Who Ya Gonna Call?

[Erik Setzer]

The original video is actually pretty fair, though. He discusses the possibility of the movie being better than the trailer, and notes that if you don't like the look of it and know you'll hate it, just don't watch it. That's why they won't go watch it, because why give ticket sales to a movie he won't like.

Plus his critique is pretty fair. He dislikes that it's just called "Ghostbusters," and notes that it pushes people to say, "Ghostbusters with chicks," as a differentiator from the original. He then debates the fact that it's a remake, but might be a sequel, and no-one's really sure.

He then uses examples such as Star Trek and Star Wars to show how he'd like reboots to happen. E.g., nodding to the old while bringing in the new. That article just seems to be trying to fuel outrage when the video it sources from doesn't make a single mention of avoiding it because it's an all-female cast. They're avoiding it because it writes over the classic, the original actors make mere cameos out-of-character, and the CGI isn't to their taste.

I don't fully understand why a random-but-fairly-popular YouTuber saying they're not going to review a movie is, "setting Twitter on fire," but then I don't see why Twitter traffic is news these days either...

Because this movie has become an utter mess on the Internet. The whole premise from the movie studio, and what they originally told people before telling them anything else, is that it's "Ghostbusters with chicks." And because that's what it is, and *some* jerks did get sexist about it, now *any* criticism of it is being fluffed off as if they're just sexist and hate it because it has women.

And you have sites like the above which are fueling that mess. And people did the same with the large number of dislikes, claiming it was only because of gender, not because people might actually have any of a dozen other reasons to not like the trailer. (Meanwhile, CoD:IW, with almost a complete lack of women in its trailer, has almost four times as many dislikes while still having about ten million fewer views.)

It's a disaster for honest discussion, and this is the perfect example. You can't criticize the movie or anything about it without people trying to find some way to call you "sexist." And yeah, there's people who are sexist, but there's so many people out there who aren't liking the way this looks, and it has nothing to do with gender. There are *women* out there who don't like the way this looks, but somehow they're anti-women, because... well, because the Internet is stupid, and the recent attempts to act "enlightened" have led us to this.

[eldargal]

Most of the criticism is sexist though, you can't deny that because most of the critical youtube comments are explicitly sexist. Certainly some people will dislike it for legitimate reasons or as a matter of taste but that doesn't change the fact that misogyny is the driving force behind the negativity about the film.

[Erik Setzer]

I only go with friends, and it becomes an event thing for movies like Star Wars or Civil War. Or Deadpool. Or Batman vs Superman. It's been a pretty good year lately for nerdy stuff. :P

I tend to go with friends when possible, mainly because otherwise I'm in a room filled with strangers, and that can be... uncomfortable (seeing Civil War on opening weekend had me feeling like my heart was going to explode before the movie started and mostly distracted me from the people pressing in around me). But one good thing about when I used to go to the theater more often was that I can go outside the zone of shared interests and take a chance on something. I still don't know what led me to watch something like Up in the Air, or Crazy Heart, but they were pretty good movies I probably wouldn't have seen if I just went with friends.

There's a lot of good nerdy stuff coming out this year, but I'd like to find more interesting movies like that. The Girl on the Train had an interesting trailer, might give that a try. But that shows the power of a good trailer. (And I think it was seeing the trailers online that led me to see those other movies.)

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

havent felt any of the super hero movies were worth watching in cinema - I enjoy them and they are ok, but they are more like fluff for me so I am not as dedicated I suppose. I might make an exception Wonder woman though as it's one I'd like to support. SW never appealed to me either so there aren't really any franchises or big things like that I am really in love with that excite me, wish there was though - I guess it's a curse of having niche taste in stuff I suppose.

[Erik Setzer]

Most of the criticism is sexist though, you can't deny that because most of the critical youtube comments are explicitly sexist. Certainly some people will dislike it for legitimate reasons or as a matter of taste but that doesn't change the fact that misogyny is the driving force behind the negativity about the film.

"Most of the YouTube comments" does not equal "most of the criticism." It just means most of the people who feel like writing something. Even when YouTube comments aren't sexist, they tend to be pretty awful.

I do not think "misogyny" is the "driving force" behind negativity directed at a film that looks like an awful remake with LCD humor, meh CGI, and uninspired cameos of the original cast thrown in to remind us of the movie they're trying to remake.

The big problem here is that you'll be accused of "misogyny" if you just point out that the studio's first thoughts were to remake Ghostbusters with women and gender was their driving point, before they even figured out what kind of story they're wanting to tell. All of the original stories weren't about whether it was a sequal or reboot or remake or anything about the movie except the people working on it telling everyone, "Hey, you guys! We're doing a new Ghostbusters, with all women!" They made gender the lead story. They didn't even seem to think out anything other than casting women to say, "Look, we made a movie with women, aren't we progressive?"

It could have worked, but they didn't even try. They went lazy because they knew they were just going to try to sell it on gender. And how is that a good thing? How is it sexist to point out that's wrong, and it's unfair to the cast, and it's unfair to women that they're doing crappy remakes with gender-swapping rather than coming up with original stories to cast women in?

See, you're the reason that article exists. There's a lot of people who dislike the movie without hating women. It's viable to dislike the studio casting women just as a stunt (and if you're honest, it's easy to spot that it was a stunt, given their initial rush to tell everyone the gender of the cast rather than anything important). People are excited for Rogue One, which has a female lead... but Disney didn't go rushing to tell everyone, "Look, it's a Star Wars movie with a female lead!" or "We're doing a Star Wars movie and we're going to cast a woman as the lead." No, they said, "We're doing this movie, Rogue One, about the team that stole the Death Star plans." THAT is the right way to do it.

But if you point out how they did it so horribly wrong here, you're "sexist." If you don't find the choice of actors to be amusing, you're "sexist." If you think the humor falls flat, you're "sexist." If you choose not to see the movie because it looks like it'll be a trainwreck, you're "sexist."

I'd say you reap what you sow, but nah, that reviewer's reaping what you sowed.

[eldargal]

You'll be accused of misogyny because its not true, Feig wanted to do it. It's revisionist BS to try and blame this on some shallow corporate decision, which wouldn't even justify the hate if it were true because the reasoning doesn't matter of the results are good, and we don't know until the film is released. If this were a one off then you might have an argument, but its part of an undeniable trend of female led films being bashed more than their male led equivelents. Mad Max, Star Wars The Force Awakens, Rogue One, even the new SW Lego tv show, Ghostbusters, Hunger Games, Gravity etc. etc. and many more have all been attacked for having a female lead or a gender equal cast.

It could have worked, but they didn't even try. They went lazy because they knew they were just going to try to sell it on gender. And how is that a good thing? How is it sexist to point out that's wrong, and it's unfair to the cast, and it's unfair to women that they're doing crappy remakes with gender-swapping rather than coming up with original stories to cast women in?

It's sexist because it NEVER happens when its the reverse. Guys don't give a **** when we get another insipid, bland, uninspired action film with an all male cast and some token female love interest thrown in, but make an all female action film and they lose their ****ing minds. Even if they were trying to sell it on gender, that literally doesn't matter because that is how hypermasculine action films have been marketed to guys for decades.

[Mr Mystery]

[url=http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/ghostbusters/38949/ghostbusters-melissa-mccarthy-on-the-confusing-trailer]Third trailer is out[/url]

Looking so much better. And remember, the CGI effects are digital over practical, not just digital.

[Erik Setzer]

Just because you don't read the comments doesn't mean they don't happen. If you sought them out with the same magnifying glass you use to seek out any traces of sexism, real or imagined, you'd find them. You find what you seek. That's how it is. People have their bias and confirm it.

My preference is no remakes of any kind. But hey, they SHOULD be equal. So let's remake some female-led movies gender-swapped to have male leads. That'd be amusing to see. I'd bet you they wouldn't get much love, and there'd probably be plenty of women commenting negatively, but even if they just said it's stupid to remake, say, Hocus Pocus with a bunch of guys, or do The Witch of Oz with Dude-ithy leading around three women who are only there to help him get to the Witch of Oz, then I guess it's only because they're sexist and not because those sound like trainwrecks? (Heck, gender-swap the cast of Wizard of Oz, and I'd bet you'd get people lining up to call it "sexist" for having the women there just to serve the male lead.)

But hey, back to this movie... I wish it was male leads just so when I pan it as looking awful, I wouldn't be called "sexist." (Picturing a loud Chris Rock in place of the stereotyped black woman makes it no more appealing... yikes.)

[Mr Mystery]

To tag on to what EG was saying, it's not just female lead films such as those she listed.

The problem is that many films 'made for wimmins' are pretty crap, and depressingly formulaic. Think pretty much everything Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Lopez and Sarah Jessica Parker have made. With exceptions (but not for Jennfier Aniston, who has made a career out playing Rachel From Friends in everything) all 'chick flicks'. All pretty dire.

So because Hollywood are decided Women Only Like Chick Flicks, when a non-chick flick film comes up, it gets battered with the same 'FFS, another insipid chick flick' stick.

Actual decent roles for women are fairly hard to come by. The rest EG covered nicely so no need to reiterate

[eldargal]

You mean guys will do their utmost to deny their sexism rather than admit it, because they are in a position to pretend sexism isn't as pervasive as it is because they don't experience it.