Is the majority online really idiots? (Ghostbusters Trailer)

[Huuow]

The trailer was disappointing. Didn´t laugh or even smirk a single time... still have hopes though, for Melissa McCarthy did an awesome comedy last year (Spy)

In my oppinion the genderswap is the most plausible reason to do a remake.. the other options would be: the aged originals (which is not really a good idea.. Sure I´d love to see Peter Venkman in action one more time but if the movie fails it would be so much more sad..) or a new male crew who takes over.. which is.. well, kinda boring.. also everyone is used to the old unique male characters and it would be difficult to accept new ones..

will watch and hope.

 

but back to topic: yes, the comments are about misogyny. really.. there shouldn´t be a discussion if it is or not. it is obvious.

[Viet Bach Bui]

Meanwhile, Roland Deschain is being played by a black actor, and if you don't like it you're a racist...

[Bioskop.Inc]

Yes! The majority of people on the internet that leave comments are idiots. They're kids with nothing better to do, who don't give a shit about anything - as long as they get a reaction out of someone, its fine to be racist, sexist etc... They really don't care what you think, because they are bored kids with nothing better to do!

Quite honestly, I'm done with watching these bullshit American movies! I just come out of the theatre nowadays & the first thing that springs to my mind isn't what a great film i've seen, but the fact that i've wasted £8/9 on yet another piece of shit garbage crap recycled money grabbing CON!

Going back to the Idiots & the Internet thing: I just think that the World Wide Web will eventually implode on itself & we'll end up subscribing to online safe havens, where we don't have to worry about being hacked, scammed, stalked, profiled, used or trolled! As an experiment, I've stopped looking at my phone when I'm out walking & its amazing how many people are just absolutely transfixed by unreality as opposed to reality - I've even had these phone huggers shout at me for not looking where i'm going!

I think i'm becoming technophobic & having taken a break from this fake world has really opened my eyes!

PS. Ghostbusters will be shit & it has nothing to do with whose in it or what gender they are! It won't be the original & that's the reason...

 

[DayRaven]

Just now, Bùi Bách Việt said:

Meanwhile, Roland Deschain is being played by a black actor, and if you don't like it you're a racist...

Well, I mean, if a character whose skin colour is never mentioned is played by a black actor, whom the author of that character is happy with, and you don't like the choice specifically because of the colour of the actors skin... it kind of feels a bit racist.

[Cinegain]

Yeah, sometimes I get the feeling that we've become so scared of offending certain groups within society, that we change our stories and casting based upon that.

And that is where I think it goes a little overboard. I seriously think they might cast a transgender to play the next James Bond, just for the sake of reaching out and say 'see, we have no problems with that, we're all for equality'. But in that... aren't we abandoning the things that makes James, Bond? What's next? Casting someone with a German accent and heritage to play Bond? An actress from Namibia? How is favoring different qualities suddenly equality? It's positive discrimination for the sake of it, if anything, although I'm not sure what positive comes from it.

In this instance, I don't think the choice made had much to do with pleasing feminists or promoting equality especially. As long as the story asks for it, go for it! But not the other way around, please! As said before... you want to reboot a franchise, what are your options? Cast the original actors... tough. Replace them with young male actors... tough, because people will judge them for either trying too much, or be nothing like the originals. I agree, going with a female cast is the way to go! In this case, totally. It wouldn't be forced, it would be a natural and logical move. I might not be sure about their casting choices... or how they've established the movie... which now looks like a cheery silly comedy. But that's a whole other thing entirely.

[DayRaven]

Just now, Cinegain said:

Yeah, sometimes I get the feeling that we've become so scared of offending certain groups within society, that we change our stories and casting based upon that.

And that is where I think it goes a little overboard. I seriously think they might cast a transgender to play the next James Bond, just for the sake of reaching out and say 'see, we have no problems with that, we're all for equality'. But in that... aren't we abandoning the things that makes James, Bond? What's next? Casting someone with a German accent and heritage to play Bond? An actress from Namibia? How is favoring different qualities suddenly equality? It's positive discrimination for the sake of it, if anything, although I'm not sure what positive comes from it.

In this instance, I don't think the choice made had much to do with pleasing feminists or promoting equality especially. As long as the story asks for it, go for it! But not the other way around, please! As said before... you want to reboot a franchise, what are your options? Cast the original actors... tough. Replace them with young male actors... tough, because people will judge them for either trying too much, or be nothing like the originals. I agree, going with a female cast is the way to go! In this case, totally. It wouldn't be forced, it would be a natural and logical move. I'm might not be sure about their casting choices... or how they've established the movie... which now looks like a cheery silly comedy. But that's a whole other thing entirely.

Here's the thing, we live in a society of inequality, but you can't tackle it from the top down, the best you will do is cause tokenism, which is just as damaging. To get more diverse films being made, we need society to be less discrimitory, we need to tell our parents not to take the doll away from our sons if he is enjoying playing with it, we need to stop painting girls bedrooms pink etc. When we stop treating children differently as a result of genetic characteristics, then they will grow up without our baggage, they will quite happily cast a black or female James Bond, because to them, they will have no preconcieved notion of how the genetic attributes "should" behave, to them it will not take anything away from the character.

[Cinegain]

I'm all for equality. I doesn't matter which gender you were born with, identify with, race you are, background you've come from, sexual preference you might have or anything. We're all human beings, noone is worth more than another. And it pains me to see people aren't treated equally. Everyone deserves to live their lives in peace and be respected and accepted. But then lets not replace characters, but rather create new ones. Let there be a Jane Bond, 009 or something.

[Huuow]

mentioning the fear of James Bond being transgender in a thread about female ghostbusters tells us more about you than you´d probably wanted to share  

but no.. I don´t support that idea either  

[Kingswell]

7 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I think you are dead wrong. The people making those coments have most likely never seen Ghostbusters. I love it but lets face it. Its an 80s movie. The people making these comments are youngsters. The difference is to f...ing massive to try and write it of as coincidence, strong franchise, etc.

BTW, Turtles, Transformers, Batman, Spiderman, X-men, etc have had some success before the latest reboots. In fact, they where all huge.

You're jumping to conclusions again. How do you know it's 'kids' hitting the dislike button? How do you know 'youngsters' have never seen Ghostbusters? I showed it to my 10 year cousin last year and she absolutely loves it. 

[Ivanhurba]

I was one of the people that left a bad comment but my issue was different. The cast looks great but my children finished it and asked the same question I had in my mind: where the original ones where. I went to the IMDB and saw Bill, Ernie, Sigourney and Dan's name but with no character name attached to it, so there's hope. Paul Feig is a good director and Wiig is awesome but they really need to give a good long closure to the original ones if they want the girls to take over, not just a cameo.

[Viet Bach Bui]

11 hours ago, DayRaven said:

Well, I mean, if a character whose skin colour is never mentioned is played by a black actor, whom the author of that character is happy with, and you don't like the choice specifically because of the colour of the actors skin... it kind of feels a bit racist.

Yes the author never said outright what Roland's race was but there are many parts where his race was alluded to (Roland having blue bombardier eyes, Eddie thinking he looks like a gunslinger from a spaghetti western) and other parts where it can be logically deducted (Detta's instant hatred of him and Eddie, she even mentioned a body part of him and Eddie being white in one instance). Yeah you can say that even after all that clues you still can not be 100% sure and that's true, but that's only technicality. What matters is that King portrayed Roland in a way that led us to think of the character as Caucasian.

PS: it doesn't matter that this cast is endorsed by King. What is he supposed to do? Criticize the choice and makes himself look bad under the political correctness machine that is our world today?

[Cinegain]

11 hours ago, Huuow said:

mentioning the fear of James Bond being transgender in a thread about female ghostbusters tells us more about you than you´d probably wanted to share  

Please, indulge me. What would that say about me. You do realize this thread headed down that rabbit hole before I did, right?

When I mentioned being scared (and not me), it had nothing to do with the fact that there's different people out there. It's great that we as a society are so divers, anything else would make it boring and tough. I do however have a voice of concern with putting certain characters in the foreground for the wrong reasons or people actually abandoning treating everyone equally trying to be politically overcorrect.

To give you a few examples...

. Close to home, it's Conchita Wurst, born as Thomas Neuwirth, Austria, winner of the 2014 European Song Festival, performing as 'lady with a beard'

. Loiza, born as Lucas Lamers, The Netherlands, winning the 2015 edition of Holland's Next Top Model

I'm really under the impression that their talent is hardly the reason they won these contests and that it relies more so on the fact that one performs in drag and the other is transgender. These facts create stirr, hype and (global media) attention, but it also leaves people feeling uncomfortable not voting in favor of these individuals out of fear of coming across discriminating. So rather than voting on talent, which is what a talentshow should be about, people are put through on the fact that they are performing in drag or are transgender, in other words: their persona. Which I think is concerning, because equality would be that in a talentshow you'd get judged on your talent. Should they not have won, this would probably have been met with skepticism and people being acused of discriminating against people who are different, actually much like the controverse at the Academy Awards when it comes to black actors. Btw, then there's The Danish Girl that got nominated... 4 nominations and took 1 Oscar home (well done!).

But doesn't it seem like we're looking for things to be offended by these days? And that others go out of their way to make sure others don't feel offended that way?

. In The Netherlands traditionally on the evening of 5th of December, St. Nicholas comes to people's houses and bring gifts for the little ones. St. Nicholas is like Christmas Santa Claus, but instead of having elves help him out, he's assisted by Zwarte Piet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet ). This is a joyous fest that has been going decade after decade... now suddenly everything's wrong with it, because people from different backgrounds and other skin color feel that St. Nicholas helpers are being held as slaves and that the black skin color (which can have multiple reasonable different explanations) of the helpers is in very poor taste. They want an end to this terrible joyous tradition for kids, because it's demonic. And what happens? These handful of people get their way and the helpers are now rainbow colored. Yes, now it's waiting for people that are offended by rainbows. Is that what we want society to be? Trying to please everyone because anybody can be offended by anything at anytime because they're just looking to find something to be offended about?

. Over here in Austria they know St. Nicholas as well. He doesn't have any helpers. It's either your with him, the Jedi and get gifts... or you are with the Dark side and get punished by Krampus (as by now you might have heard of since it made it into a movie). No controversy here about slavery or skin color. But... they've come up with problems of their own. You see, usually a grandpa, parent or teacher dresses up... of course, as Clark Kent would know, you have to make a change to your appearance or you will be recognised. So of course, St. Nicholas has a beard. What do they want to do here? They want to get rid of the beard! St. Nicholas's iconic feature. Because it does not allow children to read St. Nicholas' facial expression, leaving children unsure of his intentions and fearing this wicked man. Another thing is The Book of St. Nicholas, which is like a personal log in which he keeps track of which children behaved well over the course of last year and who didn't. This would lead to children feeling judged and not being trusted to behave well. So away with that too!

I don't know. We've become too sensitive. These things come up more and more, it's trending! People are easily offended. And we're so afraid of being acused of being politically incorrect, that we're politically overcorrect in that actually we're no longer treating everyone as equal. So, that's why I wouldn't be surprised if the next Bond were to be transgender, female, black or just no longer British. But it wouldn't be done because it would fit the story and the profile of James Bond 007, it would be done to be politically overcorrect and create some hype, so more a gimmick, really. Which is a pity, because you could very well create new stories, like The Danish Girl for example, that is a testament to individuality and acceptance without forcing it in somewhere just for the sake of it.

Quote

but no.. I don´t support that idea either  

I guess here you would insert something saying that says a lot about you, but I honestly think that's looking to find something that isn't there.

[mkabi]

Hey, I love the original ghostbusters from the 80s too.

In my opinion, it didn't need a reboot... 

What I was expecting was a sequel... 

I don't care if it is an all female cast, in fact I was hoping that the orginal's kids would take over the business.

I know someone brought up the Charlie's angels argument with pretty women, but see how they replaced ugly men of the 80s with ugly women of the 2010s... With a sprinkle of that token good looking person? In this movie they replaced Sigourney Weaver with Chris Hemworth.... Seriously... Unnecessary.

If they want to switch things around... Throw in black, white, Yellow and brown... non-discriminantly.... Men and women... Both good looking and bad.... Throw in someone that's gay/lesbian and someone that's in a wheelchair too.

And totally change the story around.... I don't want a rehash of the original...

[DayRaven]

4 hours ago, Bùi Bách Việt said:

Yes the author never said outright what Roland's race was but there are many parts where his race was alluded to (Roland having blue bombardier eyes, Eddie thinking he looks like a gunslinger from a spaghetti western) and other parts where it can be logically deducted (Detta's instant hatred of him and Eddie, she even mentioned a body part of him and Eddie being white in one instance). Yeah you can say that even after all that clues you still can not be 100% sure and that's true, but that's only technicality. What matters is that King portrayed Roland in a way that led us to think of the character as Caucasian.

PS: it doesn't matter that this cast is endorsed by King. What is he supposed to do? Criticize the choice and makes himself look bad under the political correctness machine that is our world today?

He has criticised nearly every other production of his books, so he's not one to pull his punches - and if he did, it would have very little to do with political correctness and everything to do with avoiding a lawsuit.

I think the key with the gunslinger series is that people from different worlds percieve each other through the eyes of their own world - every character in that book is an unreliable witness, that's the whole theme of the books. King specifically subdivides his narration to the audience as through our own worlds eyes, and tells in interviews about the series that he did that out of sheer laziness, it gave him scope to write stories he wanted without the work of constructing a working world, checking that he was being consistant with work he wrote decades ago and being pinned down to consistancy. Detta/Odetta/Susannah percieves him as white because of her background in the 60's civil right movement of our world, but in Giliad, there was no racism, there was no reason nobility could be black - but looking from reatily to reality distorts details, she saw him as white because he acted like a white person did in her world. That's hardly a technicality, it's the heart and soul of the books.

 

[Viet Bach Bui]

I think you're bending the facts a little too far your own way, and I was going to refute your points but then I realized that would be mucking up a thread with a topic of little interest to everyone else. So let me just say this: any fan of an artistic work should be able to defend their intepretation of it without being labelled as racist, sexist or whatever degoratory terms people like to throw around these days.

[DayRaven]

Just now, Bùi Bách Việt said:

I think you're bending the facts a little too far your own way, and I was going to refute your points but then I realized that would be mucking up a thread with a topic of little interest to everyone else. So let me just say this: any fan of an artistic work should be able to defend their intepretation of it without being labelled as racist, sexist or whatever degoratory terms people like to throw around these days.

No-one should be labelled as anything, people are far more nuanced than that, however, I didn't label you or anyone as anything, I said your point of view feels a bit racist. Very different to saying you are racist. And just as you, rightly defend your interpretation of an artistic work, you should not feel it is appropriate to "refute" anyone elses. I just gave you my opinion and interpretation on an artistic work, you feel it is wrong, so you can't really complain if you feel other people are attacking your interpretation, you just pulled from attacking mine, but made it clear you would have done. Let me add one more derogatory term to your list - "Wrong".

[Viet Bach Bui]

My point of view is not racist, not even a bit. It would be if I had said that a black man wouldn't be capable of the feats that Roland pulled off, for instance.

And you're welcome to refute my points, had the discussion around Roland's race continued. I don't consider that an attack of any kind, just a plain old debate. But to call me racist for my preference of a character's race is a personal attack.

[DayRaven]

Just now, Bùi Bách Việt said:

My point of view is not racist, not even a bit. It would be if I had said that a black man wouldn't be capable of the feats that Roland pulled off, for instance.

And you're welcome to refute my points, had the discussion around Roland's race continued. I don't consider that an attack of any kind, just a plain old debate. But to call me racist for my preference of a character's race is a personal attack.

I didn't call you racist, and I'm about finished with this debate, I don't think you're reading what I write

[Huuow]

8 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Please, indulge me. What would that say about me. You do realize this thread headed down that rabbit hole before I did, right?

When I mentioned being scared (and not me), it had nothing to do with the fact that there's different people out there. It's great that we as a society are so divers, anything else would make it boring and tough. I do however have a voice of concern with putting certain characters in the foreground for the wrong reasons or people actually abandoning treating everyone equally trying to be politically overcorrect.

To give you a few examples...

. Close to home, it's Conchita Wurst, born as Thomas Neuwirth, Austria, winner of the 2014 European Song Festival, performing as 'lady with a beard'

. Loiza, born as Lucas Lamers, The Netherlands, winning the 2015 edition of Holland's Next Top Model

I'm really under the impression that their talent is hardly the reason they won these contests and that it relies more so on the fact that one performs in drag and the other is transgender. These facts create stirr, hype and (global media) attention, but it also leaves people feeling uncomfortable not voting in favor of these individuals out of fear of coming across discriminating. So rather than voting on talent, which is what a talentshow should be about, people are put through on the fact that they are performing in drag or are transgender, in other words: their persona. Which I think is concerning, because equality would be that in a talentshow you'd get judged on your talent. Should they not have won, this would probably have been met with skepticism and people being acused of discriminating against people who are different, actually much like the controverse at the Academy Awards when it comes to black actors. Btw, then there's The Danish Girl that got nominated... 4 nominations and took 1 Oscar home (well done!).

But doesn't it seem like we're looking for things to be offended by these days? And that others go out of their way to make sure others don't feel offended that way?

. In The Netherlands traditionally on the evening of 5th of December, St. Nicholas comes to people's houses and bring gifts for the little ones. St. Nicholas is like Christmas Santa Claus, but instead of having elves help him out, he's assisted by Zwarte Piet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet ). This is a joyous fest that has been going decade after decade... now suddenly everything's wrong with it, because people from different backgrounds and other skin color feel that St. Nicholas helpers are being held as slaves and that the black skin color (which can have multiple reasonable different explanations) of the helpers is in very poor taste. They want an end to this terrible joyous tradition for kids, because it's demonic. And what happens? These handful of people get their way and the helpers are now rainbow colored. Yes, now it's waiting for people that are offended by rainbows. Is that what we want society to be? Trying to please everyone because anybody can be offended by anything at anytime because they're just looking to find something to be offended about?

. Over here in Austria they know St. Nicholas as well. He doesn't have any helpers. It's either your with him, the Jedi and get gifts... or you are with the Dark side and get punished by Krampus (as by now you might have heard of since it made it into a movie). No controversy here about slavery or skin color. But... they've come up with problems of their own. You see, usually a grandpa, parent or teacher dresses up... of course, as Clark Kent would know, you have to make a change to your appearance or you will be recognised. So of course, St. Nicholas has a beard. What do they want to do here? They want to get rid of the beard! St. Nicholas's iconic feature. Because it does not allow children to read St. Nicholas' facial expression, leaving children unsure of his intentions and fearing this wicked man. Another thing is The Book of St. Nicholas, which is like a personal log in which he keeps track of which children behaved well over the course of last year and who didn't. This would lead to children feeling judged and not being trusted to behave well. So away with that too!

I don't know. We've become too sensitive. These things come up more and more, it's trending! People are easily offended. And we're so afraid of being acused of being politically incorrect, that we're politically overcorrect in that actually we're no longer treating everyone as equal. So, that's why I wouldn't be surprised if the next Bond were to be transgender, female, black or just no longer British. But it wouldn't be done because it would fit the story and the profile of James Bond 007, it would be done to be politically overcorrect and create some hype, so more a gimmick, really. Which is a pity, because you could very well create new stories, like The Danish Girl for example, that is a testament to individuality and acceptance without forcing it in somewhere just for the sake of it.

I guess here you would insert something saying that says a lot about you, but I honestly think that's looking to find something that isn't there.

 

All fair and well, discussable but not the main point I was referring to.

Heres my concern: by mixing transgender and other minorities with woman in the equality debate, you are simply draging womans rights down, leaving them debatable and attaching a certain level of ridiculousness. They are 50% of worlds population.. trans people are what? 0.1? No, I don´t think they have the same right of awareness. Women do not have an obligation to help everyone, they will only come out as losers as your example so finely presents: That Austrian music award: 0 Woman won a price, even in the femal section the winner was Conchita, a man (and plz don´t be fooled to think that the best just happened to be man)

I have never heard of that discussion about St. Nicholas and his beard, and I agree, if true, it is simply face palm worthy. On the other side, there are customs with a questionable origin.. I think you do know the game "wer hat Angst vorm schwarzen Mann?" Is it a tradition worthy keeping? Yes, in the museum of folk studies..

So, back to Ghostbusters. It has nothing to do with beeing politically correct (I know you agree with me here). It´s just a female crew which happens to be so unbelievable disturbing. I just wanted to highlight the fact it sparks the "what´s next" debate is a sneaky way of patriarchy defending their lands.

 

[silvertonesx24]

This is yet another example of where I think in some ways we have actually gone backwards with this whole race/gender thing. Where ’progressivism’ becomes effectively re-gressivist, instead of just evolving society beyond such things.

The example that stands out was whole deal about Finn in the Star Wars movie- I have never in my life once thought about the skin color of stormtroopers. Faceless fodder, no attention paid. But in 2015, it’s a call to war for both smug, insufferable race-baiters and actual, real racists to rage endlessly on about. Instead of, oh wow, putting a face on a Stormtrooper, that could be interesting, the actual discussion being had make me take note of the skin color, whereas I would have never thought about any of it in the first place.

And apparently, nothing much has changed in 2016. I don’t care who you cast; I have little interest in any Ghostbusters without Bill Murray, and I’d assume many others feel the same. But that doesn’t stop the race(gender)-baiters and the real sexists (although sans 12yo YouTube trolls, I doubt many actually exist) from entirely shaping that’s the discussion here.

On 3/6/2016 at 5:16 AM, Huuow said:

The trailer was disappointing. Didn´t laugh or even smirk a single time... still have hopes though, for Melissa McCarthy did an awesome comedy last year (Spy)

In my oppinion the genderswap is the most plausible reason to do a remake.. the other options would be: the aged originals (which is not really a good idea.. Sure I´d love to see Peter Venkman in action one more time but if the movie fails it would be so much more sad..) or a new male crew who takes over.. which is.. well, kinda boring.. also everyone is used to the old unique male characters and it would be difficult to accept new ones..

will watch and hope.

 

but back to topic: yes, the comments are about misogyny. really.. there shouldn´t be a discussion if it is or not. it is obvious.

Oh really? Go point out those terrible, awful, hurtful misogynistic comments. Oh wait it's a YouTube comment section, where anyone who's been on the internet for more than two days knows as a cesspool of tween-age trolling.

I'm not reading a whole YouTube thread, but the comments on the first page are hardly "obvious misogyny" when the majority of them are basically "this sux, stop ruining classic movies hollywood" or obvious blatant trolling and baiting.