And once again, lol, I didn’t say it was a “bad” thing. (But you’re not here as much, so I’ll give you pass. 
).
My main point i dont think the movie helped gender equality, probably made it worse. Could have producer s shy away from casting female leads and created a boys vs girls mentality. I could see women feeling alienated by the alleged male resistance to an all female cast. There was unjust hate, but i dont think that was completely because theyre female. If kevin james was casted as the new superman or indiana jones, it probably get the same amount of backlash. If they casted 4 women&director that appealed to guys and girls equally or an mixed cast, it would have went over better. Ghostbusters is probably not the platform to break the mold considering its a male heavy fan base. Not that women are not welcome. I dont think i have ever herd guys complain that there are too many women..
The only thing I really hold againts ATC, is that if it was better received, we would have gotten another sequel in few years plus an animated movie
I doubt a movie could make gender relations worse in society. Did this movie dismantle the UN as well? Come on, guys! The UN’s doing a good job of that all by themselves.
So all male is good, mixed cast is good, but all female is a problem? Interesting…
I heard it this year. “Fans” complaining that they never knew any girl GB fans growing up and therefore none ever existed. That girls were suddenly joining fandoms now because being a geek is cool. No, it’s not all fans, but we can’t pretend these types don’t exist.
Honestly I fail to see how the gender of the cast had any affect on the final movie itself.
I did say all female cast or a mixed cast. The gender wasn’t as important as finding 4 people that got the fan base excited. That being said if i could only change one thing id probably pick a different directors over changing the cast. I dont think feig was a good fit. Im sure theres more women joining the fan base, but thats a good thing. Most likely the movie re sparked interest in old fans. Infact what i like best about ATC, it probably added a wider demographic to the fan base. I want to be debating about movies than nonone caring at all
It isn’t with all female characters, and it isn’t with all self-identified nerds, but there is a culture within the culture that does seem to have a habit/tendency to sexualise women - a study of comic book covers (and interiors), some female video game characters, amongst other things, do show it’s more than a few isolated incidents.
Not nearly as often or as extreme.
Alot of males super heros wearing skin tight spandex and all the fat ones are villians. Both get objectified. It probably happens more too women, but its a medium aimed towards younger males. It would would be like me complaining about how men are portrayed in romance novels. Go to the romance section at thr books store you ll find a bunch of covers with men with out there shirts. Fabio s everywhere
1 Like
And once again, lol, I wasn’t complaining about that. I was commenting on how furious male geeks can get when their concept of ideal femininity isn’t fulfilled.
What concept is that? I mean, ever since Gal Gadot was cast as Wonder Woman there’s been non-stop complaining that they cast a sexy, petite actress who isn’t physically big and strong enough for WW. Meanwhile the 6ft 3 Gwendoline Christie (not exactly most men’s idea of an attractive woman) has been a huge geek favourite in GoT as Brienne and the geekdom was ecstatic when she was cast in Star War 7 and upset when her role turned out to be so small. From what I can see the idea of geeks wanting barbie doll female characters in skintight outfits is nothing more than a stereotype since there is tons of evidence against it.
They didn’t object to Wonder Woman being sexy (that would mean we’re living in the Twilight Zone). They just wanted her to look more muscular, the way she is often drawn in modern comics. In fact, that goes along with the “ass kicker” trope I mentioned earlier. Male geeks want their female characters to be super ninjas. So actually their huge overreaction to Gadot demonstrates my point even more.
And geeks certainly don’t want their female characters to be ordinary people who put laughs over action. It was cool when male GB’s did it, but apparently not females.
And since when is Christie not attractive, isn’t she a model?
You can defend geek culture without completely denying any flaw it might have. I’m not saying the group is worthless, I’m just saying they have personal biases. We all do.
Yes, but the point was they they wanted an actress who could play a physically strong character, not an actress who just looked good in a tight outfit and was otherwise totally unrealistic for the part. Isn’t that exactly the same thing that women want from these characters? That they be cast for their suitability to a role, not just their T&A?
Probably since she looks extremely masculine (by Hollywood standards) and always plays “ugly” or “freak” roles. She isn’t a model in the traditional sense, she’s done nude arthouse shoots that made her unusual size the focal point.
1 Like
How can I put this delicately…they don’t want a truly realistic looking muscular woman. They want a woman with muscles who is also super “hawt.”
And once again, not saying that’s a terrible thing. I’m saying fans tend to overreact when they don’t get what they want.
And again, going back to Ghostbusters, geeks don’t seem to want to see ordinary women with senses of humor in an action movie. They want their super serious ass kicker trope. Not to mention many of them want their mentor, Christopher Hitchens, proven right, that women “aren’t funny” as a matter of nature.
Gotcha, I admit I don’t follow her work. Well, the thing about models is it’s often a requirement to look weird, as long as they’re striking.
Meanwhile there are quite a few costumes worn by female superheroes with impractically/unneccesarily exposed sections, again, in much greater extreme that most male superhero costumes.
And then there are plenty of villains who are given Greek god physiques.
I agree that romance novel covers are frequently trite and aiming low in their appeal (not to mention the terrible quality of the written content).
You know, something else has been occurring to me. Feig all but said he wanted to portray Holtzmann as a gay character. And Feig also hinted the studio wasn’t cool with broadcasting that. And who are some of the biggest fans of this movie and Holtzmann – Tumblr girls. This is starting to remind me a bit of Number One from the original Star Trek pilot – a female First Officer that the Captain had trouble viewing as a woman. The network soundly rejected her character, saying audiences wouldn’t accept her. She was too unemotional (i.e. not feminine enough), never mind being SIC of a military-type organization.
Now I’m *not *playing the “homophobic” card, I think that label is used too often. But it goes back to what I was saying earlier that GB16 doesn’t sexualize women **in the traditional sense. ** I do think segments of the audience…weren’t sure how to take it. What lesbians find attractive in women isn’t always what straight men find attractive in women (same can often be said for gay men vs straight women, and what they find attractive in men).
Im sure women dont want their lead men to be ordianrylooking in their love novel. The women in ATC are ordinary soccer moms. Fans over react to everything. If fans only focused on female appearances that would be wrong, but its just a small aspect of several things fans overreact to. It is the suppliers fault for not giving the consumer what they wanted, for not reading the audience. Atc was unfairly judged and scrutinized. The problem isnt with 4 ordinary women catching ghost, it’s the fact the minute you call it ghostbusters its going under the microscope.
Probably not, no, lol (btw, I don’t read those). But that’s a love novel. We’re talking comedies. And again I personally don’t think we can underestimate the impact of Hitchens’ foolish “women aren’t funny” bit.
Arts and entertainment throughout history have given the public things they didn’t initially “want.” That’s not necessarily a fault. Yes, a movie is a product, but it’s not a floor cleaner. It has every right (and duty) to challenge its audience occasionally.
There we absolutely agree (though again, it’s sad that Dirty Dozen and Ben-Hur apparently weren’t worthy enough to be put under that same microscope).
Dirty Dozen and Ben Hur dont have a large cosplay aspect and logo recognition or theme song s that are embedded in the public psyche though
Which doesn’t say much for the public psyche.
Ack, btw, my own mistake, I meant the Magnificent Seven. Which DOES have a popular theme.
Your social analysis, aside Juror, I was basically reinforcing ccv’s point about why ATC was under the microscope. It’s a familiar brand.
EDIT: M7 makes more sense but the point still stands
So are Ben-Hur and Magnificent Seven (the latter of which does have a popular theme). They are hardly obscure movies. I’m sorry but there is no real justification for that kind of inconsistency. Fans can’t claim to care so much about originality and integrity and then go “Ho hum” when 50 year old classics are remade. It does end up looking like nothing more than bruised childhoods.