GRcade

Tafdolphin wrote:Who knows, this film could be great. Again, the quality or lack thereof of this new film and the 2016 one is not the point at all.

Moggy wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Moggy wrote:This would have all been solved if Feig had just made a decent Ghostbusters movie.

This.

And trolling? How? My points were valid.

Fieg chose to ignore the original universe and decided to move to a new universe. The actress blasted the planned movie cos it didn't link to her movie. Where was the link to old movies' universe? She can't have it her way.

I went in and watch it with an open mind and decided it was rubbish. Not because of the all woman ghostbusters. The humour, script and everything with it was rubbish.

And it would be slightly better if Melissa McCarthy didn't fall back on her foul-mouth, gross out stereotype. The only ghostbuster I like is the maniac blonde scientist. The others were meh.

The only decent thing about the film was the introduction. But the rest sucks. Can you imagine the uproar if the cast was male and the Hemsworth character were female? The feminist rage would shook the world apart.

I didn’t care about the Hemsworth character being male, I cared more that he was just too stupid. Unbelievably stupid.

The biggest problem with diversity in Ghostbusters 2016 wasn’t that they gender swapped roles but that they had three brilliant white scientists and one stereotypical “sassy” black female working in a menial job. If the plan was to be “woke” they could have given the black lady a masters degree.

Tafdolphin wrote:Because of the underlying context of continuing gender inequality and the historic trend of portraying angry women as somehow abnormal and/or mentally ill, not to mention that particular phrase's common usage to enact such tropes.

That's how.

Wedgie wrote:So by right, you should be disgusted that a man portrayed as a sex object, along with his intelligence being lower than a wooden table and got the job as a receptionist just because of his looks?

Jog on feminist wannabe.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Wedgie wrote:So by right, you should be disgusted that a man portrayed as a sex object, along with his intelligence being lower than a wooden table and got the job as a receptionist just because of his looks?

Jog on feminist wannabe.

Have men historically been portrayed as sex objects, objectified for nothing but their looks, a practice which has led to a culture-wide view of them as the lesser sex, good only for eye candy and as characters defined entirely by their relationship to women?

No.

There's a reason it's called gender inequality.

So in short: no. You get strawberry floated, you casually misogynistic, culturally ignorant wannabe troll. strawberry floating educate yourself, and be strawberry floating better.

Tafdolphin wrote:There's a line in Man of the Moment hbomberguy's video response to Paul '@prisonplanet' Watson where...actually no. Let me just quote it:



(skip to 0.51 for the relevant point)

Don't know why I felt the need to post that. Strange.

Denster wrote:It's the gift that just keeps on giving.

Mafro wrote:

twitter.com/thejeffbridges/status/1088481555582996480