Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Maybe it´s Filmation´s Ghost Busters that this is all about?
KrangPrime
Master Member
It's a good thing I have OCD. I could go arguing in circles for hours like this long after other people get tired..repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again... and yes, I noticed it too ;o)..
That's... not a bad idea. That would actually solve most of my problems with all of this with one stroke.
--Jonah
jlee562
Sr Member
Solo4114
Master Member
Did the post I quote below contain sexist comments?
I'm serious. Do you think that was sexist?
jlee562
Sr Member
I think it portrays a fundamentally flawed misunderstanding of feminism and what equality looks look/would look like. I think this is generally true throughout the whole thread,such as when you offered up "Twilight" as a "female dominated franchise." Aside from what I pointed out in my initial reply to you - that Twilight is not really a "female dominated" franchise given the centrality of Jacob and Edward to the whole thing - it is not what I would consider a franchise which actually forwards a feminist viewpoint.
To wit:
http://jezebel.com/5990009/twilight-author-stephenie-meyer-is-a-self-proclaimed-feminist
I want to break here and re-iterate what I said earlier. There's a distinct lack of female voices in this discussion. And although I would consider myself generally informed on the wide generalities of feminist theory, I am by no means an expert on it. Stepping back to the bigger picture, there is an active debate in sociological circles about what feminism means and what it encompasses. But we can extrapolate by working backwards from Jezebel's criticism above. Jezebel, for better or worse, represents a certain voice on the internet which has been outspoken on such matters.
Hence my initial reply to Inquisitor's post was pointing out that Feig and Sony wouldn't have to make a point about the cast being all female in a world in which sexism didn't exist. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the word "feminist" itself is even a dirty word with some women outright refusing to say that they are feminists, when at its base, it's really about equality.
There are "gimmicks" in Hollywood every day. Stunt casting didn't begin and end with Feig and this movie. If y'all collectively believe that every decision made on a movie is in the service of a story, and that financial motivations, personal motivations, politicking, etc, never have any influence over the movie making process, boy do I have a bridge to sell you. Yeah, it is really weird that the outrage went this far, this fast.
Like I asked earlier, does anybody really believe that there would have been as much outrage if the cast had been all African American? Or if it were rebooted in the future? You really believe that everybody is suddenly pissed about the story and that all the ranting about "feminists" ruining ghostbusters was just a big coincidence?
Edit to add: Like, Lucas did "Red Tails." And when he did it, he explicitly said that he was going to make a movie for young African American men, because Hollywood ignores black stories. Sure, we can point out that Spike Lee has had success; that Denzel Washingston and Will Smith are huge stars; that black characters have screen time and emotional depth. But in the big scheme of things, are black characters and stories given parity? I don't think you'd find many in that community saying yes. Was that a "gimmick?" To make a movie specifically for a black audience? Was it a gimmick for Lucas, as a white filmmaker, to explicitly market his film this way? Are you outraged?
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
I'm asking again:
Do you think that what Peregrinus said was sexist? Yes or no?
If you think it was sexist, come out and say so.
If not, then you may want to rethink how you're approaching this discussion. You may not recognize what you're doing, so I'll try to break it down. You're basically accusing people of being sexist because they don't support the decision to create an all-female Ghostbusters film. At least, that's how it's coming across.
Many people in this thread have offered a range of reasons why they take a dim view of the casting decision. Your responses are focused on the general response to this announcement which you state quite clearly is sexist, rather than the specific response of the person in question. In the process, it appears that you are equating the specific statement to which you are responding with the general response elsewhere. Given that you've spent a considerable amount of text pointing out how sexist the general response has been, it ends up coming across that you are accusing the individual of being sexist merely because they are decrying the casting decision. In other words, you're mapping the general on to the specific, and damning by association.
That's neither fair, nor is it accurate. That's why you're getting what I suppose could be politely called "push-back" to your replies.
There are a whole range of reasons one might not like the decision to announce up front "I'm casting all female Ghostbusters!!" especially before a story has even been discussed. Some of them may well be basic sexism. But others may be anything but sexist, and may indeed come from people who view the move as fundamentally exploitative and not really feminist at all, even when they support feminism and may consider themselves feminists.
As to your question "does anybody really believe that there would have been as much outrage if the cast had been all African American? Or if it were rebooted in the future? You really believe that everybody is suddenly pissed about the story and that all the ranting about "feminists" ruining ghostbusters was just a big coincidence?"
Yes. I absolutely think there would be.
Some of it would be racist, too, just like the racists who objected to a black Johnny Storm in the new FF movie. But other objections might be based on a range of other reasons that are not racist at all.
Personally, I find the decision to cast an "all female GB team" every bit as objectionable as the grand announcement that they'd also be casting an "all male GB team," and an "all black/hispanic/asian/pacific islander/hapa/white/first peoples/etc. GB team" would be just as objectionable for the same general reason. To me, one needs no further evidence than the follow-up "all male GB team" announcement to show that ALL of this has been about crass exploitation and treating the audience as gullible fools whose purchasing decisions are based on blatant identity politics. It assumes people will go see a film based on the lead actors' genetalia or race or culture or whatever. That's insulting, exploitative, and not at all about equality. If it engenders equality, breaks down the patriarchy, etc., it does so by happenstance, not design. The design is clearly about exploitation and audience manipulation. That's what I object to.
joshvanrad
Master Member
Solo, you can't fix everybody, dude. Some people are just on the extreme end of the spectrum.
jlee562
Sr Member
I don't think Peregrinus is consciously expressing sexism or misogyny. But ontologically speaking, what he's saying reflects a point of view that does not actually express gender equality, in spite of good intentions. In that way, his argument that the reaction was not about sexism becomes invalid.
Erm, sorry, I disagree and I think you're gravely misreading my posts.
If we take a comment like:
One might say, "but hey look JLee, quit being a dick. He clearly said it's about the way that Feig made the announcement that irked him." Well, that strains credulity to me. "That's who I'm gonna call!" = "I don't give a damn about the fans" Huh? How does that work? Did we suddenly forget the lyrical hook of "Who you gonna call?" So, tying into the movies catch phrase is indicative of not caring about the fans? Really? That's where we're drawing the line?
Regardless, to rebut Monolith's statement by pointing out, as I did, that lots of people actually DID have sexist things to say, is only to make that point.
Ok, let's take a step back. I had said a few posts when the casting came out, but left the thread for a while until it popped back up yesterday. The comment which I really wanted to respond to was this:
(bold mine, for emphasis only)
When questions like those at the top of the post are thrown around, I think the answer to the question is "Yes, we do need a discussion about sexism." Joshvanrad, you can feel free to not participate if you like, but please refrain from ad hominem attacks.
I don't disagree at all. In fact, I think almost nothing in life is mono-causal. What bothers me is the number of people who are rejecting the idea that sexism has anything to do with this controversy.
Ehh....I find that hard to believe. Although of course there's no way to prove a counter factual hypothetical. :lol
So say we all!
By the way, I would dare say that BSG had a strong feminist vibe, and Starbuck / Katee Sackoff was a huge success. Female Commander Caine? Win. Six ? Win, strong character and not only sexy but developed a lot of depth. Female President? Fantastic character.
Sometimes a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose ...
"The nail that stands out must be hammered in !" Old japanese proverb
And to go full circle with this, Hammerhead was my favourite boring vintage Star Wars action figure! Now where is that thread where we were discussing old vs. new OT character names ...
Quite the appropriate metaphor since nails are an integral component in keeping structural integrity. And unlike the hammer, a nail is constantly doing it's job after the hammer's job is done. A guess a more appropriate negative use of a hammer would be using it's claw side to pul nails out, which I don't think fits what Paul seems to be doing with this movie.
Wow... 21 pages of debating over a movie no one has seen or even starting filming yet. I realize Ghostbusters fans are some of the most loyal fans in the world, but comon... all of this is turning into a gripe fest about whether or not it's going to be good with a woman cast instead of the original cast. The original cast is defunct... get over it... no matter what happens, the most you may see of the original cast in the new movie is perhaps a cameo here or there... but just because it's an all female cast has no bearing on whether or not the movie is going to be any good. Fieg may not even write it... he's not a bad director. I'm sure if Del Toro directed it, Ron Perlman would in be in it... if Tim Burton directed, Johnny Depp would be in it... it don't matter who is in it... what really matters is who is writing it. Are they going to capture the humor and spirit of the original movies? Honestly if they were to cast nothing but new people we've never heard of before, plugged in a couple of cameos, suited the cast up in the outfits and busted a few ghosts I would be happy. But like I said... it all comes down to the writers. So lets turn this around from a msyoginistic debate and make it more about what the movie should contain to be worthy of our fanhood and who knows... maybe they'll be skimming thru this topic and actually read what we're saying and put it in the movie instead of passing it by because some people don't know when enough is enough!
Similar threads
