I think we can establish that you believe that men and women in society condition men and women to believe in gender roles which you believe to be harmful to women.
You won't specify how or why exactly this a problem in respect to the subject of this thread. You just think it is, because statistics and social media tell you so.
You refuse to actually look at this subject in a nuanced manner, even when invited to. Statistics means inequality which is harmful to women, and that's that.
You appear to believe that by just adding more women to Hollywood in general it will somehow result in a situation which will fix this problem you believe exists.
You evidently believe that equality in Hollywood is about simply rounding numbers up so that there is a 50/50 split between male and female employees and the problem is solved.
No consideration whatsoever about why more men work in Hollywood then women, just because... statistics.
No consideration about the possibility that perhaps fewer women are as compelled as men when it comes to wanting a career in some jobs.
In my last post I tried to converse with you as if you are a reasonable person and tried to see where we share common ground, as there were some things you said which I believed were fair points.
Nah, you didn't like that. Not good enough. You just weren't interested. You simply refuse to even consider anything I say or think that I may have a point in some respects, or that I may have introduced a thought or idea which merits further discussion..
I just don't understand why you can't seem to accept that working in Hollywood films is not like applying for a 9 to 5 position in a conventional job. Although it's certainly a place where examples of nepotism appear to be evident, it's a meritocracy for the most part when it comes to the creative talent. That's what's important to them and what they really value. They will hire writers and directors who they know have the talent. Because they aren't in the business of hiring people who they fear will lose them literally millions of dollars. So if you believe that they would just fill roles up with women to make it an equal 50/50 split between men and women I think you've living in fantasy land and it's wish fulfilment on your part.
It simply beggars belief that in your last post you said that you don't care about quality or representation, it's about quantity and content matching, not quality matching.
I actually believe that it's important for women to have strong female characters in stories.
If your opinions are an indicative example of the sort of feeling evident on social media you describe, with people with loud voices kicking up a fuss, the voices you think Hollywood will listen to and take advise from, then I stand by what I originally said in that I feel that you're extremely misguided.
This is my last post on this discussion because we're just going round in circles. It's incredibly dull.
Of course we're going around in circles, because you won't have it any other way. I've made an effort to find some common ground because I believe that this actually is something worthy of discussion, and on the last page I did identify some of your opinions which I can share. I could have given up ages ago (and maybe I should have) but I like to believe that people are open to other people's ideas, or can at least understand or appreciate them.
We're probably going around in circles because you appear to be unprepared to take on board and consider points of view which don't accord with your own worldview. If you did that you would probably find it a little less dull and just a tiny bit more enriching.
Alrightmate, to be honest I do not feel you have demonstrably comprehended my posts, and that is why we are going round in circles. Your post above clearly shows this as yet again, you have taken my opinion and inferred what is not there, and also oversimplifed many of my points (again) and completely ignored others, presumably to suit your own agenda.
I'm not prepared to keep explaining my views over and over again if you are going to take them, put one and one together and get five. I've made plenty of attempts to communicate more clearly and answered everything you question above, so I can't do much more.
I am a perfectly reasonable person and absolutely capable of taking on board other's opinions, but discussion doesn't always mean digging to find common ground. Sometimes to agree to disagree is perfectly fine.
PS - to tell me what I'd finding "enriching" is patronising, too.
Alrightmate, to be honest I do not feel you have demonstrably comprehended my posts, and that is why we are going round in circles. Your post above clearly shows this as yet again, you have taken my opinion and inferred what is not there, and also oversimplifed many of my points (again) and completely ignored others, presumably to suit your own agenda.
I'm not prepared to keep explaining my views over and over again if you are going to take them, put one and one together and get five. I've made plenty of attempts to communicate more clearly and answered everything you question above, so I can't do much more.
I am a perfectly reasonable person and absolutely capable of taking on board other's opinions, but discussion doesn't always mean digging to find common ground. Sometimes to agree to disagree is perfectly fine.
PS - to tell me what I'd finding "enriching" is patronising, too.
Well what the hell? I'm trying to go by what you've actually written. I've actually quoted your post just to ensure that I actually have comprehended your point correctly. But you're still unhappy that I've failed to comprehended it?
Really?
As I said in my last post, it's about quantity and content matching, not quality matching.
You said this. How can I recognise that this is what you meant but have failed to comprehend it? If you didn't mean what you said then how could I possibly comprehend it in any other way?
To be honest you've listed all sorts of things you're not happy with which you feel demonstrates a problem. But on the last page you simply said INEQUALITY in big capital letters. That's it. No discussion. No desire to answer any of my questions about why you believe that manifests as a problem in Hollywood films. You appear to be completely unprepared to talk about this further.
Earlier you said that Hollywood would take notice of the voices on social media kicking up a fuss and will feel obliged to make changes. But do you honestly believe that Hollywood are going to comprehend this sort of clusterf**k of opinions coming from thousands of people on Twitter or social media in general any better than I can?
Interesting take on matters that you think I have an agenda.
On the last post on the previous page I demonstrated that I have shown understanding towards some of your points. You however responded to that post by treating me with suspicion and hostility, replying with hostile replies such as 'what's your point?' when I was simply demonstrating how I agreed with you over the point that some people took exception to an all-female cast. You wouldn't accept that, or didn't like it, or were paranoid enough to be suspicious.
You see even when I agreed with you on some things or displayed that I shared an opinion with you, it just wasn't good enough for you.
There's always a problem, there's absolutely no attempt to meet somebody with differing opinions halfway.
At one point I recommended a show for you that you may not have seen. That was being freindly, it wasn't patronising, or anything, it was simply being friendly. Your response to that was quite incredible. It was just incredibly hostile.
Is this really the type of discourse which you believe Hollywood will respond to favourably?
So I'd have to ask you to rethink the idea that I have failed to comprehend your points, and ask yourself who's not comprehending who.
And now again, you have a problem with me being patronising towards you by saying that it can be enriching to explore thoughts and ideas you may not readily agree with, I mean genuinely explore them. That wouldn't apply to just you, it applies to anyone including myself.
Discussion can not be furthered if you refuse to engage with the person you disagree with by refusing to consider their points honestly and with a rational calm.
I haven't 'dug' to find common ground, I've genuinely sought to understand your points of view and get you to clarify them, and where appropriate I've found it important to show you where I can agree with you. If you're not prepared to do that then how can discussion advance?
Even when I'm being friendly or simply being civil, you're perceiving it as me being patronising towards you.
You still haven't addressed my questions about what the problem actually is and how it pertains to Hollywood.
Yes you've listed various stats and expressed your various points of view. But just because you say that it means there is a problem, there isn't until you actually identify what that problem actually is. It's not about repeating your points, it's about thinking about those points and elaborating on them to identify a problem you have to demonstrate how it has manifested into an actual problem.
Stats in themselves are not a problem. You have to quantify what that problem actually is.
You apparently don't care about the quality of writing for female characters, you only care about quantity and meeting some kind of employment quota?
From this I presume that you mean that Hollywood needs to employ more women.
That's all I can possibly gather from this. You can't blame me if I have not comprehended what you said correctly.
Well what the hell? I'm trying to go by what you've actually written. I've actually quoted your post just to ensure that I actually have comprehended your point correctly. But you're still unhappy that I've failed to comprehended it?
Really?
Please refer to my previous posts where I have repeatedly pointed out that I did not state what you are claiming I did, or you manipulated my point in some way. In fact, see a few points below too.
You said this. How can I recognise that this is what you meant but have failed to comprehend it? If you didn't mean what you said then how could I possibly comprehend it in any other way?
Because you have repeatedly taken this quote to mean that I give absolutely no consideration to quality of writing at all, which is categorically not what that quote says. Yet you have continued to misguidedly interpret it as the following:
It simply beggars belief that in your last post you said that you don't care about quality or representation, it's about quantity and content matching, not quality matching.
I actually believe that it's important for women to have strong female characters in stories.
Nowhere did I even indicate that "I do not care" about quality. I did say it's a seperate issue, and I also said the following:
To be honest you've listed all sorts of things you're not happy with which you feel demonstrates a problem. But on the last page you simply said INEQUALITY in big capital letters. That's it. No discussion.
Because... INEQUALITY. Inequal gender representation on screen, inequal gender divide workers behind the scenes, both contribute to the still commonly-held view that women are the less important sex.
No desire to answer any of my questions about why you believe that manifests as a problem in Hollywood films. You appear to be completely unprepared to talk about this further.
Where have you got that from? I've replied to pretty much every point you've made, and I cannot say the same of you. However, it gets increasingly dull to continue to state the same opinions over and over again because you are either not comprehending them or being deliberately obtuse.
Earlier you said that Hollywood would take notice of the voices on social media kicking up a fuss and will feel obliged to make changes.
Again, putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly said they gather feedback. I never said they feel obliged to make changes, but I'd like to think some filmmakers (most?) would consider them. As I said before, it's just good business sense if you're going for the mass audience and as much box office as possible.
But do you honestly believe that Hollywood are going to comprehend this sort of clusterf**k of opinions coming from thousands of people on Twitter or social media in general any better than I can?
Who knows? I'm sure there is as much brilliance as their is rubbish on social media. Why is the comparison to your comprehension important here? Are you an authority on this?
Interesting take on matters that you think I have an agenda.
On the last post on the previous page I demonstrated that I have shown understanding towards some of your points.
Where have you demonstrated understanding of my points? I see repeated attempts at manipulating my points, non-sequiturs and missing the point entirely. My last two out of three posts clearly pointed this out.
when I was simply demonstrating how I agreed with you over the point that some people took exception to an all-female cast. You wouldn't accept that, or didn't like it, or were paranoid enough to be suspicious.
Sorry - am not seeing any agreement with my original point here, it reads to me as a paragraph about your own personal preferences, which I genuinely am not sure why you included (no paranoia, I promise!)
As for all female casts, it just depends on what it is if I'll actually like it. If it doesn't seem to be the sort of thing I'd like then I just won't watch it. But I say go for it if other people would. I certainly wouldn't get angry about it and have a go at it just because it's all women.
One show which is mostly an all female cast is the Australian TV drama Wentworth, which is one of my favourite shows on television right now. Great writing, great characterizations, great pacing and plot development, and it's just a good show. The fact that it's a mainly female cast has no bearing on its quality. It's just very well made and engaging. If you haven't seen it before I'd recommend it.
You see even when I agreed with you on some things or displayed that I shared an opinion with you, it just wasn't good enough for you.
There's always a problem, there's absolutely no attempt to meet somebody with differing opinions halfway.
How have you jumped to that conclusion? Because I don't agree with your opinions that I find to be largely based on leaps in logic and huge assumptions. Do people not disagree with you often, then? It's entirely my right to disagree with you, it doesn't mean I disagree with everyone ever.
By the way, the only problem is that this entire situation of me having to directly quote conversations to try and make you see that you're putting words into my mouth is tedious! You're coming to very dramatic conclusion about me as a
person based on very little.
At one point I recommended a show for you that you may not have seen. That was being freindly, it wasn't patronising, or anything, it was simply being friendly. Your response to that was quite incredible. It was just incredibly hostile.
Ok great, your personal opinion about watching female-led productions. Not sure how this relates to my post, since it was about the general issue of female-led productions and not your own personal viewing habits. But fair enough.
Is this really the type of discourse which you believe Hollywood will respond to favourably?
So I'd have to ask you to rethink the idea that I have failed to comprehend your points, and ask yourself who's not comprehending who.
I think the past few posts clearly demonstrate where the comprehension is lacking.
And now again, you have a problem with me being patronising towards you by saying that it can be enriching to explore thoughts and ideas you may not readily agree with, I mean genuinely explore them. That wouldn't apply to just you, it applies to anyone including myself.
Fair play to you if you're open to people telling you to enrich your life. In this context, it very much read to me as patronising.
Discussion can not be furthered if you refuse to engage with the person you disagree with by refusing to consider their points honestly and with a rational calm.
Well firstly I am rational and calm. I don't know how on earth you can come to the conclusion that I have not considered your points honestly and calmly. You can't know that. For the record, I have. I still disagree. That's my right.
I haven't 'dug' to find common ground, I've genuinely sought to understand your points of view and get you to clarify them
If that's what you think has happened then fair enough. I see someone continually exaggerated my opinion, not necessarily seeking to understand my view. By the way, I have asked you to clarify a few points and also at one point provide a link so I can get context on something you said and none of this has happened.
Even when I'm being friendly or simply being civil, you're perceiving it as me being patronising towards you.
You have been patronising in my opinion, and another poster has recognised the same. If you don't agree then I'm not going to argue. I can have my reading of the situation and you can have yours.
You still haven't addressed my questions about what the problem actually is and how it pertains to Hollywood.
Yes you've listed various stats and expressed your various points of view. But just because you say that it means there is a problem, there isn't until you actually identify what that problem actually is. It's not about repeating your points, it's about thinking about those points and elaborating on them to identify a problem you have to demonstrate how it has manifested into an actual problem.
I have repeatedly communicated the problem. Here is an example which is the problem communicated in the simplest way:
Because... INEQUALITY. Inequal gender representation on screen, inequal gender divide workers behind the scenes, both contribute to the still commonly-held view that women are the less important sex.
I've elaborated on it enough, yes with stats and anectdotal evidence via Guardian article to back it up. If you disagree then it's a state of agreeing to disagree I'm afraid.
you only care about quantity and meeting some kind of employment quota?
Where have I stated this? Where have I mentioned an employment quota?
To be honest, I find it incredibly troubling that you repeatedly state that Hollywood wants talent as some sort of reason as to why Hollywood is male dominant. Are men more talented in film, in your opinion? Can you please clarify this point, because the Guardian article I linked to earlier debunked your idea that not enough women want to work in Hollywood.
From this I presume that you mean that Hollywood needs to employ more women.
Yes. But I have never said at the jeopardy of talent so please be clear on that. I believe there are plenty of talented and capable women not being given chances, and I believe that female roles could easily be expanded in both quantity and content. I have provided evidence stating as much
There has been talk of social media influencing movies in these posts and if it is possible. I can think of an example, Star Trek into Darkness kept Benedict Cumberbatch's character a secret. Everybody knew who it was but they insisted it was not the case. When the movie came out reviews and social media reaction was 'well that was pointless and it didn't work' The execs said they agreed and they wouldn't do that again.
Also from the same movie, they had Alice Eve as Carol Marcus strip to her underwear for a full frontal shot. They were trying to establish her as a top weapons expert that halted to say, 'see she looks good in underwear too' people didn't like it and the writer apologised.
When I heard about the reboot/sequel whatever it is.. I thought ok, hope they bring back the original cast, because the films weren't that bad. Then it fell by the way side.. Then they said it was happening and it was all girls.. OK, I thought, I really wanted it to be the old cast, but hey ho, it is what it is.
Then I see the cast, and, think, Bridesmaids with Ghosts? I did enjoy Bridesmaids and I quite like some of McCarthy's films, so I will go and see this with an open mind and watch it for what it is meant to be.. ENTERTAINMENT... It may be a rubbish film, it may be ok, or it may actually be quite good.
No it should't be this question as it was original an all male cast, so the question is why change it?
Because it's a new spin, perhaps?
Any Ghostbusters reboot was always going to be compared to the original. So why not do something different? The black cast of The Wiz didn't erase any previous version of The Wizard of Oz. The musical remakes of Little Shop of Horrors and The Producers didn't erase the original movies. The grimdark modern Batman movies didn't erase the colourful 1960s movie and TV series.
What exactly is the problem with a remake or reboot doing something different? Sometimes radical departures work, other times they don't. Is it just anxiety over uppity women "appropriating" the source material?
Now, what I've seen of this film doesn't look promising. However, let's not forget that Blues Brothers 2000 assembled almost all the surviving cast of the classic original, yet John Landis still managed to make the most soulless soul film ever. If those guys can stand up to urinate into John Belushi's grave, why shouldn't a female cast take a squat over the corpse of Harold Ramis?
Any Ghostbusters reboot was always going to be compared to the original. So why not do something different? The black cast of The Wiz didn't erase any previous version of The Wizard of Oz. The musical remakes of Little Shop of Horrors and The Producers didn't erase the original movies. The grimdark modern Batman movies didn't erase the colourful 1960s movie and TV series.
What exactly is the problem with a remake or reboot doing something different? Sometimes radical departures work, other times they don't. Is it just anxiety over uppity women "appropriating" the source material?
Now, what I've seen of this film doesn't look promising. However, let's not forget that Blues Brothers 2000 assembled almost all the surviving cast of the classic original, yet John Landis still managed to make the most soulless soul film ever. If those guys can stand up to urinate into John Belushi's grave, why shouldn't a female cast take a squat over the corpse of Harold Ramis?
True.:D The problem probably has a lot to do with reboots in general. Most people I see tend to hate them. There are probably one or two exceptions which are well received and it is was felt that they were treated well. But generally speaking people just don't seem to like reboots.
To be honest, I find it incredibly troubling that you repeatedly state that Hollywood wants talent as some sort of reason as to why Hollywood is male dominant. Are men more talented in film, in your opinion? Can you please clarify this point, because the Guardian article I linked to earlier debunked your idea that not enough women want to work in Hollywood.
Yes. But I have never said at the jeopardy of talent so please be clear on that. I believe there are plenty of talented and capable women not being given chances, and I believe that female roles could easily be expanded in both quantity and content. I have provided evidence stating as much
Ok. If that's genuinely all you've taken away from this I'm not going to continue to explain myself over and over again.
BIB I never said that at any point.
You believe that inequality in itself is a problem in Hollywood.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if you want to make Hollywood change its ways you're going to need to articulate that in a clear manner and be specific in what ways this s a problem. You need to state to them exactly how you expect them to fix this problem.
Send them to social media and get them to read these loud voices you agree with, link them to articles by professors who have their theories, but unless you let them know what it is you exactly want them to do then I think your demands will fall on deaf ears.
But as I have said Hollywood isn't like a conventional company where you apply for a 9 to 5 job and claim a monthly salary. It's a nebulus beast where they employ who they want to based on who they believe has more talent, or whether they just seem right for the role whether they be men or women. If they prefer somebody for a role over somebody else, then it's their call.
If they think that one cinematographer is right for what they want to achieve, they'll employ them.
As I have said, one of the nuances involved is the pool they have to select from. For example what happens if it's the case that not many women decided to get into film directing when they were much younger, and most of the experienced directors around now who have demonstrated good work over the years just happen to be male?
Of course there are very good female directors around. But how many films get made in Hollywood?
You have to look at nuances such as this and be a lot more flexible in considering how realistic your proposals or demands are.
If a film producer really wants a certain director for the film who happens to be a man, you can't make him hire a female director just because a quota for male directors for other films has been filled. It's just not going to happen. They want who they want in the knowledge of everything that individual person brings to the table.
Of course this reboot of Ghostbusters brought about by Amy Pascal will demonstrate how effective having a mostly female cast and crew can be.
It will either succeed, or it won't.
If it succeeds then the women involved I'm sure will be hired for future projects.
I think that you need to accept that making films is not a right. You could introduce some form of affirmative action for women, but it's mostly an industry based on meritocracy.
It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, you can only get hired for projects if you're wanted.
Truth is, the vast majority of fans of the original Ghostbusters are male. And many of them grew up with it or first seen it as a child. So yeah, I get why people would be pissed. Imagine if Katniss Everdeen was re-cast as a man?
Personally though, I think the bigger issue is the fact that it just doesn't look very good. And I like Kristen Wiig too, her SNL stuff was great. Such a wasted opportunity.
Of course this reboot of Ghostbusters brought about by Amy Pascal will demonstrate how effective having a mostly female cast and crew can be.
It will either succeed, or it won't.
If it succeeds then the women involved I'm sure will be hired for future projects.
I think that you need to accept that making films is not a right. You could introduce some form of affirmative action for women, but it's mostly an industry based on meritocracy.
It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, you can only get hired for projects if you're wanted.
So are you talking about the merits of individuals or making gross generalisations about how this new Ghostbusters will demonstrate how effective a mostly female cast and crew can be?
Even though it's directed and co-written by a man who will take the vast majority of praise or blame?
So are you talking about the merits of individuals or making gross generalisations about how this new Ghostbusters will demonstrate how effective a mostly female cast and crew can be?
Even though it's directed and co-written by a man who will take the vast majority of praise or blame?
I think it's self explanatory.
Hollywood in general will measure the project by its own success or failure.
Anyone attached to a success will naturally have something good on their CV.
Conversely, if it is a flop it may not be as easy for many involved to find the next job as it would otherwise have been.
I think it's self explanatory.
Hollywood in general will measure the project by its own success or failure.
Anyone attached to a success will naturally have something good on their CV.
Conversely, if it is a flop it may not be as easy for many involved to find the next job as it would otherwise have been.
Paul Feig is the main head on the block. If the film fails, he will be the person whose writing and direction is blamed. The visuals seem technically competent, so there's no reason why crew members should suffer. (Most of the criticism will be aimed at the CGI, anyway.) The cast already have proven successes, so they won't go straight to Dan Ackroyd's current position in the Hollywood gutter.
Of course, you're not addressing the generalisation you made about this film demonstrating whether or not it's a good idea to have a mostly female cast and crew. Surely you realise how rampantly sexist that comment was?
Paul Feig is the main head on the block. If the film fails, he will be the person whose writing and direction is blamed. The visuals seem technically competent, so there's no reason why crew members should suffer. (Most of the criticism will be aimed at the CGI, anyway.) The cast already have proven successes, so they won't go straight to Dan Ackroyd's current position in the Hollywood gutter.
Of course, you're not addressing the generalisation you made about this film demonstrating whether or not it's a good idea to have a mostly female cast and crew. Surely you realise how rampantly sexist that comment was?
I thought I just did address it.
Yes I realise how rampantly sexist that comment was. That was kind of the point.
Its success or failure will be judged by Hollywood itself, the organisation you claim is sexist. Why wouldn't they judge it through a sexist lens if they are indeed sexist?
Yes I realise how rampantly sexist that comment was. That was kind of the point.
Its success or failure will be judged by Hollywood itself, the organisation you claim is sexist. Why wouldn't they judge it through a sexist lens if they are indeed sexist?
No, you stated this film will demonstrate how effective it is to have a mostly female cast and crew. Not Hollywood's perception of how effective it is, but how effective it:actually is. YOU were making the gross generalisatiion, so stop trying to shrug it off with a disingenuous "Those Hollywood guys are the sexists."
Why you would assume one cast and crew on one movie would "demonstrate" anything about an entire sex remains a mystery. It's almost as if you're looking forward to crowing over the probable failure of this film. "I'm not a sexist, but those damn uppity women should have stayed out of men's work."
No, you stated this film will demonstrate how effective it is to have a mostly female cast and crew. Not Hollywood's perception of how effective it is, but how effective it:actually is. YOU were making the gross generalisatiion, so stop trying to shrug it off with a disingenuous "Those Hollywood guys are the sexists."
Why you would assume one cast and crew on one movie would "demonstrate" anything about an entire sex remains a mystery. It's almost as if you're looking forward to crowing over the probable failure of this film. "I'm not a sexist, but those damn uppity women should have stayed out of men's work."
What do you mean 'No'?
I've just told you 'yes'. I've just told you what I meant. Not that it really required an explanation.
Who else is going to judge whether the film is a success or not if not Hollywood itself?
What the hell is your problem? This is crazy.
Across a handful of posts I've expressed how I feel about what I think with actual words.
However I've seen one or two posts from another poster which have made nasty insinuations about me similar to yours, where they appear to have tried to read my mind rather than referring to actual words I have actually posted.
I pretty much let them go up till now.
Why do you want to be so horrible? You actually posted an imaginary quote of me saying that I think women should stay out of men's work.
Considering that you believe that you're posting in this thread on the back of a noble cause, how do you honestly feel about your own behaviour when trying to paint a poster in an extremely negative light by trying to project an image onto them of being sexist which has come from your imagination?
Do you really believe that your behaviour is any better than the behaviour you believe Hollywood is guilty of? Really, do you?
You said that Hollywood is sexist.
I actually said that maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
And I said that "this film will demonstrate how effective having a mostly female cast and crew can be".
And it will be. You know it will. And if you believe that Hollywood is sexist then you know that it definitely will be judged by that criteria.
But....you have read that statement through a very distorted lens, and have made a massive assumption and have decided, even after asking me for clarification, that I myself am a sexist.
You don't consider for a second that my statement also leaves it open for the film to prove doubters wrong, and that a team of women can demonstrate creative talent.
But you don't want to believe that do you?
It has to be said though that even if it's a crap film it will probably still be financially successful due to the controversy surrounding it and attracting audiences like flies round sh*t as they want to see what all the fuss was about. But hey, it'd still count as a success.
Ever since you entered this thread you were overly defensive, po-faced, and hostile to other posters.
This is not a good approach to take if you want to persuade other people around to your point of view.
I disagree with many of your points, but you have taken umbrage to that and rather than respond by means of general discussion would rather try to paint me in the same light as the people in Hollywood you believe to have problems with women.
The irony is that I agree with some of your points. But I just don't agree with all of them and you really do not seem to like that.
In a few posts I have posted how I feel about women and equality, but I won't quote myself, they are still there. But you'd rather ignore that and try to twist words and play with semantics to paint me in a very unsavoury light?
If you'd really rather do that than discuss the subject of the thread then your time in this thread has probably been wasted as much as mine has.
Very little has been achieved here, simply because you refuse to talk with anyone who doesn't subscribe to your opinions 100%.
If you want people to be more open to your ideas and thoughts then I think you're going to need to moderate your approach. Attacking another poster by labeling them as sexist is not the right way to go about doing things.
It's a really shitty thing to do. It's only going to serve to make it appear as if you'd rather attack the character of the person rather than the content of what they say.
Because this is the 21st Century and "Times have changed" blah blah blah and if they had an all male cast there would probably be some outcry from the "women can fight ghosts just as well as men" brigade. Best to tick all the right boxes and save an argument.
I trust this 'brigade' you refer to will be out in force for the Magnificent Seven remake on its way then?
Unless you're tilting at windmills of course.
As for Ghostbusters, you have to wonder what the response would be if an all-male remake produced equally underwhelming trailers.
Youtube dislikes - a really credible barometer there.
I trust this 'brigade' you refer to will be out in force for the Magnificent Seven remake on its way then?
Unless you're tilting at windmills of course.
As for Ghostbusters, you have to wonder what the response would be if an all-male remake produced equally underwhelming trailers.
Indeed. Blues Brothers 2000 is an example of a film that had all the right ingredients, yet still managed to be awful.
Awful sequels, remakes and reboots have been around for years. But people seem determined that this new Ghostbusters should prove a point about why a female cast is a bad idea.
Indeed. Blues Brothers 2000 is an example of a film that had all the right ingredients, yet still managed to be awful.
Awful sequels, remakes and reboots have been around for years. But people seem determined that this new Ghostbusters should prove a point about why a female cast is a bad idea.
It could be any one male female 10 years old to 99 years old I would feel the same, it being a female cast for me and I hope others is not the point.
Another reboot, it will be shite, we all know it will, the all female lead is just to distract you.
Like how red tails was actually offensive and crap, but they framed it as "to not like is RACISM RACIST!!!!!!!!!" in order to avoid another shitty lucas backed film being panned.
If you are unsure about this film, just consider if you like the Transformers movies, if yes then you will love this trash. If not, move on, plenty more to see.
Another reboot, it will be shite, we all know it will, the all female lead is just to distract you.
Like how red tails was actually offensive and crap, but they framed it as "to not like is RACISM RACIST!!!!!!!!!" in order to avoid another shitty lucas backed film being panned.
If you are unsure about this film, just consider if you like the Transformers movies, if yes then you will love this trash. If not, move on, plenty more to see.
Comments
I think we can establish that you believe that men and women in society condition men and women to believe in gender roles which you believe to be harmful to women.
You won't specify how or why exactly this a problem in respect to the subject of this thread. You just think it is, because statistics and social media tell you so.
You refuse to actually look at this subject in a nuanced manner, even when invited to. Statistics means inequality which is harmful to women, and that's that.
You appear to believe that by just adding more women to Hollywood in general it will somehow result in a situation which will fix this problem you believe exists.
You evidently believe that equality in Hollywood is about simply rounding numbers up so that there is a 50/50 split between male and female employees and the problem is solved.
No consideration whatsoever about why more men work in Hollywood then women, just because... statistics.
No consideration about the possibility that perhaps fewer women are as compelled as men when it comes to wanting a career in some jobs.
In my last post I tried to converse with you as if you are a reasonable person and tried to see where we share common ground, as there were some things you said which I believed were fair points.
Nah, you didn't like that. Not good enough. You just weren't interested. You simply refuse to even consider anything I say or think that I may have a point in some respects, or that I may have introduced a thought or idea which merits further discussion..
I just don't understand why you can't seem to accept that working in Hollywood films is not like applying for a 9 to 5 position in a conventional job. Although it's certainly a place where examples of nepotism appear to be evident, it's a meritocracy for the most part when it comes to the creative talent. That's what's important to them and what they really value. They will hire writers and directors who they know have the talent. Because they aren't in the business of hiring people who they fear will lose them literally millions of dollars. So if you believe that they would just fill roles up with women to make it an equal 50/50 split between men and women I think you've living in fantasy land and it's wish fulfilment on your part.
It simply beggars belief that in your last post you said that you don't care about quality or representation, it's about quantity and content matching, not quality matching.
I actually believe that it's important for women to have strong female characters in stories.
If your opinions are an indicative example of the sort of feeling evident on social media you describe, with people with loud voices kicking up a fuss, the voices you think Hollywood will listen to and take advise from, then I stand by what I originally said in that I feel that you're extremely misguided.
Of course we're going around in circles, because you won't have it any other way. I've made an effort to find some common ground because I believe that this actually is something worthy of discussion, and on the last page I did identify some of your opinions which I can share. I could have given up ages ago (and maybe I should have) but I like to believe that people are open to other people's ideas, or can at least understand or appreciate them.
We're probably going around in circles because you appear to be unprepared to take on board and consider points of view which don't accord with your own worldview. If you did that you would probably find it a little less dull and just a tiny bit more enriching.
I'm not prepared to keep explaining my views over and over again if you are going to take them, put one and one together and get five. I've made plenty of attempts to communicate more clearly and answered everything you question above, so I can't do much more.
I am a perfectly reasonable person and absolutely capable of taking on board other's opinions, but discussion doesn't always mean digging to find common ground. Sometimes to agree to disagree is perfectly fine.
PS - to tell me what I'd finding "enriching" is patronising, too.
Well what the hell? I'm trying to go by what you've actually written. I've actually quoted your post just to ensure that I actually have comprehended your point correctly. But you're still unhappy that I've failed to comprehended it?
Really? You said this. How can I recognise that this is what you meant but have failed to comprehend it? If you didn't mean what you said then how could I possibly comprehend it in any other way?
To be honest you've listed all sorts of things you're not happy with which you feel demonstrates a problem. But on the last page you simply said INEQUALITY in big capital letters. That's it. No discussion. No desire to answer any of my questions about why you believe that manifests as a problem in Hollywood films. You appear to be completely unprepared to talk about this further.
Earlier you said that Hollywood would take notice of the voices on social media kicking up a fuss and will feel obliged to make changes. But do you honestly believe that Hollywood are going to comprehend this sort of clusterf**k of opinions coming from thousands of people on Twitter or social media in general any better than I can?
Interesting take on matters that you think I have an agenda.
On the last post on the previous page I demonstrated that I have shown understanding towards some of your points. You however responded to that post by treating me with suspicion and hostility, replying with hostile replies such as 'what's your point?' when I was simply demonstrating how I agreed with you over the point that some people took exception to an all-female cast. You wouldn't accept that, or didn't like it, or were paranoid enough to be suspicious.
You see even when I agreed with you on some things or displayed that I shared an opinion with you, it just wasn't good enough for you.
There's always a problem, there's absolutely no attempt to meet somebody with differing opinions halfway.
At one point I recommended a show for you that you may not have seen. That was being freindly, it wasn't patronising, or anything, it was simply being friendly. Your response to that was quite incredible. It was just incredibly hostile.
Is this really the type of discourse which you believe Hollywood will respond to favourably?
So I'd have to ask you to rethink the idea that I have failed to comprehend your points, and ask yourself who's not comprehending who.
And now again, you have a problem with me being patronising towards you by saying that it can be enriching to explore thoughts and ideas you may not readily agree with, I mean genuinely explore them. That wouldn't apply to just you, it applies to anyone including myself.
Discussion can not be furthered if you refuse to engage with the person you disagree with by refusing to consider their points honestly and with a rational calm.
I haven't 'dug' to find common ground, I've genuinely sought to understand your points of view and get you to clarify them, and where appropriate I've found it important to show you where I can agree with you. If you're not prepared to do that then how can discussion advance?
Even when I'm being friendly or simply being civil, you're perceiving it as me being patronising towards you.
You still haven't addressed my questions about what the problem actually is and how it pertains to Hollywood.
Yes you've listed various stats and expressed your various points of view. But just because you say that it means there is a problem, there isn't until you actually identify what that problem actually is. It's not about repeating your points, it's about thinking about those points and elaborating on them to identify a problem you have to demonstrate how it has manifested into an actual problem.
Stats in themselves are not a problem. You have to quantify what that problem actually is.
You apparently don't care about the quality of writing for female characters, you only care about quantity and meeting some kind of employment quota?
From this I presume that you mean that Hollywood needs to employ more women.
That's all I can possibly gather from this. You can't blame me if I have not comprehended what you said correctly.
Please refer to my previous posts where I have repeatedly pointed out that I did not state what you are claiming I did, or you manipulated my point in some way. In fact, see a few points below too.
Because you have repeatedly taken this quote to mean that I give absolutely no consideration to quality of writing at all, which is categorically not what that quote says. Yet you have continued to misguidedly interpret it as the following:
Nowhere did I even indicate that "I do not care" about quality. I did say it's a seperate issue, and I also said the following:
So you've completely jumped to a conclusion there. You've done that a lot, actually.
No I didn't:
...
Where have you got that from? I've replied to pretty much every point you've made, and I cannot say the same of you. However, it gets increasingly dull to continue to state the same opinions over and over again because you are either not comprehending them or being deliberately obtuse.
Again, putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly said they gather feedback. I never said they feel obliged to make changes, but I'd like to think some filmmakers (most?) would consider them. As I said before, it's just good business sense if you're going for the mass audience and as much box office as possible.
Who knows? I'm sure there is as much brilliance as their is rubbish on social media. Why is the comparison to your comprehension important here? Are you an authority on this?
Where have you demonstrated understanding of my points? I see repeated attempts at manipulating my points, non-sequiturs and missing the point entirely. My last two out of three posts clearly pointed this out.
Honestly I think you are projecting. I'm peffectly calm. "What's your point?" is not hostile, it's a perfectly valid question.
Sorry - am not seeing any agreement with my original point here, it reads to me as a paragraph about your own personal preferences, which I genuinely am not sure why you included (no paranoia, I promise!)
...
How have you jumped to that conclusion? Because I don't agree with your opinions that I find to be largely based on leaps in logic and huge assumptions. Do people not disagree with you often, then? It's entirely my right to disagree with you, it doesn't mean I disagree with everyone ever.
By the way, the only problem is that this entire situation of me having to directly quote conversations to try and make you see that you're putting words into my mouth is tedious! You're coming to very dramatic conclusion about me as a
person based on very little.
Also from the same movie, they had Alice Eve as Carol Marcus strip to her underwear for a full frontal shot. They were trying to establish her as a top weapons expert that halted to say, 'see she looks good in underwear too' people didn't like it and the writer apologised.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/may/21/star-trek-into-darkness-writer-underwear-scene
Then I see the cast, and, think, Bridesmaids with Ghosts? I did enjoy Bridesmaids and I quite like some of McCarthy's films, so I will go and see this with an open mind and watch it for what it is meant to be.. ENTERTAINMENT... It may be a rubbish film, it may be ok, or it may actually be quite good.
Can't please everyone.
No it should't be this question as it was original an all male cast, so the question is why change it?
Because it's a new spin, perhaps?
Any Ghostbusters reboot was always going to be compared to the original. So why not do something different? The black cast of The Wiz didn't erase any previous version of The Wizard of Oz. The musical remakes of Little Shop of Horrors and The Producers didn't erase the original movies. The grimdark modern Batman movies didn't erase the colourful 1960s movie and TV series.
What exactly is the problem with a remake or reboot doing something different? Sometimes radical departures work, other times they don't. Is it just anxiety over uppity women "appropriating" the source material?
Now, what I've seen of this film doesn't look promising. However, let's not forget that Blues Brothers 2000 assembled almost all the surviving cast of the classic original, yet John Landis still managed to make the most soulless soul film ever. If those guys can stand up to urinate into John Belushi's grave, why shouldn't a female cast take a squat over the corpse of Harold Ramis?
True.:D The problem probably has a lot to do with reboots in general. Most people I see tend to hate them. There are probably one or two exceptions which are well received and it is was felt that they were treated well. But generally speaking people just don't seem to like reboots.
BIB I never said that at any point.
You believe that inequality in itself is a problem in Hollywood.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if you want to make Hollywood change its ways you're going to need to articulate that in a clear manner and be specific in what ways this s a problem. You need to state to them exactly how you expect them to fix this problem.
Send them to social media and get them to read these loud voices you agree with, link them to articles by professors who have their theories, but unless you let them know what it is you exactly want them to do then I think your demands will fall on deaf ears.
But as I have said Hollywood isn't like a conventional company where you apply for a 9 to 5 job and claim a monthly salary. It's a nebulus beast where they employ who they want to based on who they believe has more talent, or whether they just seem right for the role whether they be men or women. If they prefer somebody for a role over somebody else, then it's their call.
If they think that one cinematographer is right for what they want to achieve, they'll employ them.
As I have said, one of the nuances involved is the pool they have to select from. For example what happens if it's the case that not many women decided to get into film directing when they were much younger, and most of the experienced directors around now who have demonstrated good work over the years just happen to be male?
Of course there are very good female directors around. But how many films get made in Hollywood?
You have to look at nuances such as this and be a lot more flexible in considering how realistic your proposals or demands are.
If a film producer really wants a certain director for the film who happens to be a man, you can't make him hire a female director just because a quota for male directors for other films has been filled. It's just not going to happen. They want who they want in the knowledge of everything that individual person brings to the table.
Of course this reboot of Ghostbusters brought about by Amy Pascal will demonstrate how effective having a mostly female cast and crew can be.
It will either succeed, or it won't.
If it succeeds then the women involved I'm sure will be hired for future projects.
I think that you need to accept that making films is not a right. You could introduce some form of affirmative action for women, but it's mostly an industry based on meritocracy.
It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, you can only get hired for projects if you're wanted.
Personally though, I think the bigger issue is the fact that it just doesn't look very good. And I like Kristen Wiig too, her SNL stuff was great. Such a wasted opportunity.
So are you talking about the merits of individuals or making gross generalisations about how this new Ghostbusters will demonstrate how effective a mostly female cast and crew can be?
Even though it's directed and co-written by a man who will take the vast majority of praise or blame?
I think it's self explanatory.
Hollywood in general will measure the project by its own success or failure.
Anyone attached to a success will naturally have something good on their CV.
Conversely, if it is a flop it may not be as easy for many involved to find the next job as it would otherwise have been.
Paul Feig is the main head on the block. If the film fails, he will be the person whose writing and direction is blamed. The visuals seem technically competent, so there's no reason why crew members should suffer. (Most of the criticism will be aimed at the CGI, anyway.) The cast already have proven successes, so they won't go straight to Dan Ackroyd's current position in the Hollywood gutter.
Of course, you're not addressing the generalisation you made about this film demonstrating whether or not it's a good idea to have a mostly female cast and crew. Surely you realise how rampantly sexist that comment was?
I thought I just did address it.
Yes I realise how rampantly sexist that comment was. That was kind of the point.
Its success or failure will be judged by Hollywood itself, the organisation you claim is sexist. Why wouldn't they judge it through a sexist lens if they are indeed sexist?
No, you stated this film will demonstrate how effective it is to have a mostly female cast and crew. Not Hollywood's perception of how effective it is, but how effective it:actually is. YOU were making the gross generalisatiion, so stop trying to shrug it off with a disingenuous "Those Hollywood guys are the sexists."
Why you would assume one cast and crew on one movie would "demonstrate" anything about an entire sex remains a mystery. It's almost as if you're looking forward to crowing over the probable failure of this film. "I'm not a sexist, but those damn uppity women should have stayed out of men's work."
What do you mean 'No'?
I've just told you 'yes'. I've just told you what I meant. Not that it really required an explanation.
Who else is going to judge whether the film is a success or not if not Hollywood itself?
What the hell is your problem? This is crazy.
Across a handful of posts I've expressed how I feel about what I think with actual words.
However I've seen one or two posts from another poster which have made nasty insinuations about me similar to yours, where they appear to have tried to read my mind rather than referring to actual words I have actually posted.
I pretty much let them go up till now.
Why do you want to be so horrible? You actually posted an imaginary quote of me saying that I think women should stay out of men's work.
Considering that you believe that you're posting in this thread on the back of a noble cause, how do you honestly feel about your own behaviour when trying to paint a poster in an extremely negative light by trying to project an image onto them of being sexist which has come from your imagination?
Do you really believe that your behaviour is any better than the behaviour you believe Hollywood is guilty of? Really, do you?
You said that Hollywood is sexist.
I actually said that maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
And I said that "this film will demonstrate how effective having a mostly female cast and crew can be".
And it will be. You know it will. And if you believe that Hollywood is sexist then you know that it definitely will be judged by that criteria.
But....you have read that statement through a very distorted lens, and have made a massive assumption and have decided, even after asking me for clarification, that I myself am a sexist.
You don't consider for a second that my statement also leaves it open for the film to prove doubters wrong, and that a team of women can demonstrate creative talent.
But you don't want to believe that do you?
It has to be said though that even if it's a crap film it will probably still be financially successful due to the controversy surrounding it and attracting audiences like flies round sh*t as they want to see what all the fuss was about. But hey, it'd still count as a success.
Ever since you entered this thread you were overly defensive, po-faced, and hostile to other posters.
This is not a good approach to take if you want to persuade other people around to your point of view.
I disagree with many of your points, but you have taken umbrage to that and rather than respond by means of general discussion would rather try to paint me in the same light as the people in Hollywood you believe to have problems with women.
The irony is that I agree with some of your points. But I just don't agree with all of them and you really do not seem to like that.
In a few posts I have posted how I feel about women and equality, but I won't quote myself, they are still there. But you'd rather ignore that and try to twist words and play with semantics to paint me in a very unsavoury light?
If you'd really rather do that than discuss the subject of the thread then your time in this thread has probably been wasted as much as mine has.
Very little has been achieved here, simply because you refuse to talk with anyone who doesn't subscribe to your opinions 100%.
If you want people to be more open to your ideas and thoughts then I think you're going to need to moderate your approach. Attacking another poster by labeling them as sexist is not the right way to go about doing things.
It's a really shitty thing to do. It's only going to serve to make it appear as if you'd rather attack the character of the person rather than the content of what they say.
Deserves everything it gets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36191146
I trust this 'brigade' you refer to will be out in force for the Magnificent Seven remake on its way then?
Unless you're tilting at windmills of course.
As for Ghostbusters, you have to wonder what the response would be if an all-male remake produced equally underwhelming trailers.
Indeed. Blues Brothers 2000 is an example of a film that had all the right ingredients, yet still managed to be awful.
Awful sequels, remakes and reboots have been around for years. But people seem determined that this new Ghostbusters should prove a point about why a female cast is a bad idea.
It could be any one male female 10 years old to 99 years old I would feel the same, it being a female cast for me and I hope others is not the point.
Like how red tails was actually offensive and crap, but they framed it as "to not like is RACISM RACIST!!!!!!!!!" in order to avoid another shitty lucas backed film being panned.
If you are unsure about this film, just consider if you like the Transformers movies, if yes then you will love this trash. If not, move on, plenty more to see.
But.... it's not even out yet