Ghostbusters 2016, sexism and PC agenda in Hollywood.

a reply to: watchitburn

I read a theory about that too. It was called cultural parasitism. All the current generations have been brought up to do is to criticize what already exists, so they paraistize it rather than attempt to create their own.

Think about it.

It is much harder to create your own female version of the Ghostbusters (or gay superhero or black cowboy like John Wayne or whatever it is that they are seeking to remake next) than it is to co-opt the existing ones and take them over. It serves two functions: it either destroys what they were in favor of what you made them over into as if YOU created them in your image -or- it destroys them for all time, both what they were and what they spoiled them to be. Either way, you win because it weakens the culture you claim to hate so much.

a reply to: AssiduousSpook

Why is it sexist to have an all Female Cast for Lead Characters but it wasn't sexist when the original had all Male Cast for Lead Characters?

All they did was flip the gender. From all Male Ghostbusters with a Female Assistant to all Female Ghostbusters with a Male Assistant.

Overall, I don't like Movie Reboots usually. I don't think this one was a good idea either. They will never make it better than what it was. I mean the original started a world wide sensation. Plus it had Bill Murry. You can't top that.

But the backlash this movie is getting and all the crybaby BS from so many loser manboy's out there who call it sexist and so on, need to get a damn life. They're just being whinny little b*tches over a damn movie.

The only thing more pathetic than a bad movie reboot is the losers who want to cry about it because it somehow effects their masculinity. What kind of real man would be effected by this movie??? Not one. But it seems to be effecting the Man-Children something awful.

a reply to: nullafides

OK, that's fine.

But what people should be doing is creating their own properties for non-WASP-y males.

They could have taken the Ghostbusters franchise and done this ... when I heard the concept, I thought there was room for it to potentially work if they made it a continuity from the old films to a new set of Ghostbusters picking up the torch from the originals. Instead, they are seeking to pave over the originals as if they don't exist anymore.

On the first path, they acknowledge that the original film was a glorious bit of film that cannot be replaced and should not be and they get to still pull on its legacy with the fanbase to draw in money to what will hopefully be new movies and new characters.

On the second path, they try to tell us that what they're doing is going to top the original, and it's blatantly obvious from the trailers already that it's going nowhere close. So they basically paved over top-dollar parking lot with cheap-@ss asphalt and are telling us they did a better job than ever.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nullafides

OK, that's fine.

But what people should be doing is creating their own properties for non-WASP-y males.

Do you think that I, you, or anyone here on ATS have the ability to control what screenplays get green lit?

Do you think that screenplays that are optioned, actually remain untouched? That characters aren't changed? That content isn't changed? That screening audiences aren't paid to give feedback to the producers and that quite often, changes are made, drastic changes, last minute before release?

My friend, this is business. I agree with you. However, this is about a media format that is made of nothing less than a 90+ minute long commercial meant to sell us something.

Oh, and even better yet.....why not package in a little bit of social agenda with the product that you're being sold.

Win!Win!

a reply to: AssiduousSpook

The most disliked video in the history of YouTube is Justin Beibers-Baby.

It has 4 million dislikes.

a reply to: awareness10

Yeah we were soldiers, it was fun, turns out the stage loads also work in a couple of my real guns too, scared the hell outa my roommate with a stage load in a .410 LOL (you would think he would have known, being he had a pocket full of them too)

a reply to: AssiduousSpook

So what is everyone's thoughts? Are people hating on the movie because of the female cast? or other meritable reasons?

It is stupid to remake a movie like Ghostbusters because there is ZERO chance of capturing that magic and chemistry of the original cast. It doesn't matter who plays these characters because it just shouldn't be done.

a reply to: ketsuko

You are 100% correct in everything you just said.

Trying to remake the original is an insult but had they simply continued would be fine. It pays tribute to the original while riding on it's success but with a fresh new look for today. Nothing wrong with that.

Even if it is all just business to them, they obviously have no idea what makes good business and what doesn't. Because they chose incorrectly this time as they've done other times as well.

People who love movies really love them. Everything about them especially certain movies. They define periods of our lives even. Good business understands that and caters to it with successful results. Those who don't understand that try passing off cheap knockoff crap as if it's something people want and they fail. This is going to fail and I hope they lose money on it.

a reply to: mOjOm

Did you get popcorn along with that dream you're walking in?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AssiduousSpook
But the backlash this movie is getting and all the crybaby BS from so many loser manboy's out there who call it sexist and so on, need to get a damn life. They're just being whinny little b*tches over a damn movie.

The only thing more pathetic than a bad movie reboot is the losers who want to cry about it because it somehow effects their masculinity. What kind of real man would be effected by this movie??? Not one. But it seems to be effecting the Man-Children something awful.

It's more like the creators of the movie and actors who focus and call haters as misogynist and sexist. I haven't seen any effort to defend the movie itself at all from constructive criticism. Guilting an audience into attending is the only card they care to play when someone says anything bad about it. Just like how piracy gets often blamed when a movie or game bombs instead of admitting that the fault is in the product itself.

Maybe this new Ghostbusters is all some elaborate money laundering scheme in the end.

a reply to: nullafides

Oh I got the whole package baby. Large Soda, Popcorn Extra Butter and Goobers!! Paid extra for the 3-D with Reclining Seats and snack tray too. Worth every penny as long as you don't fall asleep from being to comfy.

a reply to: sycomix

lol that's cool. It sounds like you guys had loads of fun on set!

Now i may have to rewatch it, can you tell me what your defining features were, like something that you may have worn or your hat etc that no one else did?

I nearly did xtra work once, but then life got busy and i didn't have the time to.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: mOjOm

Did you get popcorn along with that dream you're walking in?

This is the kind of movie you want. Totally non-WASP-y with biracial voice talent (the Rock). And yet, no one's childhood is being raped in order to create it. It is an original property.

a reply to: mOjOm

And you drank all of the kool-aid before taking that seat, didn't you?

a reply to: ketsuko



Pal...buddy....friend.... you should listen to your psychiatrist.

And also, apparently you did not read the very first thing I said... which was....

I am NOT defending this movie!


But, apparently you want me to shoot some ropey strands of daisies/sunshine/rainbows up your bum..... AND not tell you the truth of the matter.

originally posted by: Gin

Maybe this new Ghostbusters is all some elaborate money laundering scheme in the end.

I find it hard to believe it will make much money but who knows, the controversy might even help it.

I for one won't waste time seeing it in a theater. When I do go to see a movie I do it right. I do pay more for the reclining seats as we have a theater here that does that. You can even get beer or wine if you want. It's not even that much more in cost and totally worth it.

Otherwise I either wait or bootleg it because 9 out of 10 movies are complete crap anyway. More often than not if you want to see a good flick you have to go back to the classics most of the time. By classics I mean just about anything not brand new of course.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: mOjOm

And you drank all of the kool-aid before taking that seat, didn't you?

You obviously don't like my opinion here so what is it exactly that you think I'm so wrong about???

Please be specific too so I can fully understand your point.

a reply to: mOjOm

You really should find your classmates, and look into a class action lawsuit against the teachers that "taught" you reading comprehension.

a reply to: nullafides

The truth of the matter is that this movie should not be made.

I don't care if characters are other races or sexes although I think you should stop laboring under the impression that I'm a white male because I'm not. I do care about character integrity and story integrity though. It bother me to see things that were written and/or created a certain way get remade with characters suddenly changing genders and races to make the property "edgy" or "PC."

IMO, that is no kind of good reason for it. Seriously, it was horrible when John Wayne played Genghis Khan for the same reason that it's horrible for this:



To take place on Broadway. Genghis was not a white man anymore than the Founders were Hispanic and black. And if I write a screenplay or novel, I envision my characters to be a certain way: race and gender, then that's what they should be because that's what my story called for.

Honestly, do you think that Roots should be made with a WASP-y cast for the sake of diversity or, more likely, because that would be "transgressive" and "edgy?" How about a reboot of Tora! Tora! Tora! where some of the cast of the Japanese side is black and Hispanic and all of the soldiers at Pearl Harbor are Japanese and Middle Eastern? You know, for the sake of diversity ... oh, and let's have all of them be women, except the nurses and the schoolteacher who can all be male ...

originally posted by: Gin

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AssiduousSpook
But the backlash this movie is getting and all the crybaby BS from so many loser manboy's out there who call it sexist and so on, need to get a damn life. They're just being whinny little b*tches over a damn movie.

The only thing more pathetic than a bad movie reboot is the losers who want to cry about it because it somehow effects their masculinity. What kind of real man would be effected by this movie??? Not one. But it seems to be effecting the Man-Children something awful.

It's more like the creators of the movie and actors who focus and call haters as misogynist and sexist. I haven't seen any effort to defend the movie itself at all from constructive criticism. Guilting an audience into attending is the only card they care to play when someone says anything bad about it. Just like how piracy gets often blamed when a movie or game bombs instead of admitting that the fault is in the product itself.

Considering that this is what they used to promote the movie

One can only say that you are spot on.
Can they make their agenda any clearer? How is that not sexist?