My overall question is still, where is the agenda in the film?
1 Like
I consider it be a “nerf” very much in the same way I consider this whole Leslie Jones and Milo thing. It’s the idea that you become so progressive it becomes regressive. Which leads me to this . . .
The entire film, to a lot of people is a giant Social Justice Warrior equality lecture. A statement on feminism (Not only the 4 leads as female, but also Slimette).
Warning - things are going to get a bit political here.
GB84 is very anti-establishment. Well, maybe not “anti-establishment”, but it’s certainly a capitalistic adventure. We all know the way it works ; Ray takes out another mortgage, star your own business, “franchise rights”, “5 big ones”, “no job is too big, no fee is too big”, “This job isn’t worth eleven five a year”, “who does your taxes”, etc.
GB16 is almost promoting socialism. Not once do we see the gb’s charge for their services, and the movie ends with them getting full funding from the government. Meaning the new Ghostbusters are now (technically) a new wing of the department of defense.
What does this have to do with feminism? Well, let’s venture to see how these points can be connected. Equality and Feminism go hand in hand, and socialism, at least “ideally” is the ultimate level of equality.
This may seem like a stretch, but when you really look at it, it does most certainly make sense. I’ll gladly elaborate more, but I too am suffering from the early morning loop!
1 Like
To me, that says more about the people and their own agenda, than the movie itself.
GB84 is about capitalism because that was a hugely popular theme in '80s films. It’s not so much now. Plus movies in '84 were primarily aimed at adults. GB16 is a PG-13 blockbuster, i.e. “Get the brats to buy some toys.” They’re not promoting socialism, they’re simply avoiding discussing capitalism because it would go over the heads of their target audience. Plus, sadly, a lot of Hollywood’s movies themes have been bland and generic in recent years, in order to appeal to overseas BO (though in this case, China still wasn’t interested). That’s the only agenda I see going on here. The usual one. Money. 
Well, if capitalism was a hugely popular theme in '80s films… maybe feminism is a hugely popular theme in '10s films?
In an extremely basic way maybe, i.e. “Let’s more women in lead action roles.” But I’m not seeing too many Hollywood movies discussing issues like wage gaps, domestic violence, rape, abortion, etc.
As basic as it may be, it’s still a reality. I’m actually really surprised there wasn’t a mention of wage gaps in GB16, considering a major theme throughout Ghostbusters is the business aspect of it.
A reality of…what? That a woman is the lead in a movie? Again, where is the big evil message here?
Again, business isn’t a theme I expect from a 2016 blockbuster. And again, I don’t get the impression Feig and Dippold’s goal was a big feminist lecture. If you’re surprised, then maybe you judged them wrong.
Indie-arthouse movies cover those topics just fine. I like those kinds of movies, too, but not for the sake of escapism.
Anyway, just saw “Room.” Fantastic…def should have won best picture. Brie Larson was amazing and…
Oh, no… she’s “bankable” now! All aboard the Hollywood schlock train! Next stop, Skull Island and Ms Marvel! Oscar Isaac has saved you a seat.
Wouldn’t there have to be an established male ghostbuster group in that universe for that to work? And at least one more female Ghostbusters group biting at their heels to undercut their business? And business savvy or representation working the deals?
Except that Hollywood used to be able to do both escapism and cover relevant themes of our times.
I thought I already mentioned Fury Road? 
“So, you want a realistic, down-to-earth show… that’s completely off-the-wall and swarming with magic robots?”
Or more of the jokey, family-friendly Marvel superhero fare with the grittiness of explaining why Jessica Jones is okay with taking it in the pooper from Luke Cage?
More comic book movies is probably the last thing I want in any case, lol.
While I will agree that several of the most prominent male characters are written poorly (Mayor Bradley, Rowan, the tour guide, the Manager of the Stonebrook etc), there are some within the secondary tier who aren’t problematic at all: Ed Mulgrave (Historian of the Aldrich Mansion), the graffiti artist, the cop interviewing team.
So while there is a problem with some of the male characters being badly written, I didn’t get a “anti-man” vibe, other than very briefly in the “safety lights” bit, and I’m guilty as charged at also finding that a little amusing.
Except society has changed considerably since human beings first started to develop social groups and orders. We weren’t the dominant life-form on this planet at the beginning, and being killed by something bigger, meaner and faster than you was an almost every-day fact of life.
Nowadays though, we have the luxury and the ability of being able to evolve out of those primeval roles our far-flung ancestors first developed. Men don’t have to be the hunter/killer/providers anymore, and women don’t have to stay home to raise the next generation.
I feel the need to point out that in the Seahorse species, it’s actually the male that gives birth to the young.
On subjects not related to Ghostbusters I’ve done a bit of reading up on Native American culture - present in the culture of aboriginal North Americans were individuals who are nowadays referred to as “two spirit” (to simplify, individuals who embodied traits - and roles - of both male and female members of the tribe they were a part of).
It’s generally considered that these two spirit individuals would today fall under the spectrum of the LGBTQ community, but it’s interesting to see that the Native Americans not only had roles for these traditional gender convention-breaking individuals, but in some cases they were revered.
Like with some of the arguments that have been made about LGBTQ relationships and same-sex marriage, while it can be said that the roles played by men and women have become the most commonplace that we’re familiar with because they’re the ones that have been repeatedly shown to us as being the norm, and the “accepted” roles… there’s a lot about some cultures we know very little about, and if the traditional man/woman, hunter/provider/mother roles hadn’t become so strongly reinforced over several centuries/millennia, who’s to say how gender roles could’ve evolved?
Wait… what?
Abby, and eventually Erin’s approach through the film is very much “we have to prove our field is a legitimate science”, they did what they did regardless of pursuing money because vindicating their theories and field was the more important endgame - I imagine Ray and Egon might’ve had a similar approach if they had someone other than Peter taking the lead - he had poorer prospects to fall onto than they did after getting kicked out of Columbia, so his best chance for survival, and to make some money off of the newly-discovered field of investigation they’d stumbled onto, was to turn it into a money-making business.
Of course it matters. What kind of question is that? It is explicitly being said that he instigated it, which is a lie.
Allowed it to continue? Why is he responsible for what other people do? If another member of this site breaks the TOS, should the mods ban you?
I don’t have anything on hand. I was there as it unfolded, unlike any of the people who reported on it. I am not sure how I am supposed to prove a negative and supply a link or screenshot showing that he didn’t start it. The burden of proof is on the people that claim he did.
Edit: Actually, found it. See the link below. Fair warning, if you are pro-reboot, you will probably not like the tone of this article. However, it lays out the timeline and shows the tweets indicating that Milo never used Twitter to incite anyone, while showing that Leslie did. Also, some of Leslie’s tweets shown in the is article are NSFW.
He retweeted obviously fake screen caps from Leslie’s account making extremely off color remarks. If you want to read them, you can find them here:http://fusion.net/story/327103/leslie-jones-twitter-racism/
The reason why he was banned is not because of this one isolated incident. He has a history of violating twitter’s terms of service. Moreover, there was a significant increase in the number of offensive tweets sent to Leslie after Milo’s tweets. I’m sure you noticed, because I did when it happened.
Regardless of whether Milo did anything beyond post those faked tweets, he had violated the terms of service by simply posting those. The additional trouble caused by many of his followers targeting Leslie after Milo’s tweets was only superfluous justification for him to be permanently banned.
Your analogy regarding being banned from here is an oversimplification of the issues. A better analogy is, “Would I be banned if I jumped in and posted fake screenshots of something homophobic another user posted and joined a thread bashing that person?” The answer is yes. If you don’t want to be lumped in with the gang, don’t join the gang.
We respect each others difference of opinion when it comes to the “anti-male” vibe, which is fine. We’re obviously not going to change each others minds, which is also fine.
In terms of society, I feel this is a much longer subject of debate. While it doesn’t directly have to do with Ghostbusters, for us to understand where our society has come from the stone age to now, ties in. Perhaps I’ll just put it this way, to an extent, as a species, we have betrayed our natural reward systems. We are so disconnected from our food that people view hunters as villains, but have no problem going to the supermarket and buying a pound of beef. Like I said, doesn’t DIRECTLY have to do with Ghostbusters, but, when you use the “evolution of society” bit, you(or I) open up the conversation beyond Ghostbusters.
Yes. But we are not talking about Seahorses. We’re talking about Human Beings. Although, a movie about Seahorses busting ghosts would certainly be an interesting take!
That’s actually extremely interesting about the Native Americans, but, that’s one culture, I was talking as a whole. The Natives were obviously a completely unique and different animal than say, the Romans. But I digress, interesting stuff for sure.
In terms of LGBTQ and “social norms” I think your leaving out a HUGE part of my original post. The biological makeup of men and women. Perhaps these social norms were put into place based on the fact that since the man could not breastfeed the child he went out and hunted. Since the woman was home with the child (because she was the only of the two that could feed it), the “cooking, cleaning, etc” role came along with it. I don’t know, but to me, it makes perfect sense.
If you notice in my Socialism quote, the key word is “almost”. Even if it’s the U.S.'s rhetoric that Socialism is Capitalism’s main enemy, the do kind of oppose each other.
The only reason I bring it up is because of the clear Capitalistic approach of the original film, and the stark contrast of the new film. As the new film may not actually promote Socialism, it does, in a way, promote big government.
“obviously fake” is rather subjective. While i know it’s a really weak argument, it’s still true. How often do you see people on FB and Twitter sharing fake articles and photo shopped images?
So your admitting he was banned based more on his previous violations?
When you actually look at the article you posted, the only person CLEARLY inciting anything is ACTUALLY Leslie! Specifically “Exposing them, hope ya’ll go after them like they going after me”. While the sentiment is nice, she’s inciting people to harass other people. Isn’t that why Milo was supposedly banned?
Also, Twitters terms of service are extremely vague.
Also, who do you think gets more harassment on Twitter. Leslie Jones, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or police officers in general? Just saying.
Well, those hunters I view as villians are either those who hunt for their own personal glory, or who are so unrepentantly cruel to the creatures they’re hunting (participants of the U.K.'s fox hunts, those who hunt and kill rhinos, tigers, giraffes etc.)
One culture, and there may’ve been more, but the information pertaining to them has been lost to history - we can’t say something similar hadn’t happened elsewhere in the world in the history of humanity, the only way we could rule it out were if we had time travel.
Not very well, the main representative is a bit of an idiot, and his aide is a bit two-faced and unpleasant.
It’ll depend on their motivation, I recall a public meeting in relation to Planned Parenthood where a graph was purported to suggest the rise of abortions thanks to Planned Parenthood, as it turned out, the graph was a fabrication, with the source, a notable anti-abortion website, listed clearly on it, so if someone is motivated enough to demonise someone, they will fake something to pursue their goal.
This isn’t a competition over who gets the most abuse, but the issue of someone apparently stirring racially-motivated abuse.
One of the images actually shows the delete text suggesting the person posting the image created the image. Arguably, Milo created the image. Regardless, Twitter’s rules–incorporated into the terms of service–provides:
His tweets posting fake screenshots run afoul of the Impersonation rule because it was intended to mislead, confuse, or deceive others and succeeded in doing so.
I get you think Milo was done wrong. You are entitled to an opinion. He broke the rules. He was banned for breaking the rules. If you feel others should be banned for their behavior, the best way to address those issues is by filing reports on those tweets because that is the only way Twitter will realistically review the tweet and the account holder.
I agree, those types of “hunters” are the biggest scum of the earth. The problem is, much similarly to the “criticism of GB ATC = misogynist neo-■■■■ obese basement dwellers”, the general public seems to view ALL hunters as gutless trophy hunters.
But what we do have, are accounts of a plethora of other cultures that did NOT have the level of “enlightenment” the Natives had. So, on a scale or graph, we’re talking a virtual 1:100 ratio.
As such with all government clone. Idiots (Trump) and two-faced (Clinton). Though, this does kind of make my point. As it doesn’t promote the actual representatives very well, it’s all okay at the end because those “idiots and two-faced unpleasant individuals” are going to fund the Ghostbusters. So it’s fine! We get free money!
True. I can’t dispute that one.
But you see, it IS kind of a competition. If the CEO of twitter cared so much about people not being abused and harassed on his product, you would see a lot more banning of the individuals who berate and harass Clinton and/or Trump and/or the general police population. And were not talking racial and sexual abuse here. We’re talking bomb threats and death threats. I see them every single day on twitter. I’ll gladly link some (that do, in fact, still exist) if you don’t believe me.
Absolutely, Twitter is privately owned, therefore they have the right to ban whoever they want. And thank you, I appreciate the fact that we can ALL have a civil conversation here and not insult and berate each other. Just because our opinions differ from one another, doesn’t mean either side of our particular debate are bad or evil people.
Now if only the major news networks could take a page out of our book andstop brainwashing us into thinking “if the other side wins, WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!!”
been seeing this one posted around facebook over the last week:
https://medium.com/@deer.erin/why-should-i-go-see-it-8a3e552a540b#.a02su9cnx
:whatever: Too little, too late…
I would love for this Dear Erin lady to read my above quoted statement and tell me the girls from my neighborhood growing up didn’t have heroes. Why did she never ask (why can’t Janine be a Ghostbuster today). Childhood = Imagination. At least mine did. Apparently we really were way ahead of our time.
Another big female hero from our youth(s) we seem to keep forgetting about, Carmen Sandiego. Whenever I decided I was going to be Indiana Jones, one of the girls would gladly take the mantle of Carmen, and usually beat me up in the process. I used to get beat up by this one girl (as you see in my above quoted post) all the time. It wasn’t some schoolyard “I like you so I kick you in the knee thing”, no, she really hated me.
Princess Leia? Really? So, all of her heroic acts go into the toilet because in ROTJ she’s in a bikini? REALLY? Everyone seems to totally forget about how much of a savage she was.
Ripley in Aliens, while I agree it’s most certainly not a kids movie, kids find ways to watch these kinds of movies. And when people say Sigourney was just “eye candy”, everyone seems to forget that was the FIRST MOVIE. She’s nowhere near being an action hero in the original. She’s a reluctant hero, sure she has some badass moments, but that movie is Horror/Survival. Alien(S), the second (and better IMO) Is hailed as perhaps THE GREATEST action movie of ALL TIME. At no point to they focus on Ripley’s sexuality in the second movie. In fact, Vasquez is arguably the most badass of the Colonial Marines, who is… another woman!!!
Also, what’s wrong with celebrating a beautiful woman and/or a woman’s beautiful body?