Ghostbusters reboot

Random User · #101

To be honest it's no big deal if the reboot is different. It is a reboot after all. It's a silly thing to worry about versus whether or not the movie will actually be good.

I know AI said whomever is making this movie is supposedly a nice guy, but I'm just too cynical to believe anyone in Hollywood has a true passion for anything other than cash (and maybe drugs). I could be wrong. But in the position of a movie maker I would probably employ similar tactics just for cash.

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #102

[QUOTE="Kil'jaeden, post: 1517080, member: 26719"]Can at least one of the protagonists be an Ethiopian Jew?[/QUOTE]

Only if they're a crippled, mentally disabled Islamic transgender bisexual female.

^ I agree. I think it's all about money. However, I'd be satisfied if they branded this an alternate universe or sequel where there's women working as Ghostbusters now, anything but replacing the originals really.

#103

[QUOTE="Kil'jaeden, post: 1517080, member: 26719"]Can at least one of the protagonists be an Ethiopian Jew?[/QUOTE]
oh good you're still being a stuck up snob

how about some original material for once, oh wait your "superior intellect" can't process such mundane activities

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #104

^ His superior intellect is too busy processing all of the nonsense spewn here to be witty enough to live up to your lofty standards, I reckon.

I am nobody · #105

(If this has already been posted, oops. Six pages is a lot to read)

I present to you six significant instances of Hollywood changing established female characters to make them weaker and/or have less of an impact on the story.

You could argue money was the driving force here, but since the stories were already successful and three already had major male leads to advertise, it's hard to see how these changes would've changed much about the marketing. Of the other three, Coraline was advertised with her as the hero, and everyone going to see Unfortunate Events either already knew how it ended (from reading the book) or didn't, and thus their decision wasn't affected by which character saved the day in the end. Only the first one could arguably have been a "will anyone see this?" decision, but even in that case you have to wonder why they didn't just pick a story Wolverine was actually the hero of.

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #106

^ I like to comment as I read. First, the Xmen film. Let's face it, Wolverine is cooler than Kitty Koo whoever. I don't even fancy Xmen but Wolverine is cool in these movies. Definitely not a sexist decision, but a "hm should we use Kitty or WOLVEF**KINGRINE?!" and then they lol'd.

I am nobody · #107

That's the only one I can see a marketing explanation for, but that still leaves the question of why they didn't use a Wolverine story for the Wolverine movie they apparently wanted to make. It's not like comics have any shortage of storylines.

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #108

^ Not all stories are good, they must have liked it. They probably chose it based on some criteria and altered it accordingly.[DOUBLEPOST=1423369208,1423368873][/DOUBLEPOST][QUOTE=ARTICLE]It's not every day a main character on a popular show is boned by her brother, against her will, on the corpse of their child.[/quote]

You guys were right, GoT does get better. Guess I better start watching. Drew me in with "against her will" and had me at "on the corpse of their child."

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #109

I dunno about Avatar's situation. Sounds like it got messed up in a lot of ways so I can't just specifically say it was a sexist decision they made. Just looks like a stew of bad ones.

Coraline seems like they added a male character to improve sales, make it more likely for males to also enjoy, like how they added that crappy female Ninja Turtle fpr girls. It's a good idea if you're trying to broaden appeal but I think fewer changes are better, stay true to the original formula. This doesn't mean Coraline nor TMNT are sexist, IMO.

The closest to sounding sexist is the Lemony Snicket one. They probably thought it made more sense to have a traditional male hero. Not quite sexist but very narrow minded.

The Sherlock Holmes changes all make sense to me, and they're objectively better for it. That said, I still can't approve of changes so easily and it doesn't come off sexist at all to me.

I am nobody · #110

I REALLY HATE POKEMON!, post: 1517253, member: 18119 wrote:I dunno about Avatar's situation. Sounds like it got messed up in a lot of ways so I can't just specifically say it was a sexist decision they made. Just looks like a stew of bad ones.

No one is saying it was a good movie, but it takes one hell of an accidental bad decision to completely negate the actions of one of the show's core characters in a major scene. Especially when said negation requires the characters to shift into a situation that doesn't even make sense in the first place.

Coraline seems like they added a male character to improve sales, make it more likely for males to also enjoy, like how they added that crappy female Ninja Turtle fpr girls. It's a good idea if you're trying to broaden appeal but I think fewer changes are better, stay true to the original formula. This doesn't mean Coraline nor TMNT are sexist, IMO.

I would wager that the crappy female Ninja Turtle didn't usurp all the cool stuff the existing male Ninja Turtles got to do.

The closest to sounding sexist is the Lemony Snicket one. They probably thought it made more sense to have a traditional male hero. Not quite sexist but very narrow minded.

How is that not the definition of sexist? The existing story had a female character established as intelligent saving the day by outwitting the villain. The new story has her charge in with no plan only to be saved by her bookworm brother suddenly developing the athleticism to climb a tower. One of these scenarios clearly makes more sense than the other.

But even ignoring that, they were adapting a story that had already achieved massive popularity. Changing the ending of a proven financial success is a business risk.

The Sherlock Holmes changes all make sense to me, and they're objectively better for it. That said, I still can't approve of changes so easily and it doesn't come off sexist at all to me.

I'm struggling to see how any of that is objectively better. Very few things beyond "being readable" make a story objectively better.

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #111

[QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1517307, member: 34539"]No one is saying it was a good movie, but it takes one hell of an accidental bad decision to completely negate the actions of one of the show's core characters in a major scene. Especially when said negation requires the characters to shift into a situation that doesn't even make sense in the first place.[/quote]

Just saying, they messed everything up so it's not like they chose to just screw the girls.

[Quote=I am nobody]I would wager that the crappy female Ninja Turtle didn't usurp all the cool stuff the existing male Ninja Turtles got to do.[/Quote]

Didn't she basically beat Shredder on her own? Then thanks to her abilities Splinter's spirit was saved? Yeah. Defeat Shredder and rescue Splinter. On her own. Something the four males couldn't do combined.

[Quote=I am nobody]How is that not the definition of sexist?[/Quote]

I guess it may be one of the definitions but not the one people seem to correlate with the word. I think old fashioned and narrow minded views hardly count as sexist in this topic's context. We seem to be arguing that this is all done maliciously or not, following this definition:

[QUOTE=Dictionary]ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.[/Quote]

I don't think any of these examples from Cracked are done with this type of mindset.

[Quote=I am nobody]I'm struggling to see how any of that is objectively better. Very few things beyond "being readable" make a story objectively better.[/QUOTE]

In other words, if I read the differences without bias I can determine which seems better. A random, nameless woman saving the genius hero doesn't sound like good writing to me.

I am nobody · #112

So it makes more sense to abruptly break character and turn the genius hero into a killer rather than have one of the villain's victims get revenge?

The other example from that point was turning a character that was a legitimate match for Holmes' talents into a lovestruck loser that immediately gets captured and has to be rescued. How is that more interesting?

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #113

^ You can word it how you like, I stand by my point.

That other example ends in defeat for Sherlock. I don't need to explain why that can be perceived as an issue, I hope...well, I'll explain anyway.

Not everyone likes a hero who loses. I hate when that happens and I bet I am not alone. It's like at the end of [spoiler]Yu Yu Hakusho where Yusuke loses. Most disappointing ending to a shonen anime ever.[/spoiler] It's understandable to always make the hero win in certain series.

I am nobody · #114

Ending with the hero winning and turning the originally victorious villain into a useless mess are two completely different things. You're absolutely right that plenty of people hate watching the hero lose, but watching the hero win against someone totally incompetent isn't much better.

Also, an "old-fashioned and narrow minded" belief that female heroes are abnormal and must be altered would be the definition of ingrained prejudice. Whether or not these things were done because "producers don't like female heroes" or "producers think audiences don't like female heroes", there's a problem somewhere in the system that we'd all be better off acknowledging.

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #115

[QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1517318, member: 34539"]Ending with the hero winning and turning the originally victorious villain into a useless mess are two completely different things. You're absolutely right that plenty of people hate watching the hero lose, but watching the hero win against someone totally incompetent isn't much better. [/Quote]

Good points. I still prefer the protagonist winning but your opinion is equally valid.

[Quote=I am nobody]Also, an "old-fashioned and narrow minded" belief that female heroes are abnormal and must be altered would be the definition of ingrained prejudice. Whether or not these things were done because "producers don't like female heroes" or "producers think audiences don't like female heroes", there's a problem somewhere in the system that we'd all be better off acknowledging.[/QUOTE]

Historically speaking, female heroes are abnormal and rare. Men and women have always had rigid roles in most of the world through most of history. Men fight in wars and work, women raise children and housekeep.

It's not until relatively recently that feminism popped up and now movies need an equal 50/50 split between heroes. Before it was usually men, so it's nobody's fault. It's just how things have always been.

I don't think there's any misogyny on a large scale involved with these decisions. Audiences probably do prefer male heroes, I know I do. Sometimes, if portrayed correctly, peppering female heroes in is fine to me. There's just certain roles men play. Terminator 2 wouldn't be among my favorite action movies it were a female instead of Arnold.

I am nobody · #116

^Exactly. Whether or not it's anyone trying to be malicious or just assuming something about how every else thinks, the fact that we see female heroes as abnormal is the result of 6,000 years of prejudice. I don't think there's any malice behind most (GoT is a bit hard to defend) of these examples, but the status quo is never going to change if we insist on altering the few female heroes that *do* exist to support our expectations.

And while I can't speak for everyone who's ever had this debate, a I personally don't care if movies or anything else ever reaches a 50/50 split. It's more important that we reach a point where it isn't seen as significant nor risky that someone makes a movie/game/book with the heroes they want, even if after all of that it turns out that creators end up settling on a 35/65 split.

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #117

I agree with your last paragraph 100% but the first is iffy, namely this:

[Quote=I am nobody]The fact that we see female heroes as abnormal is the result of 6,000 years of prejudice.[/quote]

I disagree. I think that was just 6,000 years of normalcy. It's how humans are as a species. Or were at least.

Sure, women can fight war and work now too and that's mostly okay with me, especially the war part. But some roles are men's, at least in some fiction.

Is it sexist that I wouldn't like Terminator 2 as much if Arnold was replaced with a chick? Or Bruce in Die Hard? How about Sylvester in Rocky? I don't think so because I also wouldn't like Kill Bill with Uma, Ultraviolet with Milla, or Alien Resurrection with Sigourney as much if they were replaced with men...

...Well, as I write this I'm not sure, actually. Maybe if I saw those last movies with men instead of women the first time then I would just list them like I did Rocky, ect... However, I do know I wouldn't like my first batch of example movies if I saw them starring women instead.

How strange. I have actually confused myself.

I am nobody · #118

Sure, Saving Private Ryan had to have male leads and, in spite of things like Million Dollar Baby, Rocky almost certainly woudn't have worked with female leads because of the Cold War bit.

My point was that in cases where it does make sense to have a hero of either sex (as with Unfortunate Events), it's viewed as normal for the hero to be male because we as a species lived through 6,000 years of being told women were inherently lesser. Sometimes the physical characteristics of a character are highly relevant to the story, but we shouldn't be enforcing arbitrary norms in the many instances where it doesn't matter.

I can't comment on your examples because I've watched maybe 12 movies to completion ever. :p

Kil'jaeden · #119

[QUOTE="Looto Brando, post: 1517101, member: 21459"]oh good you're still being a stuck up snob

how about some original material for once, oh wait your "superior intellect" can't process such mundane activities[/QUOTE]

I would actually like to see an Ethiopian Jew in something. I am just very interested in them. I find Jews in general to be interesting, and I really want to know how there came to be an isolated community of Jews in Ethiopia. Maybe it was communication across the sea from Yemen. That would be my best guess. I actually have some kids in family from Ethiopia. One of them used to speak the Amharic language and everything, until he started to get acclimated to English. I would also like to know more about why the Ethiopian languages are of the Semitic type. In fact, Ethiopia/Kush was in the general "world concept" of the ancient people of Mesopotamia and Israel. Of all places further away than Egypt, that was the one they still considered within the their sphere of the known world.

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! · #120

^^ In the instances where a male and female can equally be considered for a role, then sure.

By the way, it's not just physical characteristics but mental. Some professionals like Sigmund Freud believed that women had trouble with rational thought. There's no clear cut answer but I think men have certain advantages in general. I don't think it's overwhelming, though, and shouldn't generally factor into roles.