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.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.

I think it's more that eye candy is objectification and progressives have spent some energy in recent years telling us that objectification is bad. At least it's bad when done to women.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

Ruining childhoods is hyperbolic. It's more like saying 'I am a fan of X, and this director/writer/producer etc has failed to treat X with the respect I believe it deserves.'

I keep imagining a 40k movie by Michael Bay, where they Blood Angels and the Space Wolves are merged into the Blood Wolves and the marines behave exactly like US military soldiers, where they wear 'power armour' which is little more than a exo-skeleton and the whole movie is about how they must fight some metallic, multi part, bass dropping semi anthropomorphic machines called 'Necrons'. There's a subplot about how being a marine conflicts with the marine sergeants super hot wife's desire to start a family and it turns out a staggering number of 21st century companies are still selling stuff in the 41s millennium. Space Marines drink Bud Lite FOR THE EMPEROR!

Could make a ton at the box office and have great (hypothetically speaking) movie reviews and even be a good watch. But even with 40Ks vastly changing history and narrative, there's no way anyone could claim that's a good 40k movie. I'm not saying that's what happened with GB here, but I can completely understand why people want stories and lore they love to be treated with respect.

seems the movie is having trouble hitting China, which is going to be a big ding to the bottom line

Personally, i've yet to hear anything about this movie to change my decision to maybe watch it if its on tv late one night and i can't sleep

 Kojiro wrote:
And the next time someone comes along with an idea for a film with an all female cast, this lesson will be in their minds.

The all gender of the cast doesn't matter, although it certainly looks tokenistic, its the execution that does.

My son is obsessed with Ghostbusters but as this film is a 12 he can't go and see it, luckily for me.

Hey, remember that time no one ever speculated that a movie failed because of an all-male cast? I mean, can you find a single review for 13 hours that trots that out?

I think unlike other major films, weren't banking on China. If they were, sometime really fethed up their market research and that person really should leave the industry.

By all accounts I've ready, you do *not* make a film about ghosts and expect it to sell in China.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
And the next time someone comes along with an idea for a film with an all female cast, this lesson will be in their minds.

The all gender of the cast doesn't matter, although it certainly looks tokenistic, its the execution that does.

Make an all female cast, I don't care, but don't run your marketing campaign with the all female cast being your main selling point and if you don't like it that Clearly means you're a woman hating misogynist.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.

I think it's more that eye candy is objectification and progressives have spent some energy in recent years telling us that objectification is bad. At least it's bad when [b]only[b] done to women.

There's your mistake. Objectification is fine. The problem is when objectification happens disproportionately to one group.

 Goliath wrote:
There's your mistake. Objectification is fine. The problem is when objectification happens disproportionately to one group.

Is that to imply that if men were as objectified as women- removing the disproportionate element- there would be no problem? The 'inequality' is that women just aren't sexually objectifying men enough?

If they were objectified equally then it would be fine, imo. That isn't to say that more objectifying of males is the answer, as I still think that there is a bit too much.

The inequality is that it is overwhelmingly men objectifying women, and occasionally men objectifying men. There is such a disproportionate split at the higher levels of the film industry that it is never women objectifying men or women objectifying women. Yes, the objectification may be done *for* men or women, but that's not quite the same thing.

 Ouze wrote:
Hey, remember that time no one ever speculated that a movie failed because of an all-male cast? I mean, can you find a single review for 13 hours that trots that out?

I've said before that it might have been to The Hobbit films' benefit if they replaced a few of Thorin's Company with female dwarves just to make their jobs easier. Since the original was a children's book where half of them were just rhyming names but they wanted them to be more distinct in the films, including both male and female dwarves would give them a broader range of visual distinctiveness to work with.

 Goliath wrote:
IThere is such a disproportionate split ...

So you're ok with them being equally objectified, but you don't want to increase the amount of male objectification?Ergo you want women less objectified, since that's the only way to negate that disproportionate split. Am I reading that right? It seems at odds with your comment that 'objectification is fine' as it is, overall, an argument to significantly lessen objectification by bringing female objectification down to the level of males.

Is that a fair interpretation of your points?

 Kojiro wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
IThere is such a disproportionate split ...

So you're ok with them being equally objectified, but you don't want to increase the amount of male objectification?Ergo you want women less objectified, since that's the only way to negate that disproportionate split. Am I reading that right? It seems at odds with your comment that 'objectification is fine' as it is, overall, an argument to significantly lessen objectification by bringing female objectification down to the level of males.

Is that a fair interpretation of your points?

Disproportionate objectification based on who is doing the objectifying.
If a male director wants to use a female character as eye candy, go ahead.
If a female director wants to use a female character as eye candy, go ahead.
If a female director wants to use a male character as eye candy, go ahead.
If a male director wants to use a male character as eye candy, go ahead.

The problem is when the movie industry contains an overwhelming majority of that first line.

 General Kroll wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

Out of morbid curiosity, what made the bad parts so bad?

it was its utter predictability, the new gadgets for the sake of "new" slow motion combat scene that was laughable in the extreme and downright terrible in almost every way, the proton guns kill the ghosts, the special effects just looked stupid and cheap, the Feminazism, that if it was rolls reversed, people would be calling for a ban on the film, I mean, they shot the bad guy in the Dick! wtf is that all about, the main female character came across as rapey, that's right, she drooled over Hemsworth the entire film, again, rolls reversed, that's sexual harassment, it just goes on and on, people, avoid this garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.

I think it's more that eye candy is objectification and progressives have spent some energy in recent years telling us that objectification is bad. At least it's bad when done to women.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

Ruining childhoods is hyperbolic. It's more like saying 'I am a fan of X, and this director/writer/producer etc has failed to treat X with the respect I believe it deserves.'

I keep imagining a 40k movie by Michael Bay, where they Blood Angels and the Space Wolves are merged into the Blood Wolves and the marines behave exactly like US military soldiers, where they wear 'power armour' which is little more than a exo-skeleton and the whole movie is about how they must fight some metallic, multi part, bass dropping semi anthropomorphic machines called 'Necrons'. There's a subplot about how being a marine conflicts with the marine sergeants super hot wife's desire to start a family and it turns out a staggering number of 21st century companies are still selling stuff in the 41s millennium. Space Marines drink Bud Lite FOR THE EMPEROR!

Could make a ton at the box office and have great (hypothetically speaking) movie reviews and even be a good watch. But even with 40Ks vastly changing history and narrative, there's no way anyone could claim that's a good 40k movie. I'm not saying that's what happened with GB here, but I can completely understand why people want stories and lore they love to be treated with respect.

Its not hyperbole mate, Hollywood keeps taking stories I loved as a child and growing up, sapping any kind of heart that film had, ignoring the established theme of the films (which is why so many loved them) and basically turning them into a joke, now when I mention ghostbusters to people, they will probably go "what that terrible film with the chicks fighting ghosts" the reputation of the movie has been ruined.

Saw it last night, good but not great just like the original. Nice to see more women watching a big hype action sci-fi comedy then men for once. The cast worked out well with each being different and played against each other well. Chris Helmsworth looked like he had a ton of fun. All of the pokes at the internet rage fest were some of the best parts. The cameos were all good and was nice that they showed their support and don't need original fans being faux outraged on their behalf.

All and all I think its worth spending the few dollars to see it. If you have a woman or girl in your life, wife/girlfriend/daughter, I would definitely say take them to see it. They deserve seeing movies that speak to them, especially a big budget flashy popcorn action-comedies..

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Saw it last night, good but not great just like the original. Nice to see more women watching a big hype action sci-fi comedy then men for once. The cast worked out well with each being different and played against each other well. Chris Helmsworth looked like he had a ton of fun. All of the pokes at the internet rage fest were some of the best parts. The cameos were all good and was nice that they showed their support and don't need original fans being faux outraged on their behalf.

All and all I think its worth spending the few dollars to see it. If you have a woman or girl in your life, wife/girlfriend/daughter, I would definitely say take them to see it. They deserve seeing movies that speak to them, especially a big budget flashy popcorn action-comedies..

Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time. To say it's not great is ludicrous. If it wasn't considered one of the greatest films of all time, they wouldn't have made this new garbage remake in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

Out of morbid curiosity, what made the bad parts so bad?

it was its utter predictability, the new gadgets for the sake of "new" slow motion combat scene that was laughable in the extreme and downright terrible in almost every way, the proton guns kill the ghosts, the special effects just looked stupid and cheap, the Feminazism, that if it was rolls reversed, people would be calling for a ban on the film, I mean, they shot the bad guy in the Dick! wtf is that all about, the main female character came across as rapey, that's right, she drooled over Hemsworth the entire film, again, rolls reversed, that's sexual harassment, it just goes on and on, people, avoid this garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.

I think it's more that eye candy is objectification and progressives have spent some energy in recent years telling us that objectification is bad. At least it's bad when done to women.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

Ruining childhoods is hyperbolic. It's more like saying 'I am a fan of X, and this director/writer/producer etc has failed to treat X with the respect I believe it deserves.'

I keep imagining a 40k movie by Michael Bay, where they Blood Angels and the Space Wolves are merged into the Blood Wolves and the marines behave exactly like US military soldiers, where they wear 'power armour' which is little more than a exo-skeleton and the whole movie is about how they must fight some metallic, multi part, bass dropping semi anthropomorphic machines called 'Necrons'. There's a subplot about how being a marine conflicts with the marine sergeants super hot wife's desire to start a family and it turns out a staggering number of 21st century companies are still selling stuff in the 41s millennium. Space Marines drink Bud Lite FOR THE EMPEROR!

Could make a ton at the box office and have great (hypothetically speaking) movie reviews and even be a good watch. But even with 40Ks vastly changing history and narrative, there's no way anyone could claim that's a good 40k movie. I'm not saying that's what happened with GB here, but I can completely understand why people want stories and lore they love to be treated with respect.

Its not hyperbole mate, Hollywood keeps taking stories I loved as a child and growing up, sapping any kind of heart that film had, ignoring the established theme of the films (which is why so many loved them) and basically turning them into a joke, now when I mention ghostbusters to people, they will probably go "what that terrible film with the chicks fighting ghosts" the reputation of the movie has been ruined.

Thanks for the concise reply, that seems to be lining up with a lot of the other reviews I'm hearing about it being very very misanthropic. It sounds like the exact opposite of what I'd want to be showing my niece in a few years time to empower and entertain her and show her good female role models. Sounds like a film written by two bitter people who hate men to me. From the sounds of it, every man in the film is portrayed in the worst possible way imaginable. Hemsworths part seems like the least offensive of the lot being simply a jokey eye candy role, which I still find reprehensible, where if the genders were switched most of the people supporting this movie would be having a bloody meltdown.

It's such a shame that Feig has chosen to take a beloved comedy film and make it into a vehicle for his political point scoring. Don't get me wrong, if he'd wanted to make some kind of allegorical messag film, I'm all for that kind of thing, but make an original property and do it with that. Don't mess around with ghostbusters. This really just needed to be a fun romp that made everyone happy. It didn't need to be this.

I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Its part that for sure. Original GB isn't not a perfect movie nor has it obviously made a mark as a cinematic master piece.

Also the new one is not misanthropic....that is just soooooo dumb.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

not even close mate, I like the star wars films, loved them growing up, but still admit they are bad films in terms of story etc. the original ghostbusters is certainly not a masterpiece by any standard, but its a very good film (to me) that I have enjoyed again and again, this new one represents (again, to me) the laziness of Hollywood these days, rehashing of an old idea, some slight nod to the originals for nostalgia purposes and every other effort is made to rake in the cash.

The thing it boils down to is this, the script is gak, had they done it properly, slightly darker, even with the 12A rating, it could have been good, or even great, but they chose the wrong person at the head of this movie, and all blame lies with him.... and the script writers

Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

"Ruining my childhood" is code for "The mold has been broken. Hollywood has squandered this chance to get more of the thing we like, and will inevitably blame anything except their lack of respect for the tried and tested strengths of the original if it fails."

 AlexHolker wrote:
Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

"Ruining my childhood" is code for "The mold has been broken. Hollywood has squandered this chance to get more of the thing we like, and will inevitably blame anything except their lack of respect for the tried and tested strengths of the original if it fails."

I think the "ruined childhood" thing is part of the inherent conservatism in geek culture regarding franchises. Geeks tend to want "more" and "better" and "new" so long as it doesn't dare be "different". This explains why geeks may seem perpetually dissatisfied with their favorite franchises.


I haven't seen this Ghostbusters, and so can't actually compare it to MM:FR. However, I'd say that MM:FR was a deft handling of gender issues, simply because it wasn't simplistic and dumb. As I saw it, the message wasn't that "men are to blame" so much as "certain men are to blame." Max is a confirmation that there are good, noble men in the world...who are also still strong, tough and masculine. It's not an indictment of masculinity, but a condemnation of the distortion of masculine ideals.

Furiosa is a great character because she's a woman and an action hero but not a "woman action hero," if that makes sense. She's not objectified like Lara Croft, etc., and although she's a woman with a woman's POV, she's still strong, tough and capable on an action hero level in a non-gender-specific way.

I think I feel/understand this in my brain better than I can explain it, or have time to explain it. *shrug*

It's possible that Ghostbusters may also handle gender issues well, but what we've heard of Helmsworth's character and the bad guy getting blasted in the ding-dong doesn't inspire confidence.

BrotherGecko wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Its part that for sure. Original GB isn't not a perfect movie nor has it obviously made a mark as a cinematic master piece.

Also the new one is not misanthropic....that is just soooooo dumb.

You know what, how about addressing the points your disagreeing with rather than just calling them dumb? What a facile and childish manner of debate...

How is portraying almost every male character in the movie as either Evil, Stupid, or simply eye candy, with finale where the villain is defeated by being shot in the dick NOT misanthropic? Had the genders been reversed, every feminist on the planet would be readying their placards and picketing Sony and every cinema showing this garbage.

AlexHolker wrote:Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

"Ruining my childhood" is code for "The mold has been broken. Hollywood has squandered this chance to get more of the thing we like, and will inevitably blame anything except their lack of respect for the tried and tested strengths of the original if it fails."

Sorry Alex, but Mad Max and Ghostbusters simply don't match up, you're companion oranges and apples. MM is set in a dystopian future where the world has gone to hell, people are going to be doing horrible things to each other and values are going to be screwed up. It's fantasy. The views on men aren't meant to represent what modern 2016 is actually like. The Ghostbusters remake, while a comedy, is still set in the real world, for the comedy to work it still needs to be grounded and represent a realistic view of the world.

And let's get this straight once and for all. No one is "Ruining my childhood" my DVDs of Ghosbusters, and Ghosbusters 2 are still on my shelf. I can still download them in HD off sky movies. They still exist. It's fine. I'm just pissed off we didn't get a proper third sequel. We could have got a continuation of the story that made everyone happy, it could have been glorious, it could have been fun, and it could have made everyone happy.

There was no need to reboot the franchise. It would have been very easy to pass the torch, there likely would have been none or at least much less of this fuss, and the fans would have on the whole been happy. Instead, most of us feel like we've been slapped in the face. To make things worse, the arrogant director of the movie has made some horrendous comments about ghostbusters fans and geeks in general, as has Melissa McArthy.

It's all left a very sour taste in the mouth.

 General Kroll wrote:

BrotherGecko wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Its part that for sure. Original GB isn't not a perfect movie nor has it obviously made a mark as a cinematic master piece.

Also the new one is not misanthropic....that is just soooooo dumb.

You know what, how about addressing the points your disagreeing with rather than just calling them dumb? What a facile and childish manner of debate...

How is portraying almost every male character in the movie as either Evil, Stupid, or simply eye candy, with finale where the villain is defeated by being shot in the dick NOT misanthropic? Had the genders been reversed, every feminist on the planet would be readying their placards and picketing Sony and every cinema showing this garbage.

One: Nobody called nut shots misanthropic until this movie. In fact its generally consider an acceptable place to target on a man if you want to take them down. Its a crude joke not a misanthropic one, it doesn't establish hate. You could agrue it establishes contempt for the villain but not for men in general.

Two: Helmsworth's character is a deliberate subversion of the dumb blonde eye candy that is typically reserved for women in all men movies. If it bothers you so much that it exists then good because that is how a lot of women feel about all your favorite stuff. Helmsworth very clearly enjoyed playing his role for the exact reasons for its existence, unless of course you believe he was unable to understand what he was doing on account of his general movie persona, which would be closer to misanthropic than his role.

Three: the dumb guy is a guy and the bad guy is a guy but the good guys are gals is not and I feel the need to repeat this, is not misanthropic or more specifically not misandrist.

Four: your final point is at best a really bad strawman. At worse it is a complete an utter missing of the point on why feminism has issues with token roles that women get forced into with "good ole boys" movies.

I didn't initially address your points directly because they were easily summed up. The added fact that nothing will change your victim complex because your bias has throughly and comfortably been confirmed.

And now I fell into the sealion's trap again.

It was a fun movie: B-

Sometimes, people are so anti-Tumblr, that they end up going full-Tumblr in response.

 General Kroll wrote:

AlexHolker wrote:Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

Sorry Alex, but Mad Max and Ghostbusters simply don't match up, you're companion oranges and apples. MM is set in a dystopian future where the world has gone to hell, people are going to be doing horrible things to each other and values are going to be screwed up. It's fantasy. The views on men aren't meant to represent what modern 2016 is actually like. The Ghostbusters remake, while a comedy, is still set in the real world, for the comedy to work it still needs to be grounded and represent a realistic view of the world.

That was what I was going for. George Miller made a movie about horrible men, but not because he believes that all men are horrible men. Paul Feig, if he is not a bigot himself, is at least willing to stir up bigotry to try to profit off of it.

BrotherGecko wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

BrotherGecko wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Its part that for sure. Original GB isn't not a perfect movie nor has it obviously made a mark as a cinematic master piece.

Also the new one is not misanthropic....that is just soooooo dumb.

You know what, how about addressing the points your disagreeing with rather than just calling them dumb? What a facile and childish manner of debate...

How is portraying almost every male character in the movie as either Evil, Stupid, or simply eye candy, with finale where the villain is defeated by being shot in the dick NOT misanthropic? Had the genders been reversed, every feminist on the planet would be readying their placards and picketing Sony and every cinema showing this garbage.

One: Nobody called nut shots misanthropic until this movie. In fact its generally consider an acceptable place to target on a man if you want to take them down. Its a crude joke not a misanthropic one, it doesn't establish hate. You could agrue it establishes contempt for the villain but not for men in general.

Two: Helmsworth's character is a deliberate subversion of the dumb blonde eye candy that is typically reserved for women in all men movies. If it bothers you so much that it exists then good because that is how a lot of women feel about all your favorite stuff. Helmsworth very clearly enjoyed playing his role for the exact reasons for its existence, unless of course you believe he was unable to understand what he was doing on account of his general movie persona, which would be closer to misanthropic than his role.

Three: the dumb guy is a guy and the bad guy is a guy but the good guys are gals is not and I feel the need to repeat this, is not misanthropic or more specifically not misandrist.

Four: your final point is at best a really bad strawman. At worse it is a complete an utter missing of the point on why feminism has issues with token roles that women get forced into with "good ole boys" movies.

I didn't initially address your points directly because they were easily summed up. The added fact that nothing will change your victim complex because your bias has throughly and comfortably been confirmed.

And now I fell into the sealion's trap again.

It was a fun movie: B-

You are willfully ignoring the compound context of the whole thing. When that "nutshot" as you so eloquently put it, is the maguffin that solves the damn movie, which is full of negative male characters, while at the same time being promoted as a "girl power" movie then damn right it's being misanthropic.

"Where do all males get their power from? Oh yeah their dick!"

That particular scene is the culmination of months of controversy, and a couple of hours of men being portrayed as either stupid, creepy, weird, evil, or no used other than eye candy. And then they can be taken down by their one weakness...their genitals. What an empowering message to be sending to those young smiling children dressed as ghostbusters that someone posted pictures of earlier in this thread. I'm so pleased and glad that they will grow up thinking that's how men should be considered.

d-usa wrote:Sometimes, people are so anti-Tumblr, that they end up going full-Tumblr in response.

I'm not "anti tumblr or anti feminist, of any of those bs labels that people like to attribute to others when having discussions, I'm calling what I see here. I think this film was clearly made with a political agenda in mind. It didn't need to be made like that, it was a pointless layer that just added controversy and barriers that did not need to be there.

AlexHolker wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

AlexHolker wrote:Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

Sorry Alex, but Mad Max and Ghostbusters simply don't match up, you're companion oranges and apples. MM is set in a dystopian future where the world has gone to hell, people are going to be doing horrible things to each other and values are going to be screwed up. It's fantasy. The views on men aren't meant to represent what modern 2016 is actually like. The Ghostbusters remake, while a comedy, is still set in the real world, for the comedy to work it still needs to be grounded and represent a realistic view of the world.

That was what I was going for. George Miller made a movie about horrible men, but not because he believes that all men are horrible men. Paul Feig, if he is not a bigot himself, is at least willing to stir up bigotry to try to profit off of it.

Quite frankly, from his comments, and the way he makes his movies, I think Feig is a bigot, his disgusting comments about geeks show that quite clearly.

 d-usa wrote:
Sometimes, people are so anti-Tumblr, that they end up going full-Tumblr in response.

He who fights tumblr should look to it that they them self do not become tumblr . . . when you gaze long into the internets the internets also gazes into you

- Freddy Nietzsche, Beyond Imgur and 4chan

 General Kroll wrote:
Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time.

Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Big Trouble in Little China, The Blues Brothers, and Midnight Run would like to have a word with you.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time.

Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Big Trouble in Little China, The Blues Brothers, and Midnight Run would like to have a word with you.

And Die Hard would like to have a word with you.

That's not saying the original Ghostbusters wasnt fantastic. It sits in the upper echelons of 80's films.

 -Loki- wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time.

Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Big Trouble in Little China, The Blues Brothers, and Midnight Run would like to have a word with you.

And Die Hard would like to have a word with you.

Who are you responding to, because you don't make any sense.

For starters, Die Hard is just a straight up action movie, not an action comedy or any other action film sub-genre so it doesn't make sense to be in a list of action comedies like the one I made. Also, Die Hard is one of my favorite movies of all time, soooo... good try, I guess?

That's not saying the original Ghostbusters wasnt fantastic. It sits in the upper echelons of 80's films.

Yeah, Ghostbusters is a great movie and I'd put it on a list of "Great Comedies of the 80s." But Kroll said it's one of the best movies of all time, which is so laughably ridiculous it shouldn't even be responded to.

The original Ghostbusters would probably make my top 10 comedies, but one of the greatest movies of all time? That's a real stretch.

Good piece on how internet movie reviewing is broken, according to 538.