- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ghostbusters - Rotten Tomatometer 73%
Posted on 7/9/16 at 1:45 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Posted on 7/9/16 at 1:45 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
I think he touched on a coupe of really important issues with the movie that contradict the whole "girl power" vibe of the reboot:
1.) The black female character is a caricature of the stereotypical angry black woman and it's not funny at all. So what was supposed to be the point in that writing and casting decision?
2.) Every male character in the movie, be it a minor or major character, is depicted as a total a-hole. Again, why? A few characters, sure people are dicks. But every male character top to bottom has to come off as stupid, ignorant, arrogant, and douchey? I get it, female characters are marginalized in a lot of movies so maybe the intent here was turnabout being fair play but if you're going to do that, prepare to isolate your male audience. You can have a female-led comedy with a mix of good and bad male characters (see Bridesmaids) and have it be a hit with both genders.
When he reveals the spoiler for the ending, I was kind of stuck between being surprised and not surprised at all. On the one hand, I was surprised the studio would be that blatant with the man-hating message while, on the other, pandering to what they think an audience wants is what Hollywood does. I think in this case they guessed horribly wrong.
1.) The black female character is a caricature of the stereotypical angry black woman and it's not funny at all. So what was supposed to be the point in that writing and casting decision?
2.) Every male character in the movie, be it a minor or major character, is depicted as a total a-hole. Again, why? A few characters, sure people are dicks. But every male character top to bottom has to come off as stupid, ignorant, arrogant, and douchey? I get it, female characters are marginalized in a lot of movies so maybe the intent here was turnabout being fair play but if you're going to do that, prepare to isolate your male audience. You can have a female-led comedy with a mix of good and bad male characters (see Bridesmaids) and have it be a hit with both genders.
When he reveals the spoiler for the ending, I was kind of stuck between being surprised and not surprised at all. On the one hand, I was surprised the studio would be that blatant with the man-hating message while, on the other, pandering to what they think an audience wants is what Hollywood does. I think in this case they guessed horribly wrong.
This post was edited on 7/9/16 at 1:47 pm
2
Posted on 7/9/16 at 1:50 pm to tylerdurden24
You're right.
And, the people who could sense it from just watching the trailer and knowing Hollywood's agenda felt the vibe.
He confirmed it when he said, "basically it's a man bashing film." And not pro women, just anti-men.
And, the people who could sense it from just watching the trailer and knowing Hollywood's agenda felt the vibe.
He confirmed it when he said, "basically it's a man bashing film." And not pro women, just anti-men.
This post was edited on 7/9/16 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 7/10/16 at 11:23 am to tylerdurden24
quote:
pandering to what they think an audience wants is what Hollywood does. I think in this case they guessed horribly wrong.
I see the movie industry much like the fashion scene only often with a political/social agenda. They often aren't so much trying to guess what people will like as much as trying to dictate what the audience should like.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News