4/10 is actually not too bad coming from what you wrote in your review… not slamming it, you have every right to state your opinion after actually watching the movie… I just don’t get where people are getting the “anti-male” stuff from…
I do agree when you say it seems like the movie was cut several times over, there was a lot of pacing issues…
I also didn’t agree with:
The crowd after the concert chanting “Ghostbusters” when the ladies just got their name prior to them arriving, in the original they earned the chant after becoming famous and when the end of the world was about to happen before entering the building. In this, it seemed VERY forced.
For the life of me can’t get the anti male thing. Everybody, but the Ghostbusters were assholes, just like the first two films.
Pacing was my one big complaint, too. Big moments were sometimes followed by slow set up. I also wanted just one more bust. Still lived it. Need to see it again!
I’d like every single person who has called this movie “anti male” to please stop and answer the following question sincerely:
Have you ever watched a movie with a primarily male cast of heroes, a female villain, any use of women for sex appeal, and thought to yourself that the movie was “anti women?”
Because it seems to me like NOBODY calling this movie ant-male is anyone who ever gave a crap if a movie was misogynistic or not. You’re calling a film “anti male” just for reversing the gender on roles you accept in every single other movie. Thousands of them. For decades.
I’ve never even once seen a reviewer cry “anti maleness” over a crotch-hit UNTIL this movie, and it’s transparently obvious they’re just pretending it offends them because this movie was lauded by some as feminist. Because of that, some reviewers are looking waaaay too deep into something as unimportant as shooting a ghost in its groin. Since when did they care about that in any comedy before now?
Hmmm… That’s a good point, I’ll have to check that out the next time I watch it, but I can see how that can seem forced…
So reversing the roles for an issue that Feig is apparently trying to correct makes it okay? He’s not correcting it, he’s reversing it. It’s not equality. As soon as Kevin appears on screen he gets objectified and gets hired because of the way he looks, obviously not because of his intellect. “Okay guys, it’s time men get objectified and be portrayed as helpless idiots for a few decades!” seems to be all some of you have when it comes to this issue and it ain’t right. The reason why this is getting pointed out is because it’s becoming blatantly obvious in Feig’s films, and this film has been the center of attention for the better part of the last two years to social commentary on sexism.
I sort of agree with the spoilered bit, but [spoiler]they basically caught a real ghost in front of a crowd of metal heads, including rocking on stage. It wasn’t so much about them as heroes, they looked awesome and shot laser in front of a ton of people.
Either way, I think it made up for it with the ending with the city lights. It was nice.[/spoiler]
Literally no one here has suggested that.
This (perceived) shoe on the other foot seems to have rustled your jimmies pretty hard, though. That says more about you than it does this movie’s nonexistent anti-male agenda.
Edit: Aww, SpaceBallz gave me a big ol’ thumbs down.
Edit2: And so did EddieSpenser and kevinj319 <3
The original Ghostbusters didn’t portray any of the females are helpless or idiotic. Quite honestly, the only person in the original who is portrayed as being helpless is Luis. Janine is portrayed as almost a working class stiff, and Dana is probably the most “successful” (for lack of a better term) of any major character in the movie.
The only part of the original that could be considered anti-female is the character of Venkman, but the scales are balanced by him being proven to be a fraud and the least knowledgeable of the team, with the exception of Winston.
I agree completely with Spaceballz on his point about the “anti-male” angle. Though, it doesn’t really bother me, it’s crazy that so many people can’t see it for some reason. Kevin being a bimbo, the Sigourney Weaver cameo, where she refers to safety lights being for “men” (or something to that effect), the the dean at Abby and Holtzmann’s college being a complete deuche bag AND baffoon, the concert manager’s girly scream. And I’m sure I’m leaving a few out.
Equality means EQUALITY. When someone is objectified, male or female, equality doesn’t exist. Like I said, none of it offends me, but it’s clearly there.
I still loved the movie and plan on seeing it again, but there was a CLEAR tone set pretty early on that wanted to empower women so much, it came at the expense of making men look like idiotic fools.
And sorry… grammar is not on my side today lol
I just feel the need to address the “perceived” anti male gripe.
The girl Venkman is testing ESP on: dumb blonde
Dana is the helpless client turned overtly sexualized hell hound (groped by demons on the way there)
The girl at Louis’ party: dumb blonde
Janine goes from almost asexual bookworm in GB1 to horn ball in GB2 for Louis?
The whole bathroom scene in GB2 was to get a somewhat undressed Dana shot (absolutely not needed for the scene)
Even Gozer, is referred to as a nimble minx
Regardless of how you feel men are portrayed in GB16, there is no embracing of women in the original films to be anything more the pretty eye candy, the object of sexual desire or to be the assistant to the boys. Some will try to blame it on “the 80s were a different time mannn” but that’s not the case. I’m not implying the people making the film did these things intentionally but it’s a reflection of culture and how women are seen and treated.
Fast forward to the new movie, the only character who I felt was purposefully a joke was Kevin but it was done with the right kind of humor and didn’t bother me at all. None of the other male characters I felt were undermined as men, nor played any different than those actors in other films (Michael McDonald, the delivery guy, the mayor, Rowan etc).
So it seems blow jobs by ghosts, demons groping a woman, Peter being borderline pervy with Dana (drugging her), Gyno jokes in GB2 - all of this is totally okay. But there’s a shot to the crotch gag and people suddenly are attacked? I ended up at a bar after the movie last night with my wife and ran into a few other couples there. The main response I got is that the lady viewers were happy to see that GB16 does make a point to address the typical tropes and standard women have been held to and basically gives them the middle finger. Yes, there is that element of girl power - but it doesn’t offend me as a man to see a film with that dynamic. There is a double standard between what was OK in the OG films and how now it suddenly crosses a line because it’s equal on the other side. You can dish it, but you can’t take it.
I think your missing the point. Feig’s angle is that he’s trying to create equality in Hollywood for women and give them stronger roles, demeaning the opposite sex doesn’t help the cause. Dana is a strong character until she gets possessed, then acts out of her persona. The ghost BJ scene (that everybody runs to when it comes to these discussions) was a dream sequence. A majority of what you pointed out came from Peter, who is a woman-crazy flirtatious male (to be fair, he did swoon over Dana and fall in love). It was his character, this film does it just to do it. I don’t see the “right kind of humor” displaying a male sex object that only gets hired because he looks good. ANYBODY that agrees with the reversing-roles ideal is a misogynist themselves.
Janine was a professionally dressed secretary with an attitude (and yes they gave her some sex appeal in the sequel but I’m sure the actress didn’t mind), Dana was a musician that shot Peter’s advances down every time he tried and even in GB2 she tries to save her baby on her own without the GBs when the time came. Those are strong female roles. People on these forums blaming the original GB films as being sexist against women to justify the message in the reboot baffles me.
*This *I agree with. Overthinking Ghostbusters has a good section on it.
Outside of Kevin, who is an overly-goofy caricature, nothing else in GB16 even remotely suggests an anti-man sentiment, though. I didn’t even get much of a pro-women vibe from the actual film itself, aside from having the main characters be female. Maybe I was enjoying myself too much to peel back the layers and find the misandrist/feminazi message so cleverly hidden beneath the veneer of “scientists shoot lasers at ghosts.”
Exactly. I made it a point to say the only sexist trope in the original (I never mentioned GBII) is Venkman, as a character. Dana is a strong female throughout. And, you failed to address that the only “helpless” character in the original is Luis, who is by all accounts a man.
Janine was absolutely NOT “almost asexual” in the original. Her scene with Egon in the beginning, she’s obviously hitting on him. Then, towards the end when she tells Egon “I’m afraid your gonna die” is more proof she has the hots for Egon. Perhaps it was so subtle, you missed it? If anything, Egon is the one who’s the asexual bookworm in GB1.
Gozer is called a “nimble little minx” by Venkman. As I’ve said multiple times now, he is the only polarizing aspect in terms of misogyny in the original.
Again, I’m not talking about GBII. The sequel is a completely different monster.
And regardless of how you feel about women in GB1, in the 2016 version, there is no embracing of men to be anything more the pretty eye candy, the object of sexual desire or to be the assistant to the boys, or anything beyond being a pain in the ass. See how that works? Those are basically your words with the sexes reversed.
The ghost ■■■■■■■ scene is well done and not a major plot point. And, as Spaceballz pointed out - a dream sequence. Perhaps that went over your head too? What with Ray wearing a Napolean esque outfit.
I cannot stress this enough, I’m not even close to offended. I’m looking at it from a strictly objective perception. I fight cognitive dissonance tooth and nail, to look at things with as little agenda as I possibly can.
Spaceballz and I’s point still stands. The definition of equality is - “the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.”
Perhaps the best way to debate this subject is to take everyone out of the picture and compare JUST the receptionists from GB1 to GB16. Janine knows how the phones work, threatens to quit, shows true excitement about the first call, seems to have a pretty good idea of what the business is all about, even goes as far as to say “you promised you’d hire more help”, implying her intelligence. Also, she goes to bat for the GB’s when Peck shows up with the police. Kevin on the other hand doesn’t know how phones work, moves into the HQ, ignores the phones (doesn’t even know how the phones work), has absolutely no clue about what GBs actually do, hell, he doesn’t even know the difference between the basic senses (covers his eyes instead of his ears in response to loud noises). I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Two things:
1:I’m happy equality is being talked about, even if some think Feig is hurting the process instead of helping.
2: we have a thread called gender equality. Why not talk about it there instead of the thread about reviews?
I think part of his brand of equality is the just the concept of if men can do it and no one bats an eyelid so can women.
Maybe true equality would be a 50 50 split but when male lead films still outnumber female, putting women up front and centre is the way to get there and address that imbalance.
There’s plenty of films that can be labelled problematic and sexist if you try, the original Ghostbusters for one. Doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy them. Venkman is a pretty odious, lecherous character but we all love him all the same. Feig has never condemned that film or said the film was sexist or misogynistic because of him (or at least publicly as far as I know). I also don’t ever think he’s condemned a film because purely because its leads are all men. I just see this as him giving the ladies the same toy box to play with.
Lets face it, the world is never gonna be short of films where men are the leads and women are all ass holes or idiots, and not all of them are gonna be bad films, some will be awesome I’m sure but I guarantee the same criticisms that this GB got won’t be fired at them.
Ghost Corps is having a new live action movie being written with a mixed team.
Why is everyone so naive ?
This movie is positioned as a feminism tentpole icon, of course it’s going to hate on men. That is Feig’s calling card in all his movies. Look at Spy.
It’s the -in- thing to demean weaker men nowadays. Get with the program already!
Your manhood shall bend to his will.
Or, maybe we don’t care and just want to enjoy a movie that we genuinely loved and enjoyed instead of nitpicking and being “offended” by the “man hate” that was apparently in the movie (that we didn’t notice anyways)…