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

[topanga]

10 hours ago, Luckylyn said:

Underwritten Female Characters: The Movie We’ve Been Waiting For

Very funny. I like that the trailer threw in a few tropes about women of color in movies. 

[ChelseaNH]

On 6/24/2016 at 11:53 AM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

then I guess you're also sexist/misogynistic if you don't like Twilight

When Twilight was announced, did people complain that their childhoods had been ruined?  I mean, I can see people saying that after they saw it, but not that the very concept wreaked havoc upon their psyches.

[Ms Blue Jay]

The Ghostbusters 2016 haters

"I viciously hate and am against this movie, based on the trailer only - I haven't seen the movie."
"Oh so anyone who doesn't like the new Ghostbusters is a misogynist?????? (I still haven't seen the movie.)"

Yes, if you're posting on Reddit asking people to band together and sabotage the movie so that people hate it or nobody sees it, there might be something wrong with you.... 

There have been a million movies where people never felt the need to announce they're not watching it.  Nobody needs to know why you're not watching a movie.  It almost never has to be announced.  There is a lot of vitriol towards this movie before it even came out.  If someone can't see the difference between that and something like the reception surrounding the movie Twilight then how can it be explained.  Nobody knew how Kristen would be in the movie before it was released, and the people I know who like the books, also liked the movies.

There are movies that are for some demographics and not others...  the way that some people feel the need to announce "I'm NOT going to watch this movie because it stars a bunch of women (or other reasons)" it's always been weird to me.  When Sex and the City (2008) came out there were so many men on my Facebook timeline (whom I've since deleted) who complained about just the EXISTENCE of this movie.  A group of people who are used to having everything made for them.  What other explanation is there... 

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

When Twilight was announced, did people complain that their childhoods had been ruined?

I thought that was the Star Wars prequels.I guess lots and lots of people really hate Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor. Who knew?

More seriously, it doesn't really answer the question I was asking. Is everything with a female protagonist the equivalent of required reading just because it has a female protagonist? Because that's what this has turned into, a measuring stick (as it were) of your feelings about women. None of the people who are talking about how awful those who hate the movie are want to discuss whether or not the movie is actually any good. Because that might point out that it probably isn't, and we can't have that. Or something.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Quote

Is everything with a female protagonist the equivalent of required reading just because it has a female protagonist?

No.  Nobody is forcing anyone to watch these movies.  Nobody has to watch any movie for any reason.

But if someone is angry about the existence of such movies, then it's questionable. 

Ghostbusters 2016's trailer being the most disliked YouTube video in history says something.  260,000 times it's been disliked.  That's a strong reaction towards a product that hasn't been released yet.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Epeolatrix]

There are lots of movies I don't intend to watch. I haven't seen any Fast & Furious and I don't intend to because I don't care about cars going fast. Nothing on God's Green Earth will make me watch or read Twilight. I read the first page of the first book and knew instantly, "This is not for me." I also have no real interest in the new Ghostbusters movie because I haven't seen any of the actresses in anything and the trailer I saw makes it look like a funny movie that doesn't appeal to my own sense of humor. That happens. Sometimes a movie's concept or promotion just doesn't grab my attention. None of this makes me sexist or misogynist.

However, a large number of vocal guys are reacting as if "this rapes my childhood and takes my movies and merchandise and sets them on fire" and their reason ends up being "bitches aren't funny". That's a lot of heightened emotion for something so simple as, "Y'know, I'm just not interested." It only becomes a litmus test of your feelings on women when you jump from "not interested" to a hyper-defensive list of dubious reasons it has to suck, and then concluding with a tirade on evil feminists destroying all that is good and right in the world.

If you don't want to go, don't go. The only people who actually care are the ones who stand to gain or lose monetarily. There's no required-media-consumption list for anything unless you're in school for that. Do I feel, as a woman, that I should support it even though it doesn't interest me personally? Yes, because whether or not it's rational, the success of this movie will likely have an effect on all kinds of female-led projects in the future. A ticket for Ghostbusters is the social tax I pay in order to increase the chances of getting something I do want later on. That's just me, though. Y'all's mileage may vary.

[ChelseaNH]

4 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

More seriously, it doesn't really answer the question I was asking. Is everything with a female protagonist the equivalent of required reading just because it has a female protagonist?

Why is that even a question that needs to be asked?  Are you seriously expecting someone somewhere to say "Yes"?  Anyone you'd take seriously?

4 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

None of the people who are talking about how awful those who hate the movie are want to discuss whether or not the movie is actually any good.

At the time Those-Who-Hate-The-Movie started complaining, there was no actual movie, so how could anyone discuss whether it was actually any good?

Currently, people have strong feelings about Scarlett Johansson being cast as the Major in Ghost in the Shell.  I haven't seen anyone say that this decision has ruined their childhood or that they can no longer enjoy the original manga.  As for the Star Wars prequels, people loved the idea but hated the execution; they didn't preemptively declare that the sequels had no business even existing.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I want to spend money on this movie - it's an easy sell for me, I love comedies, movies starring women, and these 4 actors - and I'll find a way to do so.  But straight up, I'm actually scared about some kind of gun violence at these movies.  I've already seen these kind of threats on Twitter.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

Men are trying to drive the IMDB rating down with 1 star ratings.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Luckylyn]

It occurs to me that Maude from Harold and Maude fits the Manic Pixie Dream Girl archtype.  She's quirky and inspires Harold to really live his life rather than fixate on death.  Still Maude is a grown woman and has her own agency.  She has plans for herself that conflict with what Harold wants.

Also Jack from Titanic is totally a Manic Pixie Dream Boy inspiring Rose to change her life.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Luckylyn

[proserpina65]

22 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

No.  Nobody is forcing anyone to watch these movies.  Nobody has to watch any movie for any reason.

But if someone is angry about the existence of such movies, then it's questionable. 

Ghostbusters 2016's trailer being the most disliked YouTube video in history says something.  260,000 times it's been disliked.  That's a strong reaction towards a product that hasn't been released yet.

The trailer was pretty bad, though.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Yeah.  I'm sure that was 260,000 separate individuals all signing into YouTube with their own singular accounts, curiously deciding to watch a new movie trailer, then casually shrugging and saying "Hmm, not for me."

[proserpina65]

39 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Yeah.  I'm sure that was 260,000 separate individuals all signing into YouTube with their own singular accounts, curiously deciding to watch a new movie trailer, then casually shrugging and saying "Hmm, not for me."

I didn't say that's what happened.  I just said that the trailer was awful, and if I had a YouTube account and had watched it there, I'd have disliked it.  So some of those 260,000 dislikes could've come from people who, like me, genuinely thought it sucked.  Which is a shame, because the movie might be very funny - it certainly has some great people in it - but you'd never know from that trailer.

[Silje]

The first Ghostbusters trailer have 35,5 million views, 264 926 thumbs up and 928 942 thumbs down.

The Godzilla (2014) trailer have 35,5 million views, 137 821 thumbs up and 5 245 thumbs down.  

You know the feelings some people have against Rogue One? 'Ugh, another female protagonist in Star Wars!?'. That trailer have 39 million views, 380 144 thumbs up and 20 274 thumbs down. 

I think it's pretty obvious that the Ghostbusters trailer could have been the funniest, most amazing trailer EVER and it would still be the most disliked video because there are many trolls out there with too much time on their hands.  

Edited July 12, 2016 by Silje

[Ms Blue Jay]

Wow, thaks Silje.  I had the stats transposed.  It's actually 260k LIKES and 928K DISLIKES.  So it's even crazier than I thought!  Almost 1 million!

And yeah, I agree with your thesis at the end.  I think that's pretty obvious. 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[slf]

On 7/11/2016 at 0:32 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Is everything with a female protagonist the equivalent of required reading just because it has a female protagonist? Because that's what this has turned into, a measuring stick (as it were) of your feelings about women. None of the people who are talking about how awful those who hate the movie are want to discuss whether or not the movie is actually any good. Because that might point out that it probably isn't, and we can't have that. Or something.

Watching Ghostbusters hasn't been turned into a measuring stick of your feelings about women. Whether or not you say things like "they only cast women to be PC" "they only made this movie to pander to women (which is  A Bad Thing)", that is a measuring stick of your feelings for women, which is what the discussion has been about. And in something like half the posts in the Ghostbusters thread the very posters discussing the misogynistic posts have said things like "it doesn't look very funny to me" "it doesn't look like my thing" or something equally unenthusiastic. So I'm not sure what you mean. Unless you're wanting more detail, which they can't give because the movie hasn't opened yet? 

"[...] that it probably isn't, and we can't have that." Ah.

Edited July 13, 2016 by slf

[Ms Blue Jay]

There seems to be a lot of suspicion of agenda when it comes to this movie.  For somebody like me, I am fine with the movie existing.  That's my agenda.  I'm not using it as an anything for anything.  I don't require anyone to do anything.

Now, the people who spend their time actively trying to sabotage the movie?  That's an ACTUAL agenda.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/4s829p/ok_so_obviously_the_reviews_arent_as_bad_as_we/

None of the people who are talking about how awful those who hate the movie are want to discuss whether or not the movie is actually any good.

Yeah, the movie comes out Friday.  How suspicious it is, that none of us commented on the quality of something that wasn't released to us yet.  Hmmmmmm..... what could we be up to?

Edited July 13, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[SeanC]

On 7/7/2016 at 11:47 PM, Rick Kitchen said:

I'm kind of leery about the upcoming Hidden Figures.  Even though the plot description says 

"The film recounts the true story of the African-American mathematician, Katherine Johnson, and her two colleagues, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson, who helped NASA catch up in the Space Race. Using their calculations, John Glenn became the first American astronaut to make a complete orbit of the Earth."

every cast listing I see has Kirsten Dunst and Kevin Costner listed first.

Which cast lists?  If you mean the IMDb, the ordering at this stage is borderline random.  The few synopses I've seen have emphasized the scientists.

[Rick Kitchen]

There were like three different cast lists that I had looked at.

[Luckylyn]

This “Ghostbusters” Premiere Photo Shows Why Representation Matters

[Princess Sparkle]

That is an incredibly sweet photo.  

[vibeology]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 1:32 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I thought that was the Star Wars prequels.I guess lots and lots of people really hate Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor. Who knew?

More seriously, it doesn't really answer the question I was asking. Is everything with a female protagonist the equivalent of required reading just because it has a female protagonist? Because that's what this has turned into, a measuring stick (as it were) of your feelings about women. None of the people who are talking about how awful those who hate the movie are want to discuss whether or not the movie is actually any good. Because that might point out that it probably isn't, and we can't have that. Or something.

I'll answer that after I see it this weekend. But the truth is, reviewers who have seen it, mostly like it. No one thinks this is the greatest comedy of all time or anything, but it has a 74% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 158 reviews. So I'm inclined to think that it's a good movie. There were men who launched a campaign against this movie when the concept was announced. They don't want to discuss if the movie is actually any good or not and they're on reddit right now claiming that the reviews must have been paid for.

As others have said, no one says you have to like something or not because it stars a woman. The issue is assuming something is going to be awful because it stars a woman, going online to say that something must be awful because it stars a woman and arguing with people that "I'm not misogynistic but it's going to suck because women aren't funny and obviously this movie isn't actually any good." And if you do those things, then yes, it says something about your feelings about women.

[Ms Blue Jay]

vibeology I just kept chuckling throughout your first paragraph... because everything is so .. true.

Think about the constant announcements of these people that they think the movie is going to suck / they're not going to watch it / it's an abomination / the women are not funny / the trailer looks like it sucks / I swear I'm not a misogynist but I already hate this movie etc. (Let alone the more offensive things, and violent threats I saw.)

How the hell do you think I feel when the 67899th superhero of the movie is released every damn day?  I never started any campaign and I for the most part keep my mouth shut except for an eye roll here and there.  I don't even know if I've even said a "Harumph" out loud.  Even if I've felt it.

Something about the combination of taking THIS particular movie and remaking it with 4 women - and THESE particular women, if you want me to get really deep about it - has created an abnormally negative and passionate response.  Before a movie's even released.  I remember people's feelings about the "newer" Star Wars movies and Gigli ... or, Mariah's "Glitter" ... for examples.....  but that was AFTER the movies were in theatres.  I never took those reactions as anything deeper than hating things that are bad quality, or hating self indulgent products (Glitter, Gigli), or doing things vastly different than expected (new Star Wars).  Because people had SEEN THE MOVIES and word had spread.  I'm a huge Mariah fan, but I never took any of those criticisms personally or to even feel like they were about HER.  This reaction though, is so wholly different, and just so premature.  I don't remember seeing violent threats about Gigli or Glitter.  Just a lot of mockery about the quality of the films, especially when it came to Gigli.  People pointed to the plots and the dialogue -- I KNOW some of the plots and dialogue without having seen it because there were so many of those reviews and sketches!

Remakes - even and often badly thought out remakes - are done alllllllllllllllllll of the time.  But the notable difference here is the gender switching to women.  That is rare.  If people know of other movies where we can compare, let's.  But this is our best example right now.  And hence, the reaction.  If the reaction is NOT about how it's women.......what is it?

Edited July 14, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, vibeology said:

I'll answer that after I see it this weekend. But the truth is, reviewers who have seen it, mostly like it. No one thinks this is the greatest comedy of all time or anything, but it has a 74% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 158 reviews. So I'm inclined to think that it's a good movie. There were men who launched a campaign against this movie when the concept was announced. They don't want to discuss if the movie is actually any good or not and they're on reddit right now claiming that the reviews must have been paid for.

As others have said, no one says you have to like something or not because it stars a woman. The issue is assuming something is going to be awful because it stars a woman, going online to say that something must be awful because it stars a woman and arguing with people that "I'm not misogynistic but it's going to suck because women aren't funny and obviously this movie isn't actually any good." And if you do those things, then yes, it says something about your feelings about women.

This would work for me, almost. Except that its been explained to me elsewhere that if you prefer to watch stories about men, then you think women are women are either boring or not interesting or both. Which I think is a hell of a leap, since this particular move is the only movie that's getting such a, shall we say, vigorous defense from the people who coined the term 'manbaby fanboy'. Which, again, is obviously not hostile and doesn't have anything to do with how they feel about men in general. Because how could it? Only men make blanket statements based on gender. It's in the handbook.

Riddle me this - how much of the criticism of Fifty Shades of Crap Grey came from men because Anastasia Steele was the protagonist? Because I read and posted in the movie's thread before it was released, and most if not all of the posts were in favor of it turning inside out, exploding and then catching on fire. On a scale of one to ten, how many of those opinions were those of men, d'you think? Considering that the book was already a known quantity, the general We knew what we'd be getting when the film came out, so if we apply the Ghostbusters argument a little more liberally and extend it to FSOG, then doesn't it follow that women also judge?

The American public judges movies beforehand. I watched the kerfuffle over The Hunger Games re Jennifer Lawrence's casting, and again when she was cast in Silver Linings Playbook,  and again when she was cast in Joy. What do we take away from that, that being a woman is okay but being a woman who's too young isn't? Tough luck for JL that she wasn't chosen for this attempt at a franchise. 'Course, she'd probably be too young anyway.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Cobalt Stargazer

[kiddo82]

2 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

 

The American public judges movies beforehand. I watched the kerfuffle over The Hunger Games re Jennifer Lawrence's casting, and again when she was cast in Silver Linings Playbook,  and again when she was cast in Joy. What do we take away from that, that being a woman is okay but being a woman who's too young isn't? Tough luck for JL that she wasn't chosen for this attempt at a franchise. 'Course, she'd probably be too young anyway.

 

I think the issue is that some folks have a problem with the entire mission statement of the new Ghostbusters.  I don't recall many people bemoaning the idea of a movie about the lady who invented the wonder mop, just that maybe the actress tapped to play her was too young.  That's a fair discussion even if I find it a tad tiresome at this point.  No one refutes Jennifer Lawrence's talent (unless you just don't think she's a good actress, which again, would be fair) but it's okay to question if she's right for specific roles.  Hell, it's even fair to say "I don't like Kristen Wiig and I wish they would have gotten Mindy Kaling for their Lady Ghostbusters movie."  Even saying "this movie looks like it's going to suck" is fair.  I mean, I say that all the time after I see certain trailers.  But to refute a totally innocuous film's right to exist?  To have something so benign rent space in your head?  It's downright laughable, to be honest.  It's literally, and rather ironically, the sort of behavior we associate with teenaged girls.  

Edited July 15, 2016 by kiddo82

[Ms Blue Jay]

Truly creative to be able to see this situation with Ghostbusters as hostility towards men, or male-bashing, really.  Like how people who recognize racism are "the REAL racists", I'm sure.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Kel Varnsen]

On ‎2016‎-‎06‎-‎28 at 5:23 PM, JessePinkman said:

Everyday I thank my lucky stars we're not getting Black Panther starring Channing Tatum.

I am curious, has there been much or any complaint/criticism about the fact that an African actor wasn't cast to play the King of Wakanda?

[Epeolatrix]

Quote

What do we take away from that, that being a woman is okay but being a woman who's too young isn't?

A popular young actress was chosen to play the love interest of a man twice her age when that didn't make sense for the character she played. Then she was chosen to play a character based on a woman that was in her late 40s, though JL is in her 20s. That same popular young actress was again chosen to play an older woman in spite of looking young enough to still be cast as a teen. There are excellent actresses that would have been more realistic for roles of that age, so what I take away is that David O. Russell has a thing for Jennifer Lawrence to the point that he will shoehorn his muse into roles for which she isn't necessarily suited. I suspect that if he did a bio-pic of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, he'd find a way to cast JL again.

[slf]

On 7/14/2016 at 4:59 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

The American public judges movies beforehand. I watched the kerfuffle over The Hunger Games re Jennifer Lawrence's casting, and again when she was cast in Silver Linings Playbook,  and again when she was cast in Joy. What do we take away from that, that being a woman is okay but being a woman who's too young isn't? Tough luck for JL that she wasn't chosen for this attempt at a franchise. 'Course, she'd probably be too young anyway.

...The kerfuffle over JL's casting in The Hunger Games was due to Katniss being described as olive-skinned with black hair (and never stated to be white) in a society Collin's has said is largely racially-mixed, leading many to hope we'd finally get a major movie (with franchise potential!) aimed at women and young adults that starred a woman who wasn't white. Jennifer Lawrence's age never played a factor. 

And criticizing her casting in the other movies is valid because she isn't the right age. Jennifer Lawrence isn't being discriminated against for being too young. Other actresses are being discriminated against for being "too old."

On 7/14/2016 at 4:59 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

This would work for me, almost. Except that its been explained to me elsewhere that if you prefer to watch stories about men, then you think women are women are either boring or not interesting or both. Which I think is a hell of a leap, since this particular move is the only movie that's getting such a, shall we say, vigorous defense from the people who coined the term 'manbaby fanboy'. Which, again, is obviously not hostile and doesn't have anything to do with how they feel about men in general. Because how could it? Only men make blanket statements based on gender. It's in the handbook.

Thank you for finally, unabashedly, showing your hand.

Edited July 20, 2016 by slf

[galax-arena]

Quote

...The kerfuffle over JL's casting in The Hunger Games was due to Katniss being described as olive-skinned with black hair (and never stated to be white) in a society Collin's has said is largely racially-mixed, leading many to hope we'd finally get a major movie (with franchise potential!) aimed at women and young adults that starred a woman who wasn't white. Jennifer Lawrence's age never played a factor.

And before anyone brings it up - because this always comes up - yes, white people can have olive skin tones too. Italians, yada yada yada. The problem was that the casting department explicitly limited the casting call to white people only, even though Katniss was at best described as racially ambiguous and Suzanne Collins herself implied that it was likely the character was multiracial because this was a future where there'd been a lot of ethnic/racial mixing. (Of course then she backtracked because she wasn't about to bite the Hollywood hand feeding her.) 

I think if people get super-defensive about not watching shows with female leads, then it's a bit telling. How does that saying go? Thou dost protest too much. "But everyone's saying that I'm a misogynist!" Well, no. Literally no one's saying that not caring for a movie like Ghostbusters or the Star Wars reboot (with a female Rey as the lead) in and of itself makes you a misogynist and if that's what you hear, then it sounds like a personal problem to me. You know, I didn't gaf about the Ghostbusters movie either (until the misogynistic dudebros finally pushed me too far and now I'm going to see it come hell or high water) or the Star Wars reboot and yet I didn't get my feelings hurt when people talked about how a lot of the criticism was sexist. Because it was. I recognized that I wasn't a part of that and I didn't get defensive about it and was willing to acknowledge that it existed. 

(I know Star Wars didn't receive nearly as much of the blowback as Ghostbusters has - probably because men aren't completely sidelined in the former - but I distinctly recall a number of fanboys complaining that TPTB were pandering by putting a white woman and/or black guy as the leads.) 

ETA: Apparently if you look at the IMDB rating stats, apparently 53.5% of male voters have given it 1 star. But no, sexism has nothing to do with anything. 

Edited July 15, 2016 by galax-arena

[JessePinkman]

11 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I am curious, has there been much or any complaint/criticism about the fact that an African actor wasn't cast to play the King of Wakanda?

Probably just the bitchiest part of Tumblr but I haven't seen anything.

This isn't movies related but I started Stranger Things on Netflix and it has a group of guy friends that's continued the phenomenon of the One Black Friend.

This is a picture of the young cast of Spider-Man: Homecoming, it's a nice picture, they seem to get along well but the best (?), most interesting part is that only one of them is white (the white guy on the left is Tom Holland's best friend, not in the movie). Small steps.

[vibeology]

And about damn time. Superhero stories set in New York City that are whiter than white are just unbelievable at this point. A teenager in New York is going to be surrounded by diversity so that should be reflected in the casts of these movies. Its amazing how with a few good casting choices and a strong showing in Captain America, I'm now excited for a Spiderman movie for the first time since the first Tobey Maguire one.

[vibeology]

17 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Riddle me this - how much of the criticism of Fifty Shades of Crap Grey came from men because Anastasia Steele was the protagonist? Because I read and posted in the movie's thread before it was released, and most if not all of the posts were in favor of it turning inside out, exploding and then catching on fire. On a scale of one to ten, how many of those opinions were those of men, d'you think? Considering that the book was already a known quantity, the general We knew what we'd be getting when the film came out, so if we apply the Ghostbusters argument a little more liberally and extend it to FSOG, then doesn't it follow that women also judge?

It's not the act of judging that's the problem, its the reason for the judgment. Yes, mostly women attacked 50SoG but most of them did so from a place of having read some or all of the book and were there to trash the story because the story itself is a problem. Judging something is never the problem. People make judgments all the time but when you consistently judge movies as bad and the thing all those movies have in common is a woman as protagonist, then yes, you have a problem with women. If you can't name a single movie starring a woman you enjoy, you have a problem with women because I'm casting a very wide net.

And still, that is not the behavior being criticized here. Not liking movies starring women isn't the problem we're complaining about; its actively attacking movies starring women. it's going on Reddit and planning with other men how to drag down a movie's rating or spam a star's instagram or protest/petition a studio. Sorry, I'm going to call those assholes out and I'm going to call them names because I'm personally the sort of person who likes attacking childish people on their level.

[SeanC]

James Gunn's new post of the lineup for Guardians 2 reminded me of the impending debut of Mantis, the MCU's first Asian superhero -- at least, assuming they're using her comics backstory, which one might infer since they cast a Korean-Canadian actress.  I had no idea Mantis was of human origin when I read the Abnett/Lanning Guardians of the Galaxy comics; I always figured she was an alien, between the antenna, the green-hued skin, and her weird way of speaking.

[galax-arena]

‘Ghostbusters’ Is A Perfect Example Of How Internet Movie Ratings Are Broken:

Earlier this year, I also looked at IMDb’s user rating skew for television shows. Essentially, male users were more likely to rate television shows with a female-heavy audience lower than female users would rate male-centric television lower. Men were tanking the ratings of shows aimed at women.

Yeah, I don't think women's ~hostile feelings toward men are the problem here...

[NumberCruncher]

20 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

Hell, it's even fair to say "I don't like Kristen Wiig and I wish they would have gotten Mindy Kaling for their Lady Ghostbusters movie."

 Well that would have made the movie 1000% more attractive to me.

I don't disagree that there is a ridiculous amount of sexism in people's attitudes about this movie and agree that it should be called out when it occurs, but I also don't think the overly aggressive response against it has helped either.  I can't read a single comment section without seeing multiple references to "manbabies", "fuckboys", "whiny fanboys", etc., which is only fanning the flames of anger and dividing people even more.  If someone chooses to see it or doesn't, I personally don't care, but this whole situation is one ginormous exercise in both sides trying to beat the other into submission.  It's not a war, people, it's just a movie.  I can't wait for it to be over so we can finally move on.

[galax-arena]

It's not a war, people, it's just a movie.

Well yes. If it were a war, I'd be calling them much worse things than manbabies or whiny fanboys. The anger that women are directing towards all the sexism on display seems perfectly apropos to me. 

[NumberCruncher]

1 minute ago, galax-arena said:

Well yes. If it were a war, I'd be calling them much worse things than manbabies or whiny fanboys. The anger that women are directing towards all the sexism on display seems perfectly apropos to me. 

That's your prerogative then.  Personally I think it's unnecessary.  The best "revenge" women could get is to buy a ticket and go see it rather than continuing to fan the flames on social media using the same sexist bullshit that men have been using on them for years. To each his/her own, I guess.

[ChelseaNH]

22 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Except that its been explained to me elsewhere that if you prefer to watch stories about men, then you think women are women are either boring or not interesting or both.

All other things being more or less equal, yeah.  If you don't want to watch stories about women because people talk a lot and nothing blows up, then that's at least partly a problem with how people tell stories about women.  But if you're not interested in watching Salt because the hero is a woman, even though you like action movies, then that's something else.

22 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

since this particular move is the only movie that's getting such a, shall we say, vigorous defense from the people who coined the term 'manbaby fanboy'.

A vigorous attack prompts a vigorous defense.  A hostile attack prompts a hostile defense.  There are plenty of disparaging terms about fangirls (in fact, sometimes fangirl itself is used as disparagement); why is it so surprising to see a disparaging term about fanboys?

22 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

how much of the criticism of Fifty Shades of Crap Grey came from men because Anastasia Steele was the protagonist?

I'm trying to figure out what kind of equivalence you're trying to draw here.  Do you think any of the men complaining about the existence of a female Ghostbusters would have any kind of stake in Fifty Shades of Grey?  

 

22 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

We knew what we'd be getting when the film came out, so if we apply the Ghostbusters argument a little more liberally and extend it to FSOG, then doesn't it follow that women also judge?

FSOG was based on the book, and we knew we'd get something similar to the book.  The movie turned out to be somewhat better than expected, although still not great.  But the Ghostbusters remake -- who knew what we would be getting?  Who knew in advance what the protagonists would be like, how they'd interact, what the villain wanted, how the ghosts would rise -- who knew?  Other than the people involved in making the movie, who had a reasonably accurate estimate of what the movie would be, and where did that come from?

Everybody judges.  Do all judgements have equal validity or value?  Everybody gets to criticize movies, but not every opinion is worth the effort.  "This remake will ruin my childhood" would be one. 

Edited July 15, 2016 by ChelseaNH

[Ms Blue Jay]

Saying that people who call out bad behaviour against a discriminated population is "dividing us even further" is a typical deflecting/dismissive tactic. 

 It's not a war, people, it's just a movie.  I can't wait for it to be over so we can finally move on.

Sexism won't be 'over' but yeah the point of calling out this behaviour is to progress and move forward.
The issue won't be 'over' - we'll see what happens when further remakes or movies like this one come out, and the reactions that come.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[vibeology]

8 hours ago, NumberCruncher said:

That's your prerogative then.  Personally I think it's unnecessary.  The best "revenge" women could get is to buy a ticket and go see it rather than continuing to fan the flames on social media using the same sexist bullshit that men have been using on them for years. To each his/her own, I guess.

I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and see this movie later this weekend but I do want to know why the onus is on women to end the conflict instead of the group of men who started it in the first place? Women have been socialized to be polite and likeable and have been told that we're the peacemakers in difficult situations. The expectation is that with enough pressure, women will cave and I'm not interested in that anymore. I'm calling out sexism where I see it. And I know I won't change any minds with hostility, but I'm convinced nothing I say will anyhow so I might as well have fun. It's not like I can actually debate with these irrational and overly emotional men whose childhood wasn't ruined by Ghostbusters II but is destroyed by this movie. 

[slf]

9 hours ago, NumberCruncher said:

That's your prerogative then.  Personally I think it's unnecessary.  The best "revenge" women could get is to buy a ticket and go see it rather than continuing to fan the flames on social media using the same sexist bullshit that men have been using on them for years. To each his/her own, I guess.

YMMV, but I don't think calling bigots pissbabies is the same as bigotry and misogyny is bigotry. I also disagree when a group that is targeted by bigots is implied to be just as bad as the bigots if they don't keep their heads and voices down and respond in non-confrontational ways. We're responding to behavior, they're responding to sex. One of these is reasonable, the other is not.

I was thinking earlier about what it takes for women to jump on a movie like this and actually try to affect ticket sales and the like. The only examples that immediately came to mind were exploitative and offensive films, like some of the Lolita and Lolita-like movies, and films with a lot of (often graphic) violence towards women. But because it had men in it?

Edited July 16, 2016 by slf

[NumberCruncher]

43 minutes ago, vibeology said:

I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and see this movie later this weekend but I do want to know why the onus is on women to end the conflict instead of the group of men who started it in the first place? Women have been socialized to be polite and likeable and have been told that we're the peacemakers in difficult situations. The expectation is that with enough pressure, women will cave and I'm not interested in that anymore. I'm calling out sexism where I see it. And I know I won't change any minds with hostility, but I'm convinced nothing I say will anyhow so I might as well have fun. It's not like I can actually debate with these irrational and overly emotional men whose childhood wasn't ruined by Ghostbusters II but is destroyed by this movie. 

 

29 minutes ago, slf said:

YMMV, but I don't think calling bigots pissbabies is the same as bigotry and misogyny is bigotry. I also disagree when a group that is targeted by bigots is implied to be just as bad as the bigots if they don't keep their heads and voices down and respond in non-confrontational ways. 

You guys clearly missed where I specifically said that sexism should be called out and I never said that we women have to always be polite/peacemakers/submissive or "end the conflict."  My point was the often OTT tone of the response has done nothing but create even more hostility, thus creating a backlash against the backlash, so to speak.  The whole situation has devolved from simply pointing out the wrong to hurling insults back and forth.  It's not solving anything but if you feel like it's making the world a better place then go for it.  I still say the response that will speak the loudest is to make the movie a stunning success at the box office.  Cold hard cash speaks a lot more loudly than message boards and comment sections.

Edited July 16, 2016 by NumberCruncher

[kiddo82]

10 hours ago, NumberCruncher said:

It's not a war, people, it's just a movie.  

Which is kind of the point.  People can hate the movie all they want but the lengths that some grown adults have gone to to disparage it (to what end, exactly?  Serious question.) is absurd.  What's not absurd, in my opinion, is pointing that out.

[Wiendish Fitch]

My thoughts on this whole mess:

There have been remakes/prequels/sequels of childhood favorites that I absolutely loathed. Don't get me started on the Grinch or Lorax remakes, because I will toss civility right out the window. I thought Oz the Great and Powerful was appallingly shoddy and worthless. There are probably a dozen others I can't think of off the top of my head right now, but I know they're there. 

But you know what? If everyone just took the time to take a breath, you'd realize that, 99% of the time, the original will endure and the remake won't. How often do you hear gripes about 2005's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Almost never, because it came and went, and it usually just arouses apathy, whereas the 1971 movie is played on TCM, summer film festivals, and is still regarded as a classic. Same with Planet of the Apes, The Shining, Star Wars, The Stepford Wives, and King Kong. The Wizard of Oz is still a beloved movie, 77 years after its release, while you have to remind people of Oz the Great and Powerful's existence. 

And you know what? 1984's Ghostbusters will endure, and the remake.... well, as of this posting, who knows? My point is, if a movie from your childhood is good enough, nothing is going to ruin it, unless you allow it. The Wizard of Oz is still in my top 5 favorite movies, and I still watch the animated Grinch every Christmas. If the remakes bother me that much, I just ignore them (unless I'm in the mood to rant about them, 'cause that's the kind of hairpin I am). 

Full disclosure: I am a woman, I consider myself a feminist, and I have little interest in the new Ghostbusters because I don't think it looks particularly funny. That's all, my word of honor. An all-female Ghostbusters could have certainly worked for me, if they'd had a different director, tighter jokes, and replaced Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (I'm sorry, they don't do much for me) with Mindy Kaling and either Cecily Strong, Sasheer Zamata, or Vanessa Bayer (I love the current line of SNL ladies, can you tell?). Bear in mind that I'm judging from the trailer, so my opinion is to be taken with half a grain of salt.

I also think screenwriters should just be more original, and come up with more stories about groups of women going on fantastic adventures, kicking ass, and not getting into petty tiffs that we know are going to be resolved anyway (seriously, does every movie with a group of women have to include this?). 

All that said, it's slightly amusing, but mostly frightening, how so many men are just disgusted and enraged at an all-female remake. Gender reversals happen nearly all the time in adaptations. I'm not sure how relevant this piece of trivia is, but it's worth mentioning just the same: In the 1930s, Shirley Temple was such a huge, huge, HUGE star, that when they adapted the Rudyard Kipling story Wee Willie Winkie (*pauses so everyone can giggle at that title*), that the young protagonist, Percival Williams, was re-written as Priscilla Williams so Temple could star in it. The movie was a smash, and even today is considered among Temple's best films. Granted, it may not have been in the higher echelon of Kipling's stories, but I highly doubt anyone made such a fuss about the casting, and the fact that the Ghostbusters remake has created such a debate really speaks volumes of where we currently are as a society.

[galax-arena]

9 hours ago, slf said:

YMMV, but I don't think calling bigots pissbabies is the same as bigotry and misogyny is bigotry. I also disagree when a group that is targeted by bigots is implied to be just as bad as the bigots if they don't keep their heads and voices down and respond in non-confrontational ways. We're responding to behavior, they're responding to sex. One of these is reasonable, the other is not.

Reverse sexism! Tone argument! I think I got it.

Quote

You guys clearly missed where I specifically said that sexism should be called out and I never said that we women have to always be polite/peacemakers/submissive or "end the conflict."

Well, I can't speak for the others, but I don't think people missed that. They're just objecting to you drawing a false equivalence by referring to our response as "the same sexist bullshit that men have been using on them for years." Not even close.

Quote

 I still say the response that will speak the loudest is to make the movie a stunning success at the box office.  Cold hard cash speaks a lot more loudly than message boards and comment sections.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. A bunch of us have said that we weren't even interested in the movie to begin with, but are making a plan of going to the theaters to watch it because the manbabies (oops @ my misandry) were pissing us off. We can spend money AND use invective, it's a lot easier than you think. No one's encouraging the latter at the expense of the former because we all know that in the end only the box office receipts matter. I think someone even said that she wasn't going to watch the film, just pay money for a ticket and go see a different movie instead. It's what I've been encouraging people to do when they lament that they want to support the movie and piss off the disgruntled fanboys, but have zero interest in the movie itself. Already got several folks on board with that plan. See, my cold black misandrist heart is perfectly capable of multi-tasking. 

ETA: To put my own money where my mouth is, I'm going to buy a ticket for tonight, even though I can't go to the movies at all this weekend because ~reasons. And then I'll buy another ticket next weekend when I actually can go to the movies. 

Edited July 16, 2016 by galax-arena

[kiddo82]

4 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

My thoughts on this whole mess:

There have been remakes/prequels/sequels of childhood favorites that I absolutely loathed. Don't get me started on the Grinch or Lorax remakes, because I will toss civility right out the window. I thought Oz the Great and Powerful was appallingly shoddy and worthless. There are probably a dozen others I can't think of off the top of my head right now, but I know they're there. 

But you know what? If everyone just took the time to take a breath, you'd realize that, 99% of the time, the original will endure and the remake won't. How often do you hear gripes about 2005's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Almost never, because it came and went, and it usually just arouses apathy, whereas the 1971 movie is played on TCM, summer film festivals, and is still regarded as a classic. Same with Planet of the Apes, The Shining, Star Wars, The Stepford Wives, and King Kong. The Wizard of Oz is still a beloved movie, 77 years after its release, while you have to remind people of Oz the Great and Powerful's existence. 

And you know what? 1984's Ghostbusters will endure, and the remake.... well, as of this posting, who knows? My point is, if a movie from your childhood is good enough, nothing is going to ruin it, unless you allow it. The Wizard of Oz is still in my top 5 favorite movies, and I still watch the animated Grinch every Christmas. If the remakes bother me that much, I just ignore them (unless I'm in the mood to rant about them, 'cause that's the kind of hairpin I am). 

Excellent points all around.  To piggyback off that, I 100% agree about the originals enduring.  You can't mess with people's memories, particularly of things they loved as a youth, and I don't think any rational person anticipates that Ghostbusters 2016 will replace the good feelings of Ghostbusters 1984 from those who love the original.  In a few weeks from now, strictly speaking as movie goers, I'm sure we all will have moved on.  Having said that, let's say there's a 12-13 year old kid who's never seen the original (Any original.  Pick one), goes to see a remake/reboot, and falls in love with said remake/reboot.  That's okay in my book.  Sure, I might roll my eyes because everything was better back in my day but what harm is it that someone has the audacity to like something that I might not?  I'm entitled to love what I love (a lot of which might be considered "crap" by some).  Who am I to dictate that for anyone else?  Honestly, why rain on someone elses's innocent fun?  Some conversations go beyond mere differences of opinion.

Edited July 16, 2016 by kiddo82

[shantown]

In my case, a bunch of dudes on my facebook timeline whining about how casting women was a gimmick and reboots are the worst (having never before posted a single negative article/comment about a reboot) was the catalyst for getting me to go see the movie.

But I'm oh so happy I did. I thought the movie had some good one-liners and some good physical comedy and background moments. The CGI was cheesy, but it's a comedy about catching ghosts. It's not meant to be "realistic" or truly scary. Kate McKinnon and Chris Hemsworth cracked me up. I liked the appearances by some of the cast of the original movie. It was a fun popcorn flick for the summer and everyone I attended with agreed that we're happy we went.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Who cares if it's a gimmick?
Adding ghosts to a movie is a gimmick.
It is very rare that a movie does not employ a gimmick.
Did Superman vs Batman employ a gimmick?  Did The Avengers employ a gimmick by putting 45 Hollywood stars in it?  Did Ocean's 11?
Is anyone under the impression that the original Ghostbusters was made with the distinct hope that only a handful of people would see it and that it would not make any money

gim·mick

ˈɡimik/

noun

a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[PatternRec]

I don't even understand why people get so worked up about gender-swapping in remakes. Sure, I get angry when I see some dude spraying his opinions about men's rights but I usually just mute them/hide them from my feed. It's not worth my limited energy to argue with someone who isn't interested in hearing both sides of the story. Also I kinda like that social media let's us know who the assholes are. 

In any case this tweet from the other day warmed my heart: 

The look on both those little girls' faces... <3 

Edited July 16, 2016 by PatternRec
edited for clarification