…I did not say “unattractive.” The opposite of sexualized is not “unattractive.”
Again, the opposite of sexualized is not “unattractive.”
And btw, it may seem “fairly standard” now that McCarthy has had a few films, but women heading up broad comedy isn’t especially standard in movies at all. Lucille Ball started it on TV (imitating male comedians) but very few have taken up the mantle on film until McCarthy & Co. This was even brought up in an interview Aykroyd did on SiriusXM: http://theinterrobang.com/dan-aykroyd-gives-clues-new-ghostbusters-reveals-plans-another-sequel-already-works/
I don’t think Gravity broke any barriers personally. That character was far too easily freaked out and emotional to ever be allowed in space. I’ve seen footage of female astronauts, they do not behave that way (Interstellar had the same issue). Edge of Tomorrow was the usual super serious kickass cliche.
You put the asterisk inside the URL tags, now the link goes to a 404 page.
Gravity wasn’t my type of movie, Oscar winners rarely are.
Cool interview. I was thinking we might get a Ghostbusters III like the new sequel to the first Batman series–Return of the Caped Crusaders. I haven’t seen it yet, but it has to be fifty years since the live action movie, right?
Edit: Just googled it, and wow, an exact fifty years since the first film in the series. That’s a long time to wait for a sequel!
Thanks for pointing that out! 
Yeah I just like the way he says “I’m all for female empowerment” and then looks off screen like, “Yes, yes, I’m saying it,” lol. Like I said, a sense of humor goes a long way when tensions are high. 
Wow, 50 years, well anything truly is possible then!
It sure does!
Definitely, not to mention all of the remakes and reboots and stuff that Batman’s had since then. We could get tons of new Ghostbusters stuff, even new series, and then get Ghostbusters III (or is the video game three and the next movie four?) on top of that.
Ghostbusters IV
Guess Who’s Coming to Save the World Again?
This Summer, 2034
Well, it’s not a blatant form of sexualisation like some instances, but when Ripley starts off on the Sulaco, she’s dressed in a full jumpsuit with leather coat, by the time she fights the Queen (and I’ll allow some leeway for it being a hot and humid environment), she’s ditched the top half of the jumpsuit, leather coat, given a massive gun and wearing a sweat-soaked T-shirt. It’s pretty tame by today’s standards, but it could be argued she’s intended to be far more sexy/badass by the end of the film than near the start - and then there’s the scene with her and the others emerging from the cryosleep tubes.
With Sarah, it was mostly in Terminator 2 - giving her tank tops for most of her wardrobe. Again, this can also be equally attributed to the “make her look badass” aspect as well.
Similar arguments could be made for The Bride, Rey and Furiosa.
Except Ripley sorta was to Hicks by the end of Aliens, and Sarah Connor was to Kyle Reese (hey, a Micheal Biehn double!)
1 Like
What? Are they going to make a fifth one starring The Rock?
I don’t think you guys really get the issue. It’s not about making women look ugly or wearing clothes that don’t look good (who wants to see people of either sex looking unattractive in movies?). We don’t need to have actresses wearing burkas before we can be all PC and say they pass the test. It’s about not making their sexuality the reason for their characters. Ripley was in the original script as a man, how can that character be a sexualised one? Because there’s a scene with Ripley in her underwear that was totally appropriate and non-titillating? Sarah Connor was sexualised because she wore a tank top, which would be totally appropriate to what her character would wear? Wow, going by these standards, poor Arnold. The guy appeared nude in T2, then in a skin tight T shirt for the rest of the film and frequently showed off his biceps.
All those characters I mentioned passed the “bechdel test” that Paul Feig and feminists love btw.
More like Hicks was just there to be Ripley’s love interest, not the other way around as it usually is. And when people talk about Sarah Connor being a feminist icon they’re talking about T2. But even then the argument could be made that Sarah is the main character in The Terminator and Reese is the love interest.
Um, no one brought up burkas, and once again no one said “unattractive.” You are the only one saying these things. Perhaps you’re the one not getting it.
Non-titillating? Um…somewhere some Hollywood exec is extremely disappointed, lol. Come on, look at the underwear the guys are wearing in Alien and then look at Ripley’s. It’s not even a question. And once again, I didn’t say that was a bad thing. What I said was, it’s what male geeks tend to expect to see from their female action heroes.
Not to mention it’s bizarre we’re even talking about action movies. Ghostbusters is a comedy. But I know you tend to say it wasn’t “just a comedy” as though comedy is somehow a put down.
Ok well you’ll have to explain to me your definition of a female character who isnt sexualized, because the examples you guys are giving me of why Ripley, Sarah Connor, Furiosa, Rey etc (characters who’ve all been lauded by feminists btw) seem to be that they are wearing clothes that make them look good as well as other standard action hero tropes that apply equally to men (how many Arnie or Stallone movies dont have them down to a sweaty t shirt or tank top, if they even have a top, by the end?).
Like I said earlier, I was impressed with Gravity because Sandra Bullock’s character in that wasnt remotely female centric and that role could just as easily have been played by a male actor, and the studio in fact wanted the director to recast it with a male actor. That to me is breaking down barriers. I really dont see what Ghostbusters did that was so groundbreaking.
Ghostbusters is is more a sciFi fantasy
You don’t see it, because you say things like “it wasn’t just a comedy.” 
Im not sure what i dont see. To start all the negative comments were uncalled for and unfair, but came from a really small portion of fans. Unfortunately out of all the people on the planet some are terrible human beings. However fans shouldn’t feel bad for being upset. My niece loves my little pony, if michael bay remade it as a bunch of ninja dude ponies that kick butt and blow crap up, she’d be upset.( I prefered the origianl TMNT to his) It was a fan base that was majority men and a movie that catered to women. Being upset/disappointed is ok, spouting hate is not. ATC got an unfair break, it wasnt given a chance to be its own movie. To alot of people Ghostbusters is more than a movie. Feels like its a part of me, a hobby. If i died today Id want my family to keep my proton pack in the living room to remind them of me. I understand that it’s probably frustrating that actors seemed to be judged on being attractive rather than their ability. It is admittedly hard to find female comedians based solely on their performance but Rosesann and " mike & Molly" are enjoyable comedies that fit that role. To say nerd culture sexualizes women seems offensive to men and wrong. Appealing is a better fit. There’s a ton of reasons why nerd culture finds certain female roles appealing other than physical looks. If all nerd culture cared about was sexualizing there female leads, kate upton would star in everything. Im not saying it never happens, but its not completely gender biast. Men get sexualized too and pushed to live up to unrealistic expectations. As hard as i try i wont become superhuman or a genius billionaire anytime soon. Was the gb84 cast sexualized no, but a majority male fan base is probably isnt going sexualize other men.
Im not Sure GB16 was even good for women. The female ceo that pushes the movie gets fired, the pro female director gets publicly crucified and the movie staring 4 female leads looses 100 million dollars. Im not blaming those 6 people, just points. I know the movie had a uphill battle. I really question how positive atc was especially compared to a movie like " a league of their own" which is a movie that does a little man bashing, but confronts issues, like star females being sexualized. Ive argued about box office with jurorno2. I dont care how much A league of their own made, its great movie and a story that needed to be told. ( fictional story/ real event)
So what’s the point ?
To promote a positive female perception?
I think female celeberities promoting immoral behavior is worse for women than anthing that nerd culture does
Regardless ATC brought attention to the franchises, increased the fan base and gave us new props to build.. All great things
1 Like
Once again, for the millionth time, I didn’t say sexualizing a character was “wrong” or “bad.” We all do it. I said male geek fans are used to female being presented to them in a certain way. And their reaction when they don’t get their way isn’t always the most kind.
I look forward to making this point…yet again…
As you say, we’ve all had the box office argument far too many times. That’s all movie discussions online are anymore. One big argument about money none of us will ever see. Film analysis will live on somehow, but it won’t be thanks to the Internet.
Um, for reasons that had nothing to do with the movie, or being a woman, so that’s irrelevant.
And the overwhelming majority of the public doesn’t even remotely side with the ones who did the crucifying.
A League of Their Own, fun movie, but a bit too rose colored look at what women baseball players had to go through, especially lesbians. No movie is perfect and it’s not my intention to crucify it, because that would be a silly overreaction on my part. Too bad the same common sense and charity wasn’t visited on GB16.
I can’t promise I’ll be back to respond to any replies. I really do need that break…from discussing movies…Wow, lol…
Quick question, would you consider Dana sexualized before and also after she transformed into Zuul?
By the way I totally get wanting a fair share of non-sexualized characters. It’s only, well, fair.
Being a baseball fan I liked A League of Their Own. Yankees-fan specifically, but for awhile there–after they traded Miller, Beltran, and forced A-Rod into retirement–I considered switching to the Mets (but then it was just too much fun watching Sanchez’s debut season to switch.)
She wasnt really sexualized so much as she was marginalised into the love interest/damsel in distress role in the film. Twice. Not that there was anything wrong with that. She was obviously sexualized by Venkman but the point was that Venkman is a shady lecherous type.
Well what makes the whole Zuul thing work is the strange combination of sensuality and humor, lol.
Tom Welling was topless nearly every episode of Smallville. What point are you trying to make exactly?
Yeah I thought women could be funny. The film did challenge my preconceptions. :mrgreen:
1 Like
The point I made earlier, that we all do it. 
I tend to think the female characters such as Ripley and Sarah Connor aren’t treated as badly compared to Welling who has to go half nude each episode.