ridley Scott, and the character was the Saladin. Wikipedia says he was born in Iraq, of Armenian descent. The actor who got the part is Ghassan Massoud, a Syrian. Getting an actor of another religion to play one of the top 5 most famous Muslims ever could have been quite controversial, and Scott was courting enough controversy with a movie set during the Crusades.

[Demented Daisy]

Attention, everyone!

 

 

While I'm not unsympathetic, because following in the footsteps of the original Ghostbusters must be just as difficult as following in the footsteps of the first two Terminator movies, I find it more than a little obnoxious that not being totally delighted at the idea of watching Kristen Wiig flail around onscreen for however long translates into being a 'baby-man'. 

 

I think, if you didn't send one of those tweets, then you're probably not a "baby-man".  

 

I'm not going to see this one because I didn't see either of the originals.  I showed my husband (who is a huge fan of the originals) the new trailer and he loved it.  So maybe I will see the new one after all.  Gotta keep my man happy, you know?  ;-)

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I am a woman who did not like the trailer because the jokes fell flat and the actors looked like they were over-acting. But, the article isn't totally invalid because some of the criticism it highlights seems more angry about the main characters being female than it does about the quality of the film. It's hard to argue that "Woman ruin everything" and "Psssht Female Scientists yeah right" or "Lady Scientists? Isn't the ghost-busting concept imaginative enough" are rational criticisms against the film.

 

So, while not liking the new Ghostbusters does not make one a misogynist, not liking the movie because it features women does.

 

Due respect, but the bolded part doesn't work for me. Because I don't see how you can separate the two. The new Ghostbusters does feature women, but it also looks terrible because the jokes fall flat and because the cast doesn't seem to gel. Do the jokes bomb because women are telling them? No, it's because the jokes suck. That's a rational criticism, but I'm not sure where the line falls between hating a movie that features women because the movie just isn't very good and hating a movie that features women, period.

[Demented Daisy]

 

Due respect, but the bolded part doesn't work for me. Because I don't see how you can separate the two. 

 

 

Easy.  

 

"The movie is terrible because it's poorly written!" -- not misogynist.

 

"The movie is terrible because the cast's timing is off and the chemistry isn't there!" -- not misogynist.

 

"The movie is terrible because women aren't funny!" -- misogynist.  

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Demented Daisy

[methodwriter85]

Ironically, some of these outraged viewers were probably some of the same people who said that KeKe Palmer is too dark to play TLC's Chilli and that Gabby Douglas's black girl hair looked horrible at the Olympics And their parents probably thought that Diana Ross was too dark to play Billie Holiday. 

 

Where does it end????

 

Dianna Ross passes "the paper bag" test, as they would say. Was there really any criticism about her being dark? She's always looked on the lighter side. Billie Holiday doesn't even look noticeably lighter if you look at her in color photos.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I am surprised that people can tell the movie will be poor quality based off this very short trailer.  I'm really not seeing it.  The cast doesn't seem to gel?  Really?  I am really not seeing that.

 

There have only been a few times where I've had such visceral reactions to a movie trailer.  Usually I feel pretty neutral or at worst, bored.  I'm pro-this movie in theory and I will see it, but I'm a bit surprised that people can tell the movie will be poor quality already.

 

Now if someone really genuinely thinks Ghostbusters the original is sacred and doesn't want someone to remake it, sure, that I get, I guess.  That would be different.  

 

The sexist backlash stuff is pretty obvious - "Women ruin everything" - there's no nuance there.  It's straightforward.  I remember when the Sex and the City movie came out and God forbid certain groups of women were overly excited about something.  Lots of men were writing things like "Shut up about this damn movie" and other generally bad reactions on social media.  It was like the simple existence of a female-driven movie upset them or disgusted them.....  

Edited March 7, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Dejana]

Dianna Ross passes "the paper bag" test, as they would say. Was there really any criticism about her being dark? She's always looked on the lighter side. Billie Holiday doesn't even look noticeably lighter if you look at her in color photos.

 

I definitely wouldn't think of Diana Ross as someone who passes the paper bag test and when The Supremes hit it big, I've always understood it was viewed as something of a breakthrough that she was the lead singer of a crossover group being presented as this fashionable diva. She had darker skin than other famous black women whom mainstream white society did, on occasion, bring themselves to acknowledge as beautiful or glamorous, like Lena Horne or Dorothy Dandridge.

 

When Dreamgirls was made into a movie, Sheryl Lee Ralph, who played Deena Jones on Broadway, criticized Beyonce as being too light skinned for the role. I guess with Beyonce as Deena/Diana, she felt it left the impression that the "real" reason she was considered more palatable to the masses as the star, was because she was the light one. If Aaliyah had been alive when the movie was made, I think she would have offered a natural contrast to Jennifer Hudson and captured Deena and Effie's fundamental differences in image/personality/vocal style without adding a subtext of colorism that wasn't really there IRL or the original musical.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Dejana

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Easy.  

 

"The movie is terrible because it's poorly written!" -- not misogynist.

 

"The movie is terrible because the cast's timing is off and the chemistry isn't there!" -- not misogynist.

 

"The movie is terrible because women aren't funny!" -- misogynist.  

 

Edited for clarity.

 

Would it somehow become not misogynist if people spelled it out that it's Kristen Wiig is not particularly funny? Because I don't think she is. I know she's played about eight hundred characters on SNL at this point, but I think she's over-rated as a comic talent. Conversely, and this might be just me because I'm me, when she's portraying a bit of a jerkish asshole, then she's pretty entertaining. I've seen both Nasty Baby and The Diary of a Teenage Girl, and she didn't bother me at all. But when she's the plucky heroine that we're all supposed to be rooting for, she's just irritating.

 

As for the movie as a whole, did the world really need a remake of Ghostbusters? Granted, "need" is a relative word when it comes to movies, but my question is, Isn't this sort of an attempt to cash in on the nostalgia of the franchise? I referenced the Terminator movies in my first post on this subject, and IMO that's relevant since they probably should have stopped with the third movie. I liked Sam Worthington's performance in Terminator: Salvation, against what passes for my better judgment and maybe a little bit out of stubbornness because everyone was ragging on him so hard when the movie opened, but Marcus' plight actually managed to make me feel something, as opposed to Christian Bale's John Connor, who seemed to spend most of his time screaming. Life imitating art, I guess.

 

Would another group of women have fared better at putting this project together? I don't have the answer to that, and its a moot question anyway because the movie is due out in July. OTOH, I don't think I can be the only one who decided not to see the new Star Wars movie in theaters because I was so sick of every fanboy within ten thousand miles slobber-drooling over it. Not wanting the memories of your adolescence fucked with by something new and (perhaps) inferior doesn't imply that you're some kind of infant. If nothing else, the people who are sick of the MarvelVerse, which is a position I never understood until the Star Wars hype started up, are IMO in the same boat, and most of those movies are chock-full of guys.

[Demented Daisy]

Standard disclaimers: this is all my opinion, mileage varies, blah blah blah.

 

 

Would it somehow become not misogynist if people spelled it out that it's Kristen Wiig is not particularly funny? Because I don't think she is.

 

 

Of course.  I can name a dozen comediennes who I don't find amusing; that doesn't make me a misogynist.  I can also name a dozen comedians that I don't find funny; doesn't make me a misandrist.

 

It's about generalities.  If you make statements about an entire gender/race/religion/species/whatever, then you're an -ist.  

 

Now, the people who haven't seen the movie and are calling it an insult to their childhood or whatever, that's an opinion.  Fair enough.  I'm incredibly annoyed that people keep trying to remake Clue and The Rocky Horror Picture Show and It.  I adore Tim Curry and, in my opinion, no one will be able to measure up to what he did with those roles.  If I look at the RHPS remake and start screaming about a transgender woman playing Dr. Frank-n-Furter, people's eyebrows will raise.  Maybe I have genuine questions about her ability, but if I focus on her being transgender, no one will believe I have genuine concerns.

 

(For the record, I have no opinion on Laverne Cox playing Frank.  I would have preferred Sharon Needles, but whatcha gonna do?  I wasn't planning on watching the remake until it was revealed that Tim Curry will be voicing the narrator.  Now I have to!)

[ChelseaNH]

I would have preferred Sharon Needles

 

Dammit, now the movie is never going to be as good as the version in my head.

[Ms Blue Jay]

As for the movie as a whole, did the world really need a remake of Ghostbusters? Granted, "need" is a relative word when it comes to movies, but my question is, Isn't this sort of an attempt to cash in on the nostalgia of the franchise? 

 

Do you know that they're remaking Spider-Man yet again?

 

With the constant (to me) remakes of Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, The Hulk, and The Fantastic Four that mostly seem to me both way-too-soon and unnecessary, and I have no interest in so many them... to me this criticism of a franchise that started thirty-two years ago as being unnecessary seems so silly to me in comparison.  

 

Plus, it's being re-boot with women instead of men which makes the movie seem so fresh and different to me.  The James Bonds with Daniel Craig seemed so exciting to me as it was such a different flavour/type of movie than the James Bonds with Pierce Brosnan and it would inject life into the franchise once again if they did a female or black Bond a la Idris Elba.... I would be alllllll over that.

 

Many current projects coming out right now are attempts to cash in on the nostalgia of the franchise.  I'm top of Generation Y and right now every single thing is being catered directly to me -- X-Files, Fuller House, Bad Boys reboot, Cruel Intentions Reboot, Gilmore Girls revival, etc. etc. etc. I couldn't be happier about it.

 

Would another group of women have fared better at putting this project together?

 

These are 4 female comedians at the top of their game.  Melissa McCarthy heads blockbuster movies nearly by herself, Kristen Wiig was at the head of the Bridesmaids blockbuster which shocked everybody, I think Kate McKinnon is a certifiable genius from her work on SNL (I often compare her to Bill Hader), and Leslie Jones is an up-and-coming comedian also making a name for herself on the same show.  This cast put together is more famous than the cast of the original Ghostbusters when it came out in 1984, is it not?

 

I've seen other names thrown out based on personal preference, but I don't know who would be better.  I like Elisha Cuthbert from Happy Endings, I guess, but maybe she's too traditionally hot for this role.  Someone like Anne Hathaway might be too big of a star at this point to be put in an ensemble like this.  These 4 women who were cast are traditionally known for comedy.  Bill Murray picked Emma Stone, which, ugh.  I've been so soured by her ever since Aloha, but I grudgingly admit she'd probably be good.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[VCRTracking]

Conversely, and this might be just me because I'm me, when she's portraying a bit of a jerkish asshole, then she's pretty entertaining.

 

I thought she was hilarious as the E! network executive in Knocked Up.

 

These 4 women who were cast are traditionally known for comedy.  Bill Murray picked Emma Stone, which, ugh.  I've been so soured by her ever since Aloha, but I grudgingly admit she'd probably be good.

 

They worked together on Zombieland and she did a good Janine impression. People are giving Emma a hard time about it even though she admits she made a big mistake taking the part. "What was she thinking?" people ask? Probably that the director of Say Anything and Jerry Maguire wants her to be in his new movie and he convinced her it was going to be fine. Yes, she should have known better but the director Cameron Crowe who's 59 and is supposed to be a smart person, DEFINITELY should have known better. This is the same man who wrote Cuba Gooding Jr's Oscar winning role of Rod Tidwell along with Regina King's equally strong role as his wife. He's had the Aloha script for years, back when Ben Stiller and Reese Witherspoon were attached and nobody told him it was a bad idea to have a character who's half Asian played by a white actress? Cameron said he based the character on someone he met in real life who looked white but had mixed ancestry and okay, but when the main cast is all white and it's set in Hawaii then it becomes a problem. I remember when Bradley Cooper was making American Hustle in Boston, there was gossip he met with Cameron Crowe at a restaurant to discuss Aloha along with co-stars Emma Stone and Rachel McAdams. Neither Cooper and McAdams when Crowe pitched the movie said "Um wouldn't Emma playing a half Asian be problematic?" Bill Murray was in Aloha and  supposedly read the script didn't seem to mind. Everyone was ridiculously clueless but Emma is the one who got the worst end of the deal.

Edited March 8, 2016 by VCRTracking

[ribboninthesky1]

Leslie Jones is an up-and-coming comedian also making a name for herself on the same show.

 

I disagree that Leslie Jones is an up-and-comer, if only because it implies she's just started her career.  She's been in the industry some 20-odd years (much longer than the everyone else in the cast) and toiled in relative obscurity until SNL. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by ribboninthesky1

[Ms Blue Jay]

Up-and-comer implied that she's about to be a lot more famous soon.  I stand by that.  I don't know anything about her career before SNL but yes, I assume that a lot of comedians who make it on SNL had careers as stand-up comedians or likewise before that.  That is usually the case.  I'm sorry if you took offense to that term.  I also said she was a comedian at the top of her game, not some kind of newbie.  I meant strictly in the public eye or fame arena.  

 

VCRTracking, I am not sure why any of those people listed would be good authorities on whether Emma Stone playing a half-Asian person would be a good idea.  Alas it's not really on the topic.  I continue to feel the same about Emma taking that part.  She's almost 30.  Not a child or stupid.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[VCRTracking]

I disagree that Leslie Jones is an up-and-comer, if only because it implies she's just started her career.  She's been in the industry some 20-odd years (much longer than the everyone else in the cast) and toiled in relative obscurity until SNL.

 

 

And now she's having criticisms for her both her persona and material even though it's already been popular in African American comedy club circles for years. I don't get that.

 

VCRTracking, I am not sure why any of those people listed would be good authorities on whether Emma Stone playing a half-Asian person would be a good idea.  Alas it's not really on the topic.  I continue to feel the same about Emma taking that part.  She's almost 30.  Not a child or stupid.

 

She was 25 when she made the movie and everyone's still allowed to be naive at 25. If she hadn't taken the part it would have gone to another white actress, probably someone hungrier who doesn't have Stone's status and popularity but would have been taken just a big a hit. Aloha took a hit on Emma's career and reputation but she'll survive it. A lesser known actress would have ruined her career. Amy Adams agreed to do American Hustle even though she would be paid less than her male co-stars because as she said "The option is either do it or don't do it." It's a gamble for most actresses. Adams "won"(technically) and Stone lost. And when actresses have a sure thing like Jennifer Lawrence being a director like David O. Russell's muse, they're going to stick with it no matter how much an asshole he is.

Edited March 8, 2016 by VCRTracking

[proserpina65]

After all of this, will I ever get to the end of the rainbow where it explains why casting all white actors in Gods of Egypt was necessary?

 

To spare non-white actors the indignity?

 

Seriously though, I couldn't understand a word of that gobbledy gook.

[ribboninthesky1]

Up-and-comer implied that she's about to be a lot more famous soon.  I stand by that.  I don't know anything about her career before SNL but yes, I assume that a lot of comedians who make it on SNL had careers as stand-up comedians or likewise before that.  That is usually the case.  I'm sorry if you took offense to that term.  I also said she was a comedian at the top of her game, not some kind of newbie.  I meant strictly in the public eye or fame arena.  

 

I didn't take offense.  I disagreed with Jones being an up-and-comer, and explained why. We have different perceptions of the term, which is fine.      

Edited March 8, 2016 by ribboninthesky1

[proserpina65]

Would it somehow become not misogynist if people spelled it out that it's Kristen Wiig is not particularly funny?

 

Yes, because then the opinion would be based on a particular actress' comedic skills or lack thereof.  If you said Kristen Wiig (or any other actress) could never be funny BECAUSE OF HER GENDER and no other reason, that would be misogynist.  So not wanting to see the new Ghostbusters because you don't find one of the cast members funny is a legit opinion, whereas not wanting to see it because "OMG women can never be funny" would be misogynist.  Or sexist, I guess, if it's a woman who thinks it.

 

Kind of like how I tend to avoid movies with Julia Roberts because I don't think she's a very good actress, not because I don't think women can act.

I am surprised that people can tell the movie will be poor quality based off this very short trailer.  I'm really not seeing it.  The cast doesn't seem to gel?  Really?  I am really not seeing that.

 

I thought the trailer looked uneven - kind of funny in some parts, not so much in others - but trailers often aren't a good indicator of the movie's overall quality.

Edited March 9, 2016 by proserpina65

[galax-arena]

I'm gonna take this to the Race & Ethnicity thread.

Edited March 9, 2016 by galax-arena

[galax-arena]

Taken from the Gender thread:

She was 25 when she made the movie and everyone's still allowed to be naive at 25. If she hadn't taken the part it would have gone to another white actress, probably someone hungrier who doesn't have Stone's status and popularity but would have been taken just a big a hit. Aloha took a hit on Emma's career and reputation but she'll survive it. A lesser known actress would have ruined her career.

Wait, so Emma Stone should get a pass for taking a whitewashed role because she purportedly took one for the team and protected a less well-known actress from the fall-out?

 

And she was 25, not 15. I gave Nicola Peltz a pass on The Last Airbender because she was only 14 when that movie was made, but 25 is old enough to know that this ain't kosher. 

[topanga]

I definitely wouldn't think of Diana Ross as someone who passes the paper bag test and when The Supremes hit it big, I've always understood it was viewed as something of a breakthrough that she was the lead singer of a crossover group being presented as this fashionable diva. She had darker skin than other famous black women whom mainstream white society did, on occasion, bring themselves to acknowledge as beautiful or glamorous, like Lena Horne or Dorothy Dandridge.

 

When Dreamgirls was made into a movie, Sheryl Lee Ralph, who played Deena Jones on Broadway, criticized Beyonce as being too light skinned for the role. I guess with Beyonce as Deena/Diana, she felt it left the impression that the "real" reason she was considered more palatable to the masses as the star, was because she was the light one. If Aaliyah had been alive when the movie was made, I think she would have offered a natural contrast to Jennifer Hudson and captured Deena and Effie's fundamental differences in image/personality/vocal style without adding a subtext of colorism that wasn't really there IRL or the original musical.

I remember those comments by Sheryl Lee Ralph. 

 

But Aaliyah was light-ish brown. Certainly lighter than Jennifer Hudson. So wouldn't that be the same issue as Beyonce playing Deena?

[VCRTracking]

Wait, so Emma Stone should get a pass for taking a whitewashed role because she purportedly took one for the team and protected a less well-known actress from the fall-out?

 

And she was 25, not 15. I gave Nicola Peltz a pass on The Last Airbender because she was only 14 when that movie was made, but 25 is old enough to know that this ain't kosher.

 

I'm not saying she should get a pass, I'm just not going to think she's a racist or horrible person because the director told her character was based on a real person he knew who was 1/4 Asian but looked white and was proud of her heritage while not looking like it and that just by honoring that character everything was going to turn out fine. With the Last Airbender debacle M. Night Shyamalan rightly got the most criticism because he was the director and made those casting decisions but Cameron Crowe chose to have the only main  character who was POC in his movie be played by a white person. He could have made the character based on the real life person a minor but interesting one played by a person who had the same background. Instead he chose the option that would allow him to cast a white movie star and ensure a bigger box office.

Edited March 9, 2016 by VCRTracking

[VCRTracking]

The international trailer. It has a lot more Chris Hemsworth: