Author Topic: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed  (Read 5293 times)

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2019, 08:28:36 AM »
I contend that it definitely was an issue to some people, sometimes. Even here, on CaB.

It suuuuuure was.

SteveDave

  • Buy my new LP out now!
    • BUY BUY BUY
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2019, 08:44:22 AM »
On the subject of geriatric Ghostbusters: has there ever been any fiction where the story of the aged versions(s) of a character is explored in a thoughtful way? I feel like there is an obvious one I'm missing.

Bubba Ho-Tep. Lovely OAP Elvis wondering if Lisa Marie missed him and battering a Mummy.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2019, 08:55:44 AM »
I'm honestly quite hung up on you saying that "the gender of the leads was never the issue" wrt the internet's reception to the 2016 Ghostbusters.

I contend that it definitely was an issue to some people, sometimes. Even here, on CaB.

Yeah because 1% represents the majority, right?  Why in the name of sanity should the vocal minority be used as the example of the majority?  Don't even try to pretend that more than 1-5% of criticism was misogynistic because it wasn't.  Who cares about a handful of pathetic little women hating losers?  Sony Pictures marketing department, that's who.

Sorry to get irate but at the time of release, I got called "sexist" for disliking a shitty remake and quite frankly, I'm still sore about it.  As well I should be.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #63 on: January 17, 2019, 09:00:26 AM »
Don't even try to pretend that more than 1-5% of criticism was misogynistic because it wasn't.

I'd argue that it was 7%, maybe 8. I'd stretch to 9, honestly.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #64 on: January 17, 2019, 09:06:56 AM »
I'd argue that it was 7%, maybe 8. I'd stretch to 9, honestly.

3 is a magic number.  Take that magic number, multiply it by 2 and divide by 2 and you have your percentage.  3 is a magic number.  Yes it is.  That's a magic number.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2019, 09:08:32 AM »
Card on the table. I believe it was 100 per cent.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #66 on: January 17, 2019, 09:14:42 AM »
Card on the table. I believe it was 100 per cent.

And the survey says...

BBUUUUHHHHH BBUUUUHHHHH!

Oohhh, and you were so close to winning a fridge freezer.

Brundle-Fly

  • I'm so Avant-garden variety
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #67 on: January 17, 2019, 11:01:17 AM »
On the subject of geriatric Ghostbusters: has there ever been any fiction where the story of the aged versions(s) of a character is explored in a thoughtful way? I feel like there is an obvious one I'm missing.

Cockney wideboy, Mike Baldwin's dementia storyline in Coronation Street?

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2019, 11:09:17 AM »
Cockney wideboy, Mike Baldwin's dementia storyline in Coronation Street?

Coronation Street is part of the expanded universe and therefore canonically debatable.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #69 on: January 17, 2019, 11:10:50 AM »
I'm disappointed that rumours say the script calls for 4 teenagers to be the leads. When's the last time a teenager was as funny as Bill Murray? When's the last time Bill Murray was as funny as Bill Murray?

Something tells me the Sony execs saw how hyped & well-received the Stranger Things episode with the 4 teens dressed as Ghostbusters was and they immediately commissioned a script.

Still, I can't help but get slightly excited for this after 25 years of news about a proper third sequel being on and off all the time. After Ramis died and the 2016 film became a full reboot I thought any chance for a sequel based in the same universe as the original was completely gone.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #70 on: January 17, 2019, 11:29:42 AM »
Let's face it, though, the entire outcry was entirely due to the fact that they cast women.

Jerzy Bondov

  • im bewl bb
    • Wrongfully Adapted
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #71 on: January 17, 2019, 11:35:54 AM »
Let's face it, though, the entire outcry was entirely due to the fact that they cast women.
I agree. In fact nobody even really likes the original films very much (as they are not funny, and boring) and were just pretending so they could be even more outraged about the women.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2019, 11:40:17 AM »
Let's face it, though, the entire outcry was entirely due to the fact that they cast women.

madhair60, there.  Stoking the flames, as per usual.  You're a mischievous imp, mate.  A loveable imp but an imp all the same.

I agree. In fact nobody even really likes the original films very much (as they are not funny, and boring) and were just pretending so they could be even more outraged about the women.

Oh Lord, madhair60 has an apprentice.

"Now there are two of them".

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2019, 11:52:07 AM »
Honestly though as with The Last Jedi I think both films were going out of their way to try and troll alt rightish elements, both for publicity and to try and silence any criticism for fear of being grouped with them.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 12:08:27 PM by greenman »

SteveDave

  • Buy my new LP out now!
    • BUY BUY BUY
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #74 on: January 17, 2019, 11:53:51 AM »
Quote

INT. FUNERAL HOME.

Ray, Peter and Winston are gathered around a two caskets. Louis Tully and Egon Spengler are dead.


The rest writes itself. They've killed those two accidentally somehow because of old age dodderiness and the city is in uproar or sutin and 'bustin' gets outlawed.

Seth Rogan plays Dana's grown up child who leads the new rag-tag team of undercover Ghostbusters.


St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2019, 12:00:49 PM »
Seth Rogan plays Dana's grown up child who leads the new rag-tag team of undercover Ghostbusters.

*shivers*

Shameless Custard

  • PAUSE FOR THE JET
    • My RUBBISH
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #76 on: January 17, 2019, 12:01:21 PM »
It's just been revealed by that man in the pub that the four new Ghostbusters are:

Martin Freeman
James Corden
Justin Beiber
Dame Edna

There's a bloody woman in it, so stop saying it's sexist willya

Jerzy Bondov

  • im bewl bb
    • Wrongfully Adapted
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #77 on: January 17, 2019, 12:03:25 PM »
Honestly though as with The Last Jedi I think both films were going out of their way to try and troll alt rightish elements, both for publicity and to try and silence any criticism for year of being grouped with them.
I can see the logic of that with Ghostbusters, less so with The Last Jedi. But then again I liked The Last Jedi. I do think there's been an element of this to the new series of Doctor Who as well. Is it deliberate? I don't know. But in the aftermath it does become very easy to sink your critics if they are sharing their boat with complete poo heads.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #78 on: January 17, 2019, 12:10:52 PM »
Funny the way that the whole misogynistic angle never gets trotted out for, say, Alien but only for garbage movies like the Ghostbusters remake.  Funny that.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #79 on: January 17, 2019, 12:16:58 PM »
EDIT: On second thoughts, quoting four year old posts is a bit of a shitty thing to do. Also, can't be bothered repeating a four year old argument.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #80 on: January 17, 2019, 12:25:27 PM »
I stand by that.  I do think that it was stunt casting and a gimmick; one used to deflect criticism of a bad script.  However, the gender of the leads would not have been an issue, gimmick or not, had the movie been worth a damn. 

That's not to say that casting a group of women as the protagonists is automatically a gimmick.  I'm not an idiot and a great deal of my favourite films have women in the lead roles.  I simply mean that in the case of the Ghostbusters remake, it was a gimmick.  If you don't think that it was, then you're fooling yourself.  Sony knew it was.  Their marketing department played up to the all female cast angle like nobody's business.  It's a sorry state of affairs when having four women in the lead roles of a blockbuster is seen as a novelty.  It should be standard and a 50% split with male protagonists.

If the movie had been good, then I would happily say so.  It was not good.  Don't try and paint me as a sexist because you're barking up the wrong tree.  Also, kinda creepy that you pulled a quote of mine from 4 years ago.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 12:45:45 PM by St_Eddie »

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #81 on: January 17, 2019, 12:28:52 PM »
Perhaps instead of "sexist", we could say "the s-word (not shit)". We have to add the bit in parentheses or people will think it means shit.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #82 on: January 17, 2019, 12:51:11 PM »
Real shame that you had to do that, Mango Chimes.  You're right; that was a shitty thing to do.

Perhaps instead of "sexist", we could say "the s-word (not shit)". We have to add the bit in parentheses or people will think it means shit.

Well, arguably, you're coming at it from 'the A word' and I do detect a slight hint of 'the T word'.  Then again, I suppose that 'the D word' could be argued just as much.  Maybe I'm just being shortsighted but 'the G word' does sometimes ring true.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #83 on: January 17, 2019, 12:55:43 PM »
Don't try and paint me as a sexist because you're barking up the wrong tree.  Also, kinda creepy that you pulled a quote of mine from 4 years ago.

I edited it out before you posted this reply, but just to clear myself on that front: I didn't go looking for a post from you. I went to re-read the old thread to check my memory of there being a bunch of whining before it came out about the very idea of there being female Ghostbusters. Turned out there was.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #84 on: January 17, 2019, 01:03:04 PM »
I edited it out before you posted this reply, but just to clear myself on that front: I didn't go looking for a post from you. I went to re-read the old thread to check my memory of there being a bunch of whining before it came out about the very idea of there being female Ghostbusters. Turned out there was.

So you think my issue with the remake was the gender of the cast?  You don't know anything about me or my ethical beliefs.  You haven't any idea of how strongly I stand for equality and despise discrimination of any kind.  Quite frankly, I don't feel the need to justify myself to you.  Please don't interact with me again.  Quite clearly, as far as you're concerned, I'm persona non grata, so let's just leave it at that.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #85 on: January 17, 2019, 01:26:15 PM »
I'm honestly quite hung up on you saying that "the gender of the leads was never the issue" wrt the internet's reception to the 2016 Ghostbusters.

I contend that it definitely was an issue to some people, sometimes. Even here, on CaB.

I assume it was an issue based on how patronising it was? I don't know. It's shit because it's shit.

Have Sony produced a good film?

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #86 on: January 17, 2019, 01:34:01 PM »
Have Sony produced a good film?

Yes. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

  • Skin stretched tight over high cheekbones
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #87 on: January 17, 2019, 01:49:52 PM »
The recent  Spider-Man was very good.

I didn't think the 2016 Ghost Busters was terrible by any means, just very middling. As others have noted, its main problem is too much improv riffing in lieu of a properly honed script (complaining about wonton soup is not a real joke).

I don't think it was a gimmick really. It was a director and stars who'd had a run of successful films. On paper, it made perfect sense to pair them up with a well loved but long defunct franchise (ugh) and aim for that whole four quadrant blockbuster thing.

Dex Sawash

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Upph√§ngningspunkterna
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #88 on: January 17, 2019, 02:01:27 PM »
I don't watch movies with spooks and that in them. Will give this a pass.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #89 on: January 17, 2019, 02:07:57 PM »
I don't watch movies with spooks and that in them. Will give this a pass.

WHAT A PUSSY