KrangPrime
Master Member
Considering how cruel women can be to each other, and how crude some of the comedy of these individuals with the movie can be, I wouldn't be surprised if they put one of those 'jokes' in there themselves.
Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Considering how cruel women can be to each other, and how crude some of the comedy of these individuals with the movie can be, I wouldn't be surprised if they put one of those 'jokes' in there themselves.
DakGibralter
Member
Then that's up to them.
I know it's fun and also sometimes true to joke about what bad choices might be made in a film we think is going to suck. But there's a line that gets crossed when we start speculating about some of this stuff, especially in anger (not saying you are, but some of us have been in this thread). It stops being about what the movie might be about and about how all these women we don't like might **** it up, which is off-topic, ignorant and offensive.
KrangPrime
Master Member
I had to rephrase this so people don't find it insulting...I just find it funny that if this was all guys, any comment would apparently be valid and game then. if it was chris farley, jack black, or any of the seths from family guy...no one would have any problem bashing them to smithereens.....but apparently women have to be protected from negative comments because..why exactly? have you seen some of the things female comedians joke about? no comment is off limits.
ahh, thank you paul feig for this thread. I needed something to keep my OCD in check with endless circles ;o).
ahh, thank you paul feig for this thread. I needed something to keep my OCD in check with endless circles ;o).
DakGibralter
Member
You have a point, but when we're commenting on a message board, for all intents and purposes anonymously, there are certain lines we have to recognize.
There are plenty of things that would also be offensive if this was a male cast. If Farley was somehow alive and in this film, and we talked about how the movie would suck because of how fat he is, that would be off-topic and offensive. If Seth McFarlane was directing, we could slam the movie because we hate Family Guy, but we shouldn't hate it on the basis of McFarlane being Irish Catholic. Likewise if the cast was black or Asian, or if we started tearing the movie apart because Kate McKinnon is gay, or because Feig is Jewish.
There are certain assumptions or jokes that, when we make them, are sort of off-limits, because they have nothing to do with the film and only with our issues with the casting choices and what that implies to us. It's off-topic, and yes, it's hurtful.
I'm not attempting to censor your comments because they are negative, I'm asking the RPF to respect the line between legit criticism and sexist jabs at women. Doesn't seem like too much to ask.
Solo4114
Master Member
With respect to the proton pack itself, my guess (and it's just a guess) is that the stove top thing isn't actually meant to be a stove top thing. It's just part of the pack. If it is, I would fully expect it to be used in a subversive way.
The heart thing...eh...for me it just raises an eyebrow. It could go either way, but it strikes me as, I dunno, needless. It could be pandering, it could be sexist itself, or it could be a character accent. Like, you have a scientist who's into "spores, molds, an fungi," but who also likes Hello Kitty or something, and the point is the contrasts in the character. Orrrr it could just be used as a one-off sight-gag, like they put on their packs in the typical "Rambo gears up" fashion, and one shot is of the heart because...women! Or something. I dunno.
For me, the issue with this ties back to the problems I have with the development of this film. With a project like this, there's a constant tension between emphasizing the "it's women!" aspect, and just telling a good/funny story that focuses on women. Feig himself may be terrific at doing the latter, but much of the development and pre-release hype efforts seem focused on the former. It's that approach that irritates me because it suggests to me that the studio is more concerned with wooing a demographic bloc than with telling a good story. Feig may tell a good story regardless (although it won't be one that respects or includes the pre-existing continuity, which is a shame because I think there's more story to be told in that universe), but as I've said throughout, if that happens, if this film turns out to be great, it will be in spite of the process by which it came to be, rather than because of it. More likely, I think, is that we'll see a film that's a by-the-numbers Paul Feig comedy which happens to have a "Ghostbusters" veneer, but otherwise is pretty much just his usual cast of actors doing their usual thing.
And to be clear, when, back in the early 2000s, people were saying "Oh, get Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow to do this!" I would've had similar issues -- that's just unimaginative people taking whatever is currently popular/making money and slapping the brand onto that style of film, instead of using what made the brand worth anything in the first place as a basis for future storytelling.
The heart thing...eh...for me it just raises an eyebrow. It could go either way, but it strikes me as, I dunno, needless. It could be pandering, it could be sexist itself, or it could be a character accent. Like, you have a scientist who's into "spores, molds, an fungi," but who also likes Hello Kitty or something, and the point is the contrasts in the character. Orrrr it could just be used as a one-off sight-gag, like they put on their packs in the typical "Rambo gears up" fashion, and one shot is of the heart because...women! Or something. I dunno.
For me, the issue with this ties back to the problems I have with the development of this film. With a project like this, there's a constant tension between emphasizing the "it's women!" aspect, and just telling a good/funny story that focuses on women. Feig himself may be terrific at doing the latter, but much of the development and pre-release hype efforts seem focused on the former. It's that approach that irritates me because it suggests to me that the studio is more concerned with wooing a demographic bloc than with telling a good story. Feig may tell a good story regardless (although it won't be one that respects or includes the pre-existing continuity, which is a shame because I think there's more story to be told in that universe), but as I've said throughout, if that happens, if this film turns out to be great, it will be in spite of the process by which it came to be, rather than because of it. More likely, I think, is that we'll see a film that's a by-the-numbers Paul Feig comedy which happens to have a "Ghostbusters" veneer, but otherwise is pretty much just his usual cast of actors doing their usual thing.
And to be clear, when, back in the early 2000s, people were saying "Oh, get Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow to do this!" I would've had similar issues -- that's just unimaginative people taking whatever is currently popular/making money and slapping the brand onto that style of film, instead of using what made the brand worth anything in the first place as a basis for future storytelling.
KrangPrime
Master Member
I know this is getting really off topic, so I apologize, but just to emphasize your point. take a look at these designs for robo shredder. http://comicbook.com/2015/07/05/alternate-shredder-foot-clan-designs-for-teenage-mutant-ninja-tu/ IF you thought what we got in the movie was bad an un recognizable as the character.....look at what bay was going to give us. they not only had the wrong director for the franchise who just did what supposedly worked in transformers and slapped some tmnt elements into it....but they had the wrong artist too! another example of a studio not caring, and throwing anything out there just to have something out there. they could have had a cool respected super hero brand like batman if they had done it right...or a fun comedy action romp like avengers. but instead, they gave it to bay and we got turtles saying things like 'bruh' (cause that's what kids do these days) and creeping all over april (it's bad enough with don and april in the new toon..even worse in the movie). and now ghostbusters to feig. I half expect a ghost to slime the characters by farting over them, complete with fart sound effect for a cheap laugh.
jlee562
Sr Member
That's pretty ironic considering most of the "haters" in this thread refused to acknowledge any sexist backlash to this film, even when presented with direct evidence of it.
Eh, you've made the most frequent and blatant sexist comments in this thread. If you're tired of being called out for it, stop making them.
It's pretty ridiculous that 80% of this thread doesn't even give agency to the other three women in this film. None of whom, you apparently have any idea about.
Of course you don't have to like it. Of course you're entitled to be angry about the production process. Of course we expect on the rpf that props are going to be nitpicked.
But if you can't recognize that the negativity around this film is on a whole other level, perhaps you should take a step back.
Westies14
Master Member
There may be a sexist comment or two thrown into this thread, but it's been far from the focus of the complaints and we were being called on charges of sexism well before anything even borderline was said - just for disliking what's out there on its own terms. I don't know what room Paul Feig has your loved ones tied up in, but the persistent focus on obviously wrong conduct in response to valid criticisms that have nothing at all to do with sexism because it's a conversation you think you can "win" is super lame. If you don't want to discuss the issues we're raising, don't reply to them. Let us debate these elements on their merits. If you insist that no aspect of a film should be discussed, liked or disliked before the finished product is seen, by all means come argue with us in a few months (assuming you enjoy Feig's resulting film) in the post-release thread.
Westies14
Master Member
And if you want to discuss sexism in society because you've seen lots of that outside of this thread in response to this film or otherwise, maybe start a thread about that. It really hasn't been much of a problem across these 32 pages of discussion, and those of us who don't like what we've seen are sick of being lumped into that description because one person posted something out of bounds.
jlee562
Sr Member
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/take
Would be very interested to see people's scores....
Whatever Westies....The problem with your argument is that you continually refuse to accept that others don't share your point of view. Frankly, the idea that sexism is off topic and that somehow everyone else is guilty of not discussing the film is ridiculous.
Edit to add: which is not to say I would prefer to make the topic sexism; but, if it comes up, I'm going to mention it.
Would be very interested to see people's scores....
Whatever Westies....The problem with your argument is that you continually refuse to accept that others don't share your point of view. Frankly, the idea that sexism is off topic and that somehow everyone else is guilty of not discussing the film is ridiculous.
Edit to add: which is not to say I would prefer to make the topic sexism; but, if it comes up, I'm going to mention it.
Last edited:
Stormie
Well-Known Member
That test is a biased joke, apparently men are not complete without women.
jlee562
Sr Member
Lol what? The point went entirely over your head. Nothing on that page asserts that "men are not complete without women."
We can go with the Harvard test, but that's longer: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html
Last edited:
Westies14
Master Member
I need a feature that blocks trolls like Jlee from even showing up when quoted, apparently. He thinks we're still having a conversation. One last time, for the record:
If you've seen a sexist uproar over this film elsewhere, feel free to discuss that and please be clear who it is you're referring to. Stop saddling the rest of us with that irrelevant garbage every time we don't like something that has nothing to do with gender. The grownups are trying to have a conversation here.
- Is there sexism in the world? Of course.
- Has there been a sexist backlash to this film's announcement? Yes.
- Have the criticisms in this thread focused on gender? No.
- Have most of the people criticizing the development, props, or Feig's track record here on the RPF been making sexist comments? Again, no.
- Have the defenders of this unfinished film fallen back on cries of sexism at every turn when there's no good answer for the criticism on the table? Quick as can be!
- But I saw a post that mentioned tampons halfway through this thread! Sorry, that doesn't excuse you calling us sexist for not liking what we've learned about this film before or since that happened.
If you've seen a sexist uproar over this film elsewhere, feel free to discuss that and please be clear who it is you're referring to. Stop saddling the rest of us with that irrelevant garbage every time we don't like something that has nothing to do with gender. The grownups are trying to have a conversation here.
jlee562
Sr Member
If you really think I'm trolling, go ahead and report me to the mods.
I actually have not cried sexism in direct response to someone's criticism of the film. Go ahead and quote me directly if you believe this is what I've done/
Frankly the one who keeps falling back on the sexism thing is you and Neil. I haven't gone out of my way to bring it into the discussion, except as in reply to others.
Of course there are valid criticisms in this thread. But there are also ones which display implicit bias.
But nobody has said, for example, if you don't like the new proton pack you must be sexist.
And I actually have dealt substantively with the comments. Half of the things said about the proton pack are highly subjective: "looks like it doesn't work," "doesn't say professional ghostbusters." Some of them are blatantly contradictory "home depot" vs "junkyard." The "professional ghostbusters" thing didn't even make much sense to me, because, as I said, half of the first movie was making fun of the fact that they weren't professionals.
Yes, there's a patina on the proton pack, but is there a narrative reason for it in the film? Criticizing a photo of one shot of a proton pack for looking like it was "buried for 10 years" might not even be valid! Can we discuss that?
It looks like it "doesn't work?" How so? What function is it that you suppose the 4 red lights on the original proton pack serve?
DakGibralter
Member
I was with you for the most part, Westies, but this is a straw man.
I'm not a defender of the film. It will probably suck, especially on the criteria of a satisfying entry in a beloved franchise. I WANT it to be good, because I want everything to be good, but I'm doubtful it will be, for many of the legitimate reasons we've discussed. It's unfair to assume that anyone who bristles at blatant and aggressive sexism is secretly a champion for this film, and asserting that doesn't help your case at all.
And it's also unfair to act like you're being attacked or lumped in with anyone. Nobody has come in here and acted called us all sexists.
Just because you and numerous others have discussed this film rationally doesn't mean that there aren't many posts on this 32-page thread that are frankly offensive, and for my part, I've tried to address them specifically, because I'm trying to keep the thread on-topic. Like most sane rational posters here.
Does an off-topic post warrant an off-topic response? Maybe not. Should we ignore the trolls, on either extreme, here? Probably. But don't act like it's unreasonable to call people out for posting ignorant and hateful content on this thread. The vast majority of us just want to talk about the movie, and we're trying to keep people on that topic as well as we can. Give us some credit.
Back to the topic at hand, though: what's the deal with Vinz Clortho, huh? Is he a dog, or what?
Last edited:
Westies14
Master Member
Dak, that wasn't aimed at calling out the specific sexist posts (though I've seem some called out that weren't). I've acknowledged seeing one that went over the line. It was addressed. I think we can all agree that sexism is wrong, but we keep coming around to it as a prevailing theme due to the "defenders" (for lack of a better word) bringing it back when they run out of arguments and not because the "detractors" keep making sexist criticisms. It's just one of many methods of deflection, and constant deflection/distraction is the real issue here.
You say you don't like how Feig was chosen? "How can you say a film you haven't even seen yet will be terrible!"
You say you don't like Feig's films? "Why won't you let women have their moment in comedies?"
When pointing out that there are many real issues we're discussing (no one is crying or whining whatsoever), we get sexism brought back up again as a general problematic theme. Why?
Why can't we discuss our issues with this film? Every sincere, well-considered point is buried under irrelevant crud before meaningful conversation can happen by people who seem to be offended that we'd even question it. If they can't address the point itself, they slide a more comfortable argument to the front of the line and pretend it's relevant - and they're deliberately convoluting all of it to make it appear as though they occupy some imaginary high ground. F that. And no, I will not parse a 32-page thread to collate tidy little quotes and demonstrate it for anyone. It's about every other post, if anyone would care to read it.
You say you don't like how Feig was chosen? "How can you say a film you haven't even seen yet will be terrible!"
You say you don't like Feig's films? "Why won't you let women have their moment in comedies?"
When pointing out that there are many real issues we're discussing (no one is crying or whining whatsoever), we get sexism brought back up again as a general problematic theme. Why?
Why can't we discuss our issues with this film? Every sincere, well-considered point is buried under irrelevant crud before meaningful conversation can happen by people who seem to be offended that we'd even question it. If they can't address the point itself, they slide a more comfortable argument to the front of the line and pretend it's relevant - and they're deliberately convoluting all of it to make it appear as though they occupy some imaginary high ground. F that. And no, I will not parse a 32-page thread to collate tidy little quotes and demonstrate it for anyone. It's about every other post, if anyone would care to read it.
Three hours ago...
Would you care to clarify or alter your statement Westies?
DakGibralter
Member
To be completely fair, I think that "crud" consists of at least as much uninformed, aggressive garbage as it does backlash against that garbage. If you think that the derailment of this conversation has been comprised of a select few critical comments followed by a tidal wave of defensive posts, I think you're reading a different thread than I am.
I'm all for calling for an end to the back and forth about meaningless or uncompromisable BS. But it's inaccurate to claim that there's this huge group of people derailing the thread every time things get dull or someone posts a valid criticism. Almost EVERYONE here, myself included, are 100% on board with the pile of evidence against this being a great or satisfying entry in the GB franchise. From my point of view, it seems like the valid criticism continues until someone posts something inflammatory, and then a select few get up in arms about that, myself included. If we could stem those inflammatory posts, as I've been saying for a while now, we could have a much more interesting discussion.
Westies14
Master Member
Not at all. The casting of a film should follow its story. The criticism is related to Sony's development and selection process; that's just the wrong foot Feig happened to put forward when Pascal hired him. You can make anything into a sexist issue if you're willing to try hard enough. Thank you for proving my point.
Similar threads
