Ghostbusters reboot

[Apollo the Just]

*rolls up sleeves* I have put off responding to this godforsaken topic long enough

First of all. I think we can all agree the trailer looks atrocious. Holy ****. That was embarassing. I didn't manage to get through all of it. It's like Paul Blart Mall Cop somehow became a Ghostbuster. Christ.

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE POKEMON!, post: 1520918, member: 18119"]Dunno who she is but not once has a woman I saw do good stand-up. Film, yeah, hilarious. Something about their stand-up sucks.[/QUOTE]

IRHP, this is from a few pages back, but this I think really indicates that what you are arguing and what everyone else is arguing isn't the same thing. You are, I think, imagining "sexism" as something physical and obvious, like some comically exaggerated big buff guy going "I HATE ALL WOMEN" and beating them with a club, or some ****. It's actually much more subtle and nuanced. This makes it easy for men to miss because they don't experience it, but I am going to try to use your own words to address it.

"not once has a woman I saw do good stand-up." To you, this means that from your experience women suck at stand-up. Is that correct?

Now, here's the thing. Say you had only seen 2 male stand-up performers ever, and they were 2 really **** washed-up dudes that just plain hurt to watch. I mean REALLY REALLY HURT. You were like, holy ****, this is EMBARASSING. Would you say "not once has a man I saw do good stand-up"? I think it's likely you would say "soandso and soandso **** suck at stand-up," or maybe even "wow, I have never seen good stand-up. Stand-up sucks"

Like, there are absolutely women who suck at stand-up. There are also men who suck at stand-up. Sexism is seeing two women who suck and saying "women suck at this," versus seeing two men who suck and saying "these men suck at this" or "all comedians suck." It is seeing women as women versus seeing men as people.

It doesn't mean you hate women. It means it has been made easier to dismiss women as a group based on the failures of individuals. And it's why it is a good thing to actively provide opportunities for women, because so many women are dismissed at large after one or two women fail.

And this means that, for example, since this movie is probably going to suck, if they decide to do any other 90's show remake with a female cast, people are inevitably going to say "but the ghostbusters one sucked so bad, didn't you learn from your mistakes??" This show is going to suck because of the embarassing script and horrible CG and all of the other really legitimate reasons it will suck, but people will associate it with women and THE SJWs and use that as an excuse to dismiss women and SJWs in similar contexts, rather than judging them on their own merit.

HOWEVER, I really don't think this topic needs to turn into an argument about what is and is not sexist. So IRHP if you want to respond to what I've stated here I wouldn't mind having a PM conversation with you about this, although I can't promise responding all that frequently (as you can see from my participation in this thread).

[[Not that there's a problem discussing sexism in film here, bc that is totally relevant-- but discussing sexism divorced from film is kind of derailing so if we want to have that convo I'm ok doing it elsewhere]]
----

^Regarding the Sassy Black Woman comment, the problem here is that roles for black women tend to be very limited and they tend to ONLY be able to play stereotypes, whereas white men can be strong, they can be weak, they can be smart, they can be stupid, they can be complex and flawed and can go to space or the bottom of the ocean or whatever. Loot is saying that this supposed ~feminist~ reboot is doing a pretty **** job considering, if it has 3 roles for women scientists, it is STILL not letting the female black actress be a scientist.

What we are saying is that women and women of color should be able to play all sorts of diverse roles, however the roles are simply not there. It isn't fair that black actresses are only able to find work doing the same stereotypey things over and over again, and it is why when interesting roles for women and women of color come up, we are excited about them because it means those actresses are getting opportunities they haven't had before.

[CaptHayfever]

Something I didn't mention before, because I wanted to stay focused on answering IRHP's question:
The problem here might not actually even be the script. The problem might be the fact that Leslie Jones has absolutely ZERO range as an actress, so the character became "sassy black woman" once she was cast in the role. (Which might also be why Jones has been defending the film so strongly, because she recognizes that this wasn't the writer/director's fault.)

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Apollo the Just]

^ Totally entirely possible. Which begs the question of "why cast her when there are a million other talented actresses" but then again maybe the more talented actresses saw the script and were like "NOOPE I'M OUT" lmao

[CaptHayfever]

SNL nepotism, I would suppose?
(But then, why not Sasheer Zamata? She's a way better actress!)

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Deku Tree]

Sasheer is great, yeah. Maybe she wouldn't be as good at being the butt of a joke like Ghostbusters need to be? I'm not sure, but I don't think we need to be critical of a movie maker for liking Jones.

[MEDIA=youtube]CwhvJ5B4lYg[/MEDIA]

I think that's a pretty funny sketch, and I see how that kind of humor could play in a Ghostbusters movie.

[Random User]

^See, that sketch worked because there was substance to the joke. The trailer for the movie made it seem like the film's humor is going to rely on slapstick gags, which personally, I don't see working well with the kind of movie they're trying to make.

[CaptHayfever]

^^She's funny in her Update bits, & she's been improving at sketches, but I wouldn't have her star in a movie yet.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

IRHP, this is from a few pages back, but this I think really indicates that what you are arguing and what everyone else is arguing isn't the same thing. You are, I think, imagining "sexism" as something physical and obvious, like some comically exaggerated big buff guy going "I HATE ALL WOMEN" and beating them with a club, or some ****. It's actually much more subtle and nuanced. This makes it easy for men to miss because they don't experience it, but I am going to try to use your own words to address it.

I understand your point but I already know that some less in-your-face sexism that exists, but I also am absolutely positive that people look for it where it does not exist as well. The problem with it being subtle and nuanced is that there's lot more room for interpretation and so that's where you see SJWs go **** pointing the finger everywhere and at everyone, yelling "patriarchy." It's how we get the UN trying to censor Japan's media. It's where sexist air conditioning comes from. It's where all-female Ghostbusters casts come from.

That's a good example, and that would be sexist. Just for the record, I think most stand-up sucks and it's tough to find someone truly, consistently funny regardless of gender.

People generalize for a reason, because there's usually truth in them. People make politically correct generalizations every day. For example, Texas (and America in general), certain groups like the NRA and Christians, whites, straights, and men can be stereotyped openly and it is accepted. As soon as you touch the holy ground of the SJWs it's war. The problem is, generalizations aren't bad as guidelines. Some are even helpful. I wouldn't hire an ex-con if I were an employer, for example, and there is actually some work they legally are not allowed to do. That's a lawfully enforced stereotype. Stereotypes are logical because even though they don't apply to every individual in the group, they often do apply to enough of them to make the information a useful guideline. Do you think there's never a time or place to stereotype? I have a great example if you say no.

I agree with the reasons you listed for the movie sucking, but there was also no reason to cast this as an all-female film. I'm sure that hurt this movie because you can't just genderswap a classic, these movies were good because they were clever and there's nothing clever about "gess wat gaiz now vuginas."

]

I think we're doing a decent job of keeping the movie tied into the conversation. If it drifts away from the movie too much then I'd be happy to continue the conversation in pm.

I honestly don't know what kind of roles black women usually get, I don't pay attention. For some reason I feel like this is not true, though. I wish I had the Batcomputer because then we could easily compile the roles black women have played in the last decade. The ones who come to mind, few as they are, are whoever was Niobe from the Matrix, Hale Berry as Storm, and Whoopie Goldberg as Guinan. I'm sure there's plenty of not-sassy roles out there.

I don't think you need to feel too bad for the multi-millionaire actresses who can only get sassy roles, CL. I do agree that they should (if they aren't) be able to play more roles but that would force writers to write along SJW guidelines, to be guilted into writing a certain way, and I can't get behind that. I hope it happens naturally, that people want to write different roles or people who want change go and write them, though.

[ScottyMcGee]

Trailer was OK until it got to the ghost possession part. The whole "oh thats gonna leave a mark!" joke fell flat entirely. So flat you can use it as a mat and walk on it.

I'm curious what the story is though. If this is a remake in every sense of the word or a sequel or its revealed that they are in some parallel world. I remember the original idea for the third movie was Ghosbusters in Hell or something, where they get stuck in a topsy turvy Manhattan.

[Random User]

It seems like it may not even be a reboot, so perhaps the entirety of this topic's debate might have been pointless.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

Based on the trailer I'd say it isn't a reboot but a sequel, which is better than if it were one, IMO. Alternate universe would be preferable, though, I think.

[Calamity Panfan]

it seems like this is a "soft reboot" a la Jurassic World and the new Star Trek so it's basically a sequel and a reboot at the same time.

[ScottyMcGee]

soft reboot

hard reboot

semi-reboot

reboooooooot