Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Lance845 wrote: Well, good for me I don't actually care if you are convinced or not.
Then why are you working so hard to push a false narrative?
I am not pushing a false narrative.
Manchu tried to argue a point that somehow the hate directed at all female GB before its release till after it's release was equivalent to a story that has been a single 1.5 hour movie in the past being made into 3 2 hour movies, a prequel that barely had anything to do with the original movie, and the SW prequels that everyone pretended were good when they first came out.
Whos got the false narrative?
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
He really isn't. He's pointing out that there is an additional 'rage stage' not present with other reboots/bad films, which is very true. GB2016 IS a bad film and does deserve scorn for the way it turned out, but that wasn't at all what the early rage was about. The film was unknown but the rage was all 'women as ghostbusters, Nooooo!' When that was the only detail known. And the reaction was not that polite or sane.
The only thing I'd argue about in his presentation is that people universally pretended the SW prequels were good. No one I know did that- they mostly complained. But that's off track.
Frankly, you can see it again with GB2020, though in the opposite direction. The trailer comments are speaking of the thing as their vaunted savior, come to rescue them from the horrors of women as main leads. Again without any actual knowledge of the film. Unsurprisingly there is a nasty faction out there, and their agenda isn't obscure. It isn't 'some kind of conspiracy,' it's people being openly hateful, and pretending it didn't/doesn't happen is poor form.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/05 11:43:40
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given it's currently just a contextless soundbite, exactly how did GB16 'disrespect the source material'?
Three scientists form Ghostbusters. Recruit Spod of Colour. They then bust Ghosts.
Well for one, they only catch a single ghost, which they subsequently release to kill one of the original actors. They spend the rest of the movie killing ghosts.
Just incase anyone missed it, the following article mentions( at the end ) that they are going for teenagers, two male and two female characters this time...
...so, maybe the female ghostbusters did count for something - 50/50 this time instead of one or the other.
For the article itself, at least Paul is being a gentleman about it while still speaking his mind. He's already moved on and he'll probably cast Leslie in another film.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given it's currently just a contextless soundbite, exactly how did GB16 'disrespect the source material'?
Three scientists form Ghostbusters. Recruit Spod of Colour. They then bust Ghosts.
Well for one, they only catch a single ghost, which they subsequently release to kill one of the original actors. They spend the rest of the movie killing ghosts.
Not sure there's a difference when it comes to Busting? Ghost dealt with, whether caught or chinned.
And I do believe Bill Murray said he'd only appear in another one if he was killed off?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/05 13:12:16
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given it's currently just a contextless soundbite, exactly how did GB16 'disrespect the source material'?
Three scientists form Ghostbusters. Recruit Spod of Colour. They then bust Ghosts.
Well for one, they only catch a single ghost, which they subsequently release to kill one of the original actors. They spend the rest of the movie killing ghosts.
The main problem of the original movie was the purgatory for profit theme.
I wonder if those souls freed by Dickless consider him a Savior?
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it. People didnt get together and make a plan to hate it. They just did. And the comparisons with other properties dont show any similarities.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
SamusDrake wrote: Just incase anyone missed it, the following article mentions( at the end ) that they are going for teenagers, two male and two female characters this time...
...so, maybe the female ghostbusters did count for something - 50/50 this time instead of one or the other.
For the article itself, at least Paul is being a gentleman about it while still speaking his mind. He's already moved on and he'll probably cast Leslie in another film.
Not really, several of the original Ghostbuster 3 drafts were supposed to be at least 50/50.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it. People didnt get together and make a plan to hate it. They just did. And the comparisons with other properties dont show any similarities.
Remakes tend to draw such reactions, especially now that we've got so many bad failed remakes that have killed their franchises.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/05 18:03:28
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it.
Nobody needs to see a remake to know it's a bad idea when the original is beloved, and the new cast is not.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it.
Nobody needs to see a remake to know it's a bad idea when the original is beloved, and the new cast is not.
Great. Good. Good observation. Nothing i said disagreed with that point of view. In fact, it reinforces my original point that manchu was arguing against. Ghost busters is one of the wierd 80s sacred cows that get people mad no matter what.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/05 19:47:16
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
He really isn't. He's pointing out that there is an additional 'rage stage' not present with other reboots/bad films, which is very true.
It's nothing to do with the film being bad or a reboot.
Let's see..
Michael Keaton (or anyone else basically) as Batman
Heath Ledger as the Joker
Daniel Craig as Bond
Gal Gadot as WW
The "rage stage" is not new and can be seen all the way back through cinema history, heck, apparently the studio were trepidatious about backlash when casting Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara because she was British!
What happened with GB2016 was no different, but unlike objecting to Craig as a blonde Bond, or Keaton because of his largely comic CV, anything gender related is massively loaded, irrespective of whether the criticism attached is legitimate or prejudiced. But if I wanted to silence a particular element criticizing my film, a narrative developing that attached anything legitimate to the wagon of frothing misogynists would suit me just fine.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
He really isn't. He's pointing out that there is an additional 'rage stage' not present with other reboots/bad films, which is very true.
It's nothing to do with the film being bad or a reboot.
Let's see..
Michael Keaton (or anyone else basically) as Batman
Heath Ledger as the Joker
Daniel Craig as Bond
Gal Gadot as WW
The "rage stage" is not new and can be seen all the way back through cinema history, heck, apparently the studio were trepidatious about backlash when casting Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara because she was British!
What happened with GB2016 was no different, but unlike objecting to Craig as a blonde Bond, or Keaton because of his largely comic CV, anything gender related is massively loaded, irrespective of whether the criticism attached is legitimate or prejudiced. But if I wanted to silence a particular element criticizing my film, a narrative developing that attached anything legitimate to the wagon of frothing misogynists would suit me just fine.
Good, so the pre movie rage about them being women was entirely legimate mysoginstic bull gak. And post movie there was a mix of people disliking the movie and more mysogynists. I am not debating how the studio handled it. I am saying gb 2016 had unreasonable hate before it happened far out of proportion from the other examples you gave and that hate carried through to after it released. Perhaps legitimate critisim was missed amongst all the garbage.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
He really isn't. He's pointing out that there is an additional 'rage stage' not present with other reboots/bad films, which is very true.
It's nothing to do with the film being bad or a reboot.
Let's see..
Michael Keaton (or anyone else basically) as Batman
Heath Ledger as the Joker
Daniel Craig as Bond
Gal Gadot as WW
The "rage stage" is not new and can be seen all the way back through cinema history, heck, apparently the studio were trepidatious about backlash when casting Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara because she was British!
What happened with GB2016 was no different, but unlike objecting to Craig as a blonde Bond, or Keaton because of his largely comic CV, anything gender related is massively loaded, irrespective of whether the criticism attached is legitimate or prejudiced. But if I wanted to silence a particular element criticizing my film, a narrative developing that attached anything legitimate to the wagon of frothing misogynists would suit me just fine.
Good, so the pre movie rage about them being women was entirely legimate mysoginstic bull gak.
FFS.
No.
Not unless every other fan base raging about every other casting of every other character was also somehow a bunch of bigots raging because there were/weren't female/black/Asian/male/brunette/blonde/funny/serious/tall/short/buff/weedy enough to play the role. People objected to JLaw because she was too pretty to play Katniss.
Pretty much without exception, the casting of any well loved pre-existing character attracts controversy. When that controversy is allied with something as politically charged as gender politics are in the current environment, inside Hollywood and out, then people who have less than savoury views are going to be attracted to it. Unless you're new to the internet you'll realize that these sorts of discussion almost always polarize into extremes, which will attract the most attention irrespective of how representative they are.
Much like the Last Jedi, this then creates an environment where anyone voicing legitimate criticism can be neatly written off because they're a bigot, which then serves to mute any more moderate criticism because people just get sick of being shouted down and misrepresented.
So in actual fact we have separate stages 1) controversy over recasting of characters (not unique) which becomes politicized because it's about gender and a minority view which gets excessive coverage because extremes are where the clicks are, and 2) a crappy movie which can't be criticized in some quarters because the environment created by the media around the casting has meant that the whole thing has become a gender-based powder keg.
I think the mistake you're making is conflating online reaction and real life. The overwhelming majority of people in the world couldn't give a gak about GB2016 and it's casting, in fact, in a truly global sense it's possible that the majority don't even know it exists. Online is full of people who have a living to make and do so by driving controversy and therefore clicks, and a percentage who will go after people purely for the sake of it for no other reason than to watch the world burn. Up to and including hacking and sending death threats.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
These were not pre existing characters. In fact, we didnt know anything about their characters. All we knew was a new ghostbusters. This time they are women.
Hating based on that information alone is mysogony.
100% i agree that online reaction is different from global population reaction. But we are not talking about what % of humanity was a big bag of dicks. Were talking about the loud big bag of dicks that raged. And they raged more, about this, then any other example given so far.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Im not interested in the conspiracy that everyone with any criticsm gets lumped in with the bigots on purpose for the sake of big movie crushing critiques.
Im interested in the fact that these ass hole DO exist, did these things, made people suffer for doing their job with harrassment. I am also interested in the idea that not only can nobody mention that it happened without hearing about your (not YOU, the royal your) conspiracy, but manchu and others just flat out deny that it ever even happened.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/06 01:50:41
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
*Hand raised* I refused to see GB 2016 simply because I hate Melissa McCarthy as an actress in the same way I hate Will Ferrell. I find them both talentless, idiotic wastes of movie roles. I won’t spend a dime on any movie she appears in (had nothing against the rest of the cast). But then the trailer looked like gak, and made me more comfortable in my decision not to waste time on a project she was involved in.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
Lance845 wrote: These were not pre existing characters. In fact, we didnt know anything about their characters. All we knew was a new ghostbusters. This time they are women.
Hating based on that information alone is mysogony.
So what it is it when people lose their gak about other castings when the actor/s in question aren't female? Nevertheless, it's slightly disingenuous to say "that's all we knew." We knew the actresses' previous movies, we knew what Ghostbusters had been previously. We also had a quartet that appeared to broadly fit the same paradigm on fast glance (the brainy one, the tubby light relief, the snarky one and the token one.) It's also frankly ludicrous to boil down what could be any number of objections, good old "fans hate change" being likely so far ahead of anything even slightly misogynistic as to render it insignificant.
100% i agree that online reaction is different from global population reaction. But we are not talking about what % of humanity was a big bag of dicks. Were talking about the loud big bag of dicks that raged. And they raged more, about this, then any other example given so far.
Did they though? Or was it just given higher priority on various newsfeeds?
Im not interested in the conspiracy that everyone with any criticsm gets lumped in with the bigots on purpose for the sake of big movie crushing critiques.
Im interested in the fact that these ass hole DO exist, did these things, made people suffer for doing their job with harrassment. I am also interested in the idea that not only can nobody mention that it happened without hearing about your (not YOU, the royal your) conspiracy, but manchu and others just flat out deny that it ever even happened.
The correct term in that context is "one" FYI, although the royal Your might have legs.
You're making a correlation without causation to some degree. Trolls exist. Trolls will do what they do every day. If there's something in the media that paints a crosshairs on someone, they're likely to draw disproportionate attention. You're assuming they were targeted because they're female and cast in those roles, when it's equally plausible that the standard furore around a new casting in a popular IP raised their profile and handed the trolls a convenient stick to beat them with. That's not misogyny because it has nothing to do with their being women and everything to do with some people are douchebags and will jump on anything indiscriminately.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
@ azreal - show me where craig, keaton, or gal gadot got their nudes hacked ond wiki articles changed to racial slurs to show that its just media inflation and not an actual disproportionate amount of effort on behalf of the trolls?
@yodhrin - im not the one assuming everyone or anyone is out to get me and put lables on me because i didnt like a movie.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: These were not pre existing characters. In fact, we didnt know anything about their characters. All we knew was a new ghostbusters. This time they are women.
We knew that they deliberately had nothing to do with the original, and were being positioned as a complete replacement, as if the beloved original had never existed. And then the studio, like you, got behind the narrative that anyone who didn't like that change was a Nazi.
That's patently offensive to the fans and anyone who might have wanted to otherwise have made up their minds. Given the false dichotomy, it's better to be a Nazi.
Lance845 wrote: @ azreal - show me where craig, keaton, or gal gadot got their nudes hacked ond wiki articles changed to racial slurs to show that its just media inflation and not an actual disproportionate amount of effort on behalf of the trolls?
Only if you stop drawing false equivalencies. Abuse is abuse. If you're going to start arguing based on a hierarchy of what's worse being called x racial slur or y insult or that having one's digital privacy invaded is worse than physical etc etc then we can just cease discussion here, because that's futile and arbitrary.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Besides, you're still not proving your case of misogyny over my case of trolls are douchebags and will hit you any way they can. You need to demonstrate that what happened was because they're women, not because they're in the public eye and at the centre of a news story that made them an easy target.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/06 03:54:50
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Lance845 wrote: These were not pre existing characters. In fact, we didnt know anything about their characters. All we knew was a new ghostbusters. This time they are women.
We knew that they deliberately had nothing to do with the original, and were being positioned as a complete replacement, as if the beloved original had never existed. And then the studio, like you, got behind the narrative that anyone who didn't like that change was a Nazi.
That's patently offensive to the fans and anyone who might have wanted to otherwise have made up their minds. Given the false dichotomy, it's better to be a Nazi.
Turns out, I didn't say anyone not behind that change was a nazi. I said people who didn't like it purely because they were women were misogynists. The hate didn't start when we found out it was a reboot. The hate started the very moment it was an all female team. We didn't know if it was a reboot. We didn't know if they were taking over from the old team in the same continuity. We didn't know anything. It didn't stop the videos, the posts, and the tweets that women couldn't be ghost busters.
Again, conspiracy much? Don't put words in my mouth. Stop saying people are calling you things they didn't say. If you didn't want it to be a reboot fine. Fair. Good on you. Them being women isn't a factor then.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I said people who didn't like it purely because they were women were misogynists.
I'm not going to trawl back through every thing you've posted on the subject, but somehow I think if all you'd said was this single, self evident, line, expressed in that way, this conversation wouldn't have gone on half as long as it has.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/06 04:05:20
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Lance845 wrote: @ azreal - show me where craig, keaton, or gal gadot got their nudes hacked ond wiki articles changed to racial slurs to show that its just media inflation and not an actual disproportionate amount of effort on behalf of the trolls?
Only if you stop drawing false equivalencies. Abuse is abuse. If you're going to start arguing based on a hierarchy of what's worse being called x racial slur or y insult or that having one's digital privacy invaded is worse than physical etc etc then we can just cease discussion here, because that's futile and arbitrary.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Besides, you're still not proving your case of misogyny over my case of trolls are douchebags and will hit you any way they can. You need to demonstrate that what happened was because they're women, not because they're in the public eye and at the centre of a news story that made them an easy target.
Yes, articles such as this probably aren't helping stem the flow of negativity, but as soon as the idea was released into the wild, there were plenty of detractors online ready to flame the movie into oblivion before it even began production. While many of them are misogynistic "neckbeards" simply touting an ignorant sexist agenda, there are also those more reasoned skeptics who cite genuine reasons for concern about an all-female Ghostbusters flick. The point is that so many have already made their minds up about the new movie and simply aren't prepared to give it a chance, even if the trailer ends up looking not-awful. Though some might go see it out of morbid curiosity, plenty will likely boycott a film with no involvement from the original actors or creative minds, even if the all-girl cast could easily open the film up to a wider new audience (namely teenage girls). There's absolutely no way all this Internet bile will result in the movie bombing, but it doesn't exactly set a great precedent right out of the gate.
posted Oct 23rd 2014
How many examples do you need to be sufficient evidence exactly?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/06 04:26:30
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I said people who didn't like it purely because they were women were misogynists.
I'm not going to trawl back through every thing you've posted on the subject, but somehow I think if all you'd said was this single, self evident, line, expressed in that way, this conversation wouldn't have gone on half as long as it has.
I will.
Lance845 wrote: If you don't think the new cast is going to catch a bunch of gak you are kidding yourself. And if you think the female cast are not going to get a bunch of gak directed at them related to the fact that they are female you are delusional.
It doesn't matter how good the movie will/won't be. They are all going to get this gak before it ever releases in theaters. And if the movie is anything less the universally praised as the perfect sequel they will get even more after it comes out.
Luciferian wrote: I really think you guys might be overselling the harassment thing a bit. There is nothing special about Ghost Busters movies that make them targets of online harassment compared to pretty much anything people do in the public square. It's just that certain blogs get a lot of hate clicks when they report on some loser's nasty tweet.
I think Ghost Busters is one of many sacred cows that 80s idiots place on a pedestal.
Ghost busters gets gak like SW gets gak, like Back to the Future would get gak, so on and so forth. The harassment is inevitable for that alone. I don't think it will be a majority of people that would do it. Just like it wasn't a majority before. But that minority will be LOUD. Just like they have been before.
Manchu wrote: I have been thinking about the claim that GB2016 is the victim of some kind of special or weird level of criticism. I don’t think that argument is very compelling.
A few years back, Fox informed us the Alien franchise was coming back with Sir Ridley at the helm. There was a lot of excitment. But the initial audience reaction to Prometheus upon release was hyperbolically negative — especially among long-time fans. Perhaps it might be said that Prometheus was the victim of some kind of weird fanboy hateboner?
Well, probably not. Over a decade before Prometheus was released, we were also told that Star Wars was coming back. Again, huge excitement. And then the aptly-named Phantom Menace was unleashed upon the world. Never has their been so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about movies, and it echoes down to this very day despite there being a whole new raft of disappointing Star Wars films currently underway.
Again, in 2011, we were told that the cinematic magic of Peter Jackon’s Middle-earth would once again delight moviegoers. The Hobbit films were increasingly derided as they released until by the third installment what might have been a triumphant conclusion was barely even relevant.
We could go on and on. I haven’t even mentioned Star Trek (too painful). GB2016 is just another failed attempt, among so very many, to capitalize on existing, beloved IPs by people who don’t understand or care about why they are enduring. There is nothing at all special about the disappointment and criticism surrounding GB2016. It will hardly be surprising if GB3 is also a disappointment.
The notion that GB2016 is a unique victim strikes me as another sly attempt to stop us from talking about the sub-par quality of the film and instead draw a line in the sand between an imaginary right side and wrong side of history, demanding that everyone pick — i.e., something that has absolutely nothing to do about a movie where some comical shlubs hunt ghosts.
You have a few things wrong here.
1) Promethus was just bad. Any hate for promethius came after it's release and viewing. Not before.
2) Phantom Menace spent over an entire year when everyone collectively lied to each other and themselves saying it was good. It wasn't until about episode 3 when everyone finally admitted that all the prequels were gak.
3) Yup. The hobbit was obviously made into too many movies and the audience felt the fatigue from it.
And finally
4) Ghostbuster 2016 unlike all these other entries had hate BEFORE it was released. In fact it had hate before anyone had even seen anything about it when it was announced that it was an all girl cast. You are comparing apples to oranges. These things are not the same.
There is no right or wrong side. If you didn't like the movie then you didn't like the movie. But pretending that the movie wasn't being hated on before a single frame of footage was viewed is just pretending history didn't happen.
Lance845 wrote: Well, good for me I don't actually care if you are convinced or not.
The facts speak for themselves. Whether from some kind of reboot or rehash fatigue or whatever, the GB movie was trashed before it came out and everything else you were talking about was trashed after. GB 2020 doesn't appear to have the same hate bubbling under it that 2016 did and arguably it should be FARTHER into the reboot/rehash fatigue.
Lance845 wrote: Well, good for me I don't actually care if you are convinced or not.
Then why are you working so hard to push a false narrative?
I am not pushing a false narrative.
Manchu tried to argue a point that somehow the hate directed at all female GB before its release till after it's release was equivalent to a story that has been a single 1.5 hour movie in the past being made into 3 2 hour movies, a prequel that barely had anything to do with the original movie, and the SW prequels that everyone pretended were good when they first came out.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it. People didnt get together and make a plan to hate it. They just did. And the comparisons with other properties dont show any similarities.
And so on.... the rest is all on this page. Those are all my posts in this thread that relate to actual ghost busters. There are some I didn't include when we went on the small tirade about The Predator a couple pages ago. I didn't think they were relevant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/06 04:20:22
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
