It's really hard to read anything from that. You are looking at a weekend range of 24-55M basically based on historical performance of other recent films.
Saw the movie and despite liking the idea of the female actors, the writing was shit and the comedy was low brow. The ghosts were generic compared to the inventive alien looks the original one had. Gotta say, really disappointed considering the directors other works.
I understand you may not agree with me but is this really needed? I have done nothing of any sort to go out of my way to offend you, I am open to others opinions and respectful, can I please ask I get that same respect at the very least?
Well, I will take a quote from a review that rated Ghostbusters positively as it essentially mirrors my concerns about what I witnessed throughout the movie.
The second part is understandable, I understand why the reacted in the movie to the sexist backlash and those people were rightly called out on it, I do not understand however why this movie treats men like they are essentially all the same, which brings me to the next part.
This is my point of contention mainly within this movie and where I see the misandry creeping in, Hemsworth, whilst I understand he is taking on the "bimbo" trope we have seen in so many Hollywood movies that treat women like little more than eye candy and add no depth to their characters I also don't believe that it is doing anything for equality by essentially mimicking what was wrong with Hollywood in the first place.
Instead of allowing the ladies of this movie carry the movie with their performances and really show why women are criminally underused as leads in Hollywood instead we have a sort of "If you can do it so can we" element which essentially mimicks the very thing that was wrong in the first place and it is fighting fire with fire, like I said before, two wrongs don't make a right, making a character "dumb" for comedic purposes is one thing but it's obvious to even a casual observer why it was done here, like I said, I understand why Feig felt the need to do it (he was sick of seeing women being used in those roles) but that doesn't make it right to role reverse and do the same thing to men, other movies haven't had to resort to this.
Basically even man in this movie is one dimensional and has huge character flaws
Murray's cameo again emphasising how every man in this movie is either sexist or dumb.
I just think it took away from what was actually good about the movie, I think that's why I can understand why the Ebert review ended with this quote.
I suppose it was inevitable that in the age of YouTube the filmmakers would seize the opportunity to have a commenter mock an online video of a ghost capture with the observation, Aint no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts while the women react with appropriate scorn. But I would have preferred that they simply had shut their naysayers down by producing a better movie.
And whilst I fully agree with that the part before it I was quite shocked to read.
What is "Deserved reverse sexism"? I don't really see any justification for sexism, for example if someone was shouting racial slurs at me would it be acceptable for me to then shout racist slurs back?
If someone was being sexist towards me would it then be acceptable for me to then resort to being sexist myself?
Surely this is about morality and not engaging in the very behaviour you detest in the first instance?
But yes, that's essentially why I believe misandry exists in this movie because "deserved" or not sexism is wrong, I said this last week when talking about the sexism towards this film, even though the majority of people are not sexist even one example of it is wrong and irrespective of If it's towards men or women it should be rejected.
Problem is I don't know why I have wasted time even writing this because this isn't going to end in a polite discussion it will end with people taking sidewards jabs towards me, insulting me, shouting how wrong I am and not engaging in a mature discussion with me because like I have said before, it's a war of attrition over opinion at this point "With us or against us" mentality from both sides of the debate and it's impossible to try and sit in the middle and see both sides.
I am trying my hardest to do that very thing and am open to opinion and completely adjusting my opinion and I also understand and appreciate others viewpoints.
Charles Dance's character is shown to be intelligent and concerned about the reputation of Columbia University. He's not shown to be a jerk in the firing scene. Quite the opposite Erin Gilbert is shown to be incredibly presumptuous about getting tenure and to look like a fool in the youtube video. Her firing is entirely sensical.
Ed Bagley Jr's character is neither a fool or a bully or anything. He's their first believer that brings them their first ghost.
A youtube username is not misandry it's making fun of the very real sexism that was thrown at this cast making. It was one joke at the expense of the subset of people who were absolutely sexist towards the movie. Are you one of those people? No then the joke isn't making fun of you.
The mayor is shown to be competant, he believes the Ghostbusters, works with them but also has to balance causing city wide panic. By the end he even funds them. In a major scene he is shown to be calm amd collected while once again it is Gilbert who looks like a fool.
Kevin is Kevin, he's fucking Zoolander, is Zoolander misandrist? He was also a stand out character and role in the film, frequently on people's highlight list. Men are also given in movies a wide range of characters much wider than woman in general that's why bimbo characters for women are more criticized, but in terms of idiots no one complained that Amanda Seyfried's character in Mean Girls was misogyny? No because it was done well and was hillarious.
How is Bill Murray's cameo shown to as him being either sexist or dumb. He didn't say they were frauds because they're women. He said they're frauds because he doesn't believe in ghosts. He gets killed not because he's dumb but because once again... hmm notice a trend here, Gilbert does something idiotic and opens the trap carelessly despite pretty much everyone else's insistance otherwise.
Dan Aykroyd's cameo shows a cab driver who is smart and fearless. He knows about the science of the ghosts and he's not afraid.
Hudson's cameo character isn't a jerk or an idiot.
The main villain is kooky and fucked in the head but he's also incredibly intelligent both in occult history and science & engineering, having built tech that is on par with Holtzman's. He built like shadow ghostbusting equipment, aka ghostreleasing. He serves as a mirror to the Ghostbusters, both were traumatized and ostracized but reacted differently. Being bitter at your lot in life isn't misandry. Being a bad guy isn't misandry. He's not portrayed as sexist against women either to boot so you can't even call him a stand in for the critics of female ghostbusters.
The graffiti artist that gave the team their logo was a man. Nothing bad about his characterization either.
Homeland security guys were fine. Worst that happened to them is they got frozen by the villain. They were shown to be supportive, just that they'd prefer it be done quieter. A logical request. Neither were idiots or jerks. Hardly misandrist
Btw as for the justified reverse sexism claim in that Ebert review, you can't bloody well get mad at the movie for someone else's interpretation and words. Feig and co aren't the ones saying that. If you ask them they'd say it wasn't justified reverse sexism because it wasn't even reverse sexism at all. Or sexism. Again Kevin is basically Zoolander.
The main villain is kooky and fucked in the head but he's also incredibly intelligent both in occult history and science & engineering, having built tech that is on par with Holtzman's. He built like shadow ghostbusting equipment, aka ghostreleasing. He serves as a mirror to the Ghostbusters, both were traumatized and ostracized but reacted differently. Being bitter at your lot in life isn't misandry. Being a bad guy isn't misandry. He's not portrayed as sexist against women either to boot so you can't even call him a stand in for the critics of female ghostbusters.
Thanks for the heads up about The Heat. Movie was great and not only because of i LOVE Sandra Bullock but great in everything, the way she and Melissa McCarthy play each other was phenomenal. If this any indication plus the constant influx of people saying that is more in the vein of TRGB i'm going to love this movie.
Thanks for the heads up about The Heat. Movie was great and not only because of i LOVE Sandra Bullock but great in everything, the way she and Melissa McCarthy play each other was phenomenal. If this any indication plus the constant influx of people saying that is more in the vein of TRGB i'm going to love this movie.
Problem is I don't know why I have wasted time even writing this because this isn't going to end in a polite discussion it will end with people taking sidewards jabs towards me, insulting me, shouting how wrong I am and not engaging in a mature discussion with me because like I have said before, it's a war of attrition over opinion at this point "With us or against us" mentality from both sides of the debate and it's impossible to try and sit in the middle and see both sides.
Right but the argument is that this movie is misandrist on some level, the villain saying a singular sexist line against women doesn't make his portrayl misandrist.
I admit I was aggressive to start and should not have but I have since done everything he insisted I wouldn't do a d done nothing he insisted I would do.
Keep in mind he offered no actual reasoning or real arguments until I asked for it. He just said it was guilty of misandry. He didn't explain how really in anyway.
Yeah I know but I think you'd find most people not knee deep in the culture war surrounding this film just saw the prospect of an average comedy film and wondered what the hell all the fuss was about.
Yeah I know but I think you'd find most people not knee deep in the culture war surrounding this film just saw the prospect of an average comedy film and wondered what the hell all the fuss was about.
I have done nothing of any sort to go out of my way to offend you, I am open to others opinions and respectful, can I please ask I get that same respect at the very least?
Right but the argument is that this movie is misandrist on some level, the villain saying a singular sexist line against women doesn't make his portrayl misandrist.
Oh please.
I admit I was aggressive to start and should not have but I have since done everything he insisted I wouldn't do a d done nothing he insisted I would do.
Keep in mind he offered no actual reasoning or real arguments until I asked for it. He just said it was guilty of misandry. He didn't explain how really in anyway.
Yes, in one post, go you, here's a badge for being decent after being asked to do so. Do you really need someone to remind you to be cordial in a discussion for you to follow suit? But I get it, pot shots and gangin up on peeps is part of the gaf camaraderie experience amirite.
I was watching the AV Club discussion about the film and the joke about Kristeen Wiig's character's book being called Ghosts of the Pasts: Both Literal and Figurative (I'm not spoiler-tagging this because it doesn't appear to be a spoiler) was hilarious to me. I'm really looking forward to catching this tomorrow.
Yes, in one post, go you, here's a badge for being decent after being asked to do so. Do you really need someone to remind you to be cordial in a discussion for you to follow suit? But I get it, pot shots and gangin up on peeps is part of the gaf camaraderie experience amirite.
Keep in mind this conversation has been going on for a long time now in several threads.
I'm not asking for a badge. I'm just pointing out that the poster I replied to came in to backup a prediction as if my follow up post hadn't been made.
I made a mistake being aggressive and acknowledged that and it influenced my follow up post, a post that again was there already by the time Pendas had replied.
I was watching the AV Club discussion about the film and the joke about Kristeen Wiig's character's book being called Ghosts of the Pasts: Both Literal and Figurative (I'm not spoiler-tagging this because it doesn't appear to be a spoiler) was hilarious to me. I'm really looking forward to catching this tomorrow.
Keep in mind this conversation has been going on for a long time now in several threads.
I'm not asking for a badge. I'm just pointing out that the poster I replied to came in to backup a prediction as if my follow up post hadn't been made.
I made a mistake being aggressive and acknowledged that and it influenced my follow up post, a post that again was there already by the time Pendas had replied.
No I get that, I've been lurking that on-off debate with philosophy for some time, just gets a bit tiring with the dog piling and what not after awhile.
Anywho looking forward to seeing this later tonight.
I didn't think the movie went negative at men at all. It had dumb characters from both sexes; Kevin and the mayor's assistant lady for example. It felt neutral and didn't ever draw attention to them being female Ghostbusters. They just were.
Wow. Just got out. Terrible editing, awkward dialog and motivations. Easily the worst movie I have seen in the theatre for a long time. Super disappointed.
I often feel like if more people in general tried to remove agenda from conversation and genuinely took interest in what others said and tried to understand their perspective before lining up a response before they had even finished reading the opinion then the world would be a better place for everyone, it's hard to do however, I mean I myself have been guilty of it many times in the past, I am hoping it's something I never repeat as it's just negative.
it's far easier to condemn someone than trying to understand why they feel how they feel, the middle ground, separated from a "side" is always the best avenue of approach in any discussion in my opinion.
I completely agree with you. I've tried a few times to have a discussion about certain things (like the heated Female Link fisaco) and in the end it always turns into "Your opinion is wrong because it's not mine," with no proof to back-up their claims. Having an unfavorable opinion on anything involving sex on these forums is a nightmare. These days I avoid these topics like the plague, because you're just asking to get beaten down by people who believe your opinion comes from a place of malice or ignorance instead of preference.
Right but the argument is that this movie is misandrist on some level, the villain saying a singular sexist line against women doesn't make his portrayl misandrist.
However the points I disagree with you on is Kevin, I find Kevin to be a vehicle of misandry, simply for the fact he is essentially referred to as eye candy, made out to be extremely dumb in order to highlight the divide, I would say it's subtle but it's still very present, if the role was reversed (as it has been many times in Hollywood obviously) would you be saying the same thing right now? Or would you be offended by the fact a woman was used in that role again?
Kevin wasn't misandrist in the least. Kevin was a take-down of the "dumb blonde" stereotype. It was the director saying "Oh, instead of a dumb blonde woman like every other movie, we'll have a dumb blonde man." Chris Hemsworth took the role and owned it. Just like Jason Statham completely owned the role of blow-hard macho secret agent in Spy.
I agree. That's why I said it was important he wasn't defined by his sexism. But his sexism was briefly acknowledged.
Kevin wasn't misandrist in the least. Kevin was a take-down of the "dumb blonde" stereotype. It was the director saying "Oh, instead of a dumb blonde woman like every other movie, we'll have a dumb blonde man." Chris Hemsworth took the role and owned it. Just like Jason Statham completely owned the role of blow-hard macho secret agent in Spy.
The accusations of misandry are coming solely from dudes who have no idea what the fuck it's like to be a woman watching women in movies for the past 90 years.
The accusations of misandry are coming solely from dudes who have no idea what the fuck it's like to be a woman watching women in movies for the past 90 years.
I agree. That's why I said it was important he wasn't defined by his sexism. But his sexism was briefly acknowledged.
Kevin wasn't misandrist in the least. Kevin was a take-down of the "dumb blonde" stereotype. It was the director saying "Oh, instead of a dumb blonde woman like every other movie, we'll have a dumb blonde man." Chris Hemsworth took the role and owned it. Just like Jason Statham completely owned the role of blow-hard macho secret agent in Spy.
The accusations of misandry are coming solely from dudes who have no idea what the fuck it's like to be a woman watching women in movies for the past 90 years.