Ghostbusters Has Most Disliked Trailer In YouTube History

Status
Not open for further replies.
pothb said:
How is calling a girl ugly misogyny? Just because you judge someone's look, you hate the whole gender/sex? ts a job that has alot to do with looks, to not include that in your judgement is not considering all aspects.
Click to expand...

The argument is that a woman's appearance is none of your business. They aren't there for you to bang (or judge their bangworthiness). You wouldn't attack the looks of a male actor would you? "Nah man, Anthony Hopkins is totally not bangworthy, so Silence of the Lambs must suck". So why do it with an actress?

The argument is that dismissing everything an actress does just because she doesn't meet your standards of beauty reduces her to being just a piece of ass, rather than an intelligent, multi-talented human being. It is essentially dismissing everything about her, and judging her only by her looks.

IMHO, looks are only relevant in an actress if part of the role she is playing is based on having those looks. In other words, if an actress were cast in the role of bombshell love interest, and everyone in the film kept getting stunned by her looks, but the actress playing the role didn't live up to that, then it MIGHT be a valid comment, but otherwise it really is just misogyny. Womens looks aren't yours to comment on, so keep your views to yourself.

Valid reasons to dislike this film include:
- Quality of script
- Talent of cast
- Wisdom of remaking a loved classic with key details (like gender) changed
- Wisdom of remaking Ghost Busters to begin with, even if faithful to the original

Invalid reasons to dislike this film:
- Whether or not you think the actresses are attractive.
 
I've tried to like McCarthy over time, and I really have a major problem time trying to.

I think I've given up there personally myself.

She is not a female John Belushi, hard as she has tried.

The whole project looked like a bit of a mess from conception to begin with to me, as may people have stated.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The argument is that a woman's appearance is none of your business. They aren't there for you to bang (or judge their bangworthiness). You wouldn't attack the looks of a male actor would you?
Click to expand...

I find Sylvester Stallone very difficult to look at ;).

They could have hired comedic titans for this movie, but they didn't. I personally find Melissa McCarthy to be the least funny comedian I've ever seen. I put her a rung below Rob Snyder, who I don't consider even slightly funny, because not only do I not find her antics even slightly funny I also find her incredibly annoying. The rest of the cast are Saturday Night Live alums who I feel pretty indifferent about, although the character Leslie Jones is playing seems like a racist cartoon character in the preview. I would have loved if they'd put Sarah Silverman in this (who else would be a good replacement for Bill Murray's character?).

I didn't really care about the effects, it's not something I care much about. But the remix of the Ghostbusters theme they played in the preview made it think it was going to speed up and transform into the original theme (or a new version of it) and never did. It was also clear that they seemed intent on repeating all the same things the first movie did, which is annoying. Why does Hollywood think we just want the same damn thing over and over?
 
MavericK said:
Sure...it just means you're either sexist, or shallow, or both.
Click to expand...
by that logic almost everyone is sexist and shallow because we have the desire to mate with another person they find attractive... and we're talking about movies: ya know, those things that are "escape" from reality!

You're basically sounding like that Anita chick...
 
Quix said:
I find Sylvester Stallone very difficult to look at ;).

They could have hired comedic titans for this movie, but they didn't. I personally find Melissa McCarthy to be the least funny comedian I've ever seen. I put her a rung below Rob Snyder, who I don't consider even slightly funny, because not only do I not find her antics even slightly funny I also find her incredibly annoying. The rest of the cast are Saturday Night Live alums who I feel pretty indifferent about, although the character Leslie Jones is playing seems like a racist cartoon character in the preview. I would have loved if they'd put Sarah Silverman in this (who else would be a good replacement for Bill Murray's character?).

I didn't really care about the effects, it's not something I care much about. But the remix of the Ghostbusters theme they played in the preview made it think it was going to speed up and transform into the original theme (or a new version of it) and never did. It was also clear that they seemed intent on repeating all the same things the first movie did, which is annoying. Why does Hollywood think we just want the same damn thing over and over?
Click to expand...

Because the same thing over and over again keep making tons of money. Hell Star Wars Ep 7 is the highest grossing moving of all time domestically and #3 worldwide. Dances with Blue Cat People is the top movie in the world.
 
Youn said:
by that logic almost everyone is sexist and shallow because we have the desire to mate with another person they find attractive... and we're talking about movies: ya know, those things that are "escape" from reality!
Click to expand...

Choosing someone to be with and seeing someone's face on a screen are completely different, and as such I would hope your criteria for both are different as well.

Didn't quote your last-minute "Anita" comment because it's just stupid flamebait BS.
 
Youn said:
by that logic almost everyone is sexist and shallow because we have the desire to mate with another person they find attractive... and we're talking about movies: ya know, those things that are "escape" from reality!

You're basically sounding like that Anita chick...
Click to expand...

Were you planning on mating with the new Ghostbusters film, but then decided not to because you saw this trailer? :p
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The argument is that a woman's appearance is none of your business. They aren't there for you to bang (or judge their bangworthiness). You wouldn't attack the looks of a male actor would you? "Nah man, Anthony Hopkins is totally not bangworthy, so Silence of the Lambs must suck". So why do it with an actress?
Click to expand...

Uh, wrong assumption there buddy, I comment of guys looking like fags all the time. I don't discuss their bangability is because don't want to bang men. Are you saying girls don't judge men the same way? If you really think so, you're an idiot or at least naive. They absolutely do.

Zarathustra[H] said:
The argument is that dismissing everything an actress does just because she doesn't meet your standards of beauty reduces her to being just a piece of ass, rather than an intelligent, multi-talented human being. It is essentially dismissing everything about her, and judging her only by her looks.
Click to expand...
Who said I dismissed everything an actress does because she doesn't meet my standards of beauty? Oh, you! and not me. If I did, I wouldn't have commented on how unfunny I found in a female actress who's doing comedy.
Zarathustra[H] said:
IMHO, looks are only relevant in an actress if part of the role she is playing is based on having those looks. In other words, if an actress were cast in the role of bombshell love interest, and everyone in the film kept getting stunned by her looks, but the actress playing the role didn't live up to that, then it MIGHT be a valid comment, but otherwise it really is just misogyny. Womens looks aren't yours to comment on, so keep your views to yourself.
Click to expand...

Women's looks are mine to comment on. As my looks are for anyone else to comment on. Are you kidding me? Are you "triggered" by my words? Do you need a safe space so my oh so heinous words don't touch our sensitive ears? Don't like hearing or reading what I say? Don't go to places that have it.

Zarathustra[H] said:
Valid reasons to dislike this film include:
- Quality of script
- Talent of cast
- Wisdom of remaking a loved classic with key details (like gender) changed
- Wisdom of remaking Ghost Busters to begin with, even if faithful to the original

Invalid reasons to dislike this film:
- Whether or not you think the actresses are attractive.
Click to expand...

Valid reasons are up to the individual who is judging. You might not agree, but don't force your opinions on others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Youn
like this
pothb said:
How is calling a girl ugly misogyny? Just because you judge someone's look, you hate the whole gender/sex? ts a job that has alot to do with looks, to not include that in your judgement is not considering all aspects.

As for hilarity, I only know one of them by face, the SNL girl. I don't really find a lot of her skits funny. I havent seen any of her movies tho, I don't think.
Click to expand...

Because it shouldn't matter. Someone's looks are not a judge of who they are as a person or how well they perform their job. And judging them based on it with comments like, "Makes me want to puke" just shows a lack of maturity and kind of makes them a jerk.
 
MavericK said:
It's misogyny because how many people on here do you hear saying "Eww, that movie has <insert male actor here>, won't be watching that because he's ugly"?
Click to expand...

It's misogyny because people don't do the opposite? Really? And are you sure, really sure, that there aren't people who do it for the opposite sex? How many gay guys or girls do you know? Do you know them all? And lsten to all their conversations?


MavericK said:
Also, comedy has nothing to do with looks as someone else pointed out, so it really has no bearing on anything. You're welcome to think so-and-so is ugly but in a Ghostbusters trailer thread, no one gives a fuck. So why say it in the first place?
Click to expand...

Maybe looks don't have to do wth comedy in and of itself, though I disagree. Lots of people look funny to others. However looks can contribute to how someone might enjoy a movie. So because you don't care about how I think a person looks, I shouldn't say it? Btw, you obviously care because you're commenting on it right now. By your logic, no one should post an opinion unless asked for, but then no one would know another person's opinion would be liked, and so therefore, wouldn't be asked for. How do you think critics get asked? They just walked down the street and a random person asks them out of no where? Laughable. Not to mention, likewise, I can say no one cared about your opinion about my opinion, why say it n the first place?
MavericK said:
As an aside, 3 of the 4 have either been on SNL or are currently on it now.
Click to expand...

I only know of one of them.

MavericK said:
It's not sexist or racist to not enjoy a certain entertainer's style. It's sexist or racist when you dislike them because they are black or because they are a woman. :p
Click to expand...
So its not sexist, because it's not because they are women, it's because they are unattractive women.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Because it shouldn't matter. Someone's looks are not a judge of who they are as a person or how well they perform their job. And judging them based on it with comments like, "Makes me want to puke" just shows a lack of maturity and kind of makes them a jerk.
Click to expand...
Part of being a public figure such as an actor or actress is their looks.
 
NeoNemesis said:
[...]Based on the trailer, the new Ghostbusters appears to be a generic slapstick comedy meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. That is why this movie will fail.
Click to expand...
nah, let's blame the patriarchy that can't handle "strong" women.
 
why is the token black person/woman in the movie relegated to a subway attendant? why can't she be a nuclear physicist?
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Because it shouldn't matter. Someone's looks are not a judge of who they are as a person or how well they perform their job. And judging them based on it with comments like, "Makes me want to puke" just shows a lack of maturity and kind of makes them a jerk.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Snap judgments are human nature. We create an image of what we think a person is like the moment we see them. It's not racist or sexists, it's simply human. We also have absolutely no control over what we are attracted to and what completely turns us off. Let's stop pretending that every statement a person makes has some bullshit "meaning" behind it or that every fucking thing said about a women is "sexist". We think the way we do due to billions of years of evolution and thousands of years of cultural growth. A person's looks matter because they always have. First impressions are important because we ALWAYS make snap judgments. ALWAYS. EVERYONE. If you deny it you are lying or entirely unaware of how your mind works.

K10 said:
why is the token black person/woman in the movie relegated to a subway attendant? why can't she be a nuclear physicist?
Click to expand...

Because the black person was the "average joe" in the original so that means the black woman must be the "average jane" in the crappy cash-in.
 
pothb said:
Part of being a public figure such as an actor or actress is their looks.
Click to expand...

Really...because if you are going off of a "hollywood" standard of beauty, there are some ugly-ass male actors out there who are never called out for their looks and continue to get work, acclaims, etc. How many "hollywood-ugly" actresses are out there getting work? I would wager it's somewhere around one for every hundred "ugly" actors, if that.
 
temujin987 said:
nah, let's blame the patriarchy that can't handle "strong" women.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if it wasn't about that, but unfortunately we don't live in that world, as increasingly evidenced by some of the posts in this thread.

K10 said:
why is the token black person/woman in the movie relegated to a subway attendant? why can't she be a nuclear physicist?
Click to expand...

Leslie Jones herself commented on that: Leslie Jones Responds To Criticism Of Her "Racist" Ghostbusters Role
 
MavericK said:
Really...because if you are going off of a "hollywood" standard of beauty, there are some ugly-ass male actors out there who are never called out for their looks and continue to get work, acclaims, etc. How many "hollywood-ugly" actresses are out there getting work? I would wager it's somewhere around one for every hundred "ugly" actors, if that.
Click to expand...
Just because you think they're ugly, doesn't mean everyone else thnks so.
 
Hollywood standards doesn't take in director preferences either.
 
MavericK said:
Choosing someone to be with and seeing someone's face on a screen are completely different, and as such I would hope your criteria for both are different as well.
Click to expand...
Eh, I still disagree, there is a desire among most to be in the company of attractive people... yea, it's a bit shallow, unfair sure, but it's a thing and influences lots of aspects of our society... that's all I was trying to say

I agree that the criteria should be different, but I'm also aware of my own idealism... I'd love it if the world was free of any sort of harmful bias and prejudice... not sure how that's actually possible though... but staring more people who are not "hollywood" beautiful is a good start, and in that regard I'm totally cool with the cast of this film;... just wish the rest of the film (script, effects) was decent enough to prove looks should not be such a big deal
 
Just watched the trailer again. They make the women seem like idiots and I don't find it funny at all. I generally find women more interesting and have far more girl friends (like 10 to 1 at least) than guy friends and I have worked with far more women than men for years, so I'm no woman hater.
 
VIC-20 said:
Just watched the trailer again. They make the women seem like idiots and I don't find it funny at all. I generally find women more interesting and have far more girl friends (like 10 to 1 at least) than guy friends and I have worked with far more women than men for years, so I'm no woman hater.
Click to expand...
While I agree.... but didn't the original have the same ay with their characters? I mean, they were scientists or whatever but the idiotic awkward stereotype. It's been awhile since i"ve seen those old ones though.
 
pothb said:
While I agree.... but didn't the original have the same ay with their characters? I mean, they were scientists or whatever but the idiotic awkward stereotype. It's been awhile since i"ve seen those old ones though.
Click to expand...

Not really. They were goofy at times but none of them came off as idiotic. They made some dumb decisions but they were always portrayed as intelligent. Ray was childish at times, very hyper, a tad on goofy side, but clearly smart. Ray has the "dumbest" moments in the movie, but it's really never shown as his defining character trait. Egon was socially awkward but highly intelligent, but even his social awkwardness is nowhere near the way that trope is played in modern comedy. His humor was very dry and all of his jokes come off as unintentional. Bill Murray's Venkman is the one really outright "joke-y" character of the bunch. He takes nothing seriously and only got involved in Ghostbusting for the money. He only takes on Dana's case in order to get in her pants. Yet even with that he is never shown as being stupid, just smarmy. Even the non-scientist character, Winston, is never portrayed as stupid. He's the average joe, the person brought in to ask questions. However he gets the explanations and the movie never talks down to him. His humor is also very dry and reactionary.
 
Ah, well, my memories on that sucked... though I only watched it like 1 or twice.
 
pothb said:
Uh, wrong assumption there buddy, I comment of guys looking like fags all the time. I don't discuss their bangability is because...
Click to expand...
I see what you did there. He was trying to imply you are a bit of an asshat, but you showed him how wrong he is by confirming you are a *gigantic* asshat. Take that, well thought out reply!
Being an equal opportunity dick does not make you sexist, but does still make you a dick.
I'm surely feeding a troll at this point, but I'll take a stab. There are plenty of good reasons to dislike this movie, which we can most all agree on. Every person who limits their criticism to the attractiveness of the female cast lends more credence to the feminist or SJW arguments. So, keep it up; you're doing just what they want you to do.
 
Last edited:
What people seem to be missing is that this thread doesn't have that many "mysogynistc" posts. The article in the OP claims that all hate of the movie trailer stems entirely from misogyny.
 
dethklokworkorange said:
I see what you did there. He was trying to imply you are a bit of an asshat, but you showed him how wrong he is by confirming you are a *gigantic* asshat. Take that, we'll thought out reply!
Being an equal opportunity dick does not make you sexist, but does still make you a dick.
I'm surely feeding a troll at this point, but I'll take a stab. There are plenty of good reasons to dislike this movie, which we can most all agree on. Every person who limits their criticism to the attractiveness of the female cast lends more credence to the feminist or SJW arguments. So, keep it up; you're doing just what they want you to do.
Click to expand...
Wait wait wait, so you're saying it's misogyny because I'm a dick to both sexes? Right? Because feminism is the movement against misogyny now right? So if my being a dick lends more credence to them and other SJWs, it means treating both sexes equally = misogyny, right? That's our reasoning right?

It's rare to see someone claim this so plainly while defending the sjws. I salute you, sir!
 
raz-0 said:
SO was ghost busters 2. That thing was a piece of shit, and it had the original cast and creative team on board. If they couldn't capture the magic again, just don't go back there..
Click to expand...
I don't get why the Real Ghostbusters cartoon was able to capture that magic quite a few times with such tight schedules and the Ghostbusters movie sequels fail so terribly with such lax deadlines for the scriptwriters.


That said, while the trailer is pretty bad, I don't see why it's breaking records in a universe where Adam Sandler and Michael Bay exist, where so many beloved childhood memories have been desecrated lately, and where film comedies in general have been so terrible the last couple of years.
 
So these two videos give some rather interesting potential info for why this movie looks so damn bad:





Potential spoiler warning on the second video if what the rumor says is correct.
 
We are talking about a movie. If some prefer to see beautiful people in them, that is fine, who are any of you to judge? That's sexism, that's misogyny, that is actually bullshit. You like a bit of media or you don't. It appeals to you or not. Trying to claim someone is a misogynist because they don't like something, trying to shame them, is part of why the term SJW and feminist are pejoratives to so many. I can't be shamed into liking this POS. Especially when I have nothing to be ashamed of.

It's a comedy, and going off the trailer, it sucks. Why attach more to it than that?
 
lironmiron said:
I don't get why the Real Ghostbusters cartoon was able to capture that magic quite a few times with such tight schedules and the Ghostbusters movie sequels fail so terribly with such lax deadlines for the scriptwriters.


That said, while the trailer is pretty bad, I don't see why it's breaking records in a universe where Adam Sandler and Michael Bay exist, where so many beloved childhood memories have been desecrated lately, and where film comedies in general have been so terrible the last couple of years.
Click to expand...

Expectations. No one expects a Sandler or Bay movie to be good. No one has that level of love for Sandler films. Bay's Ninja Turtles was really bad but it was mostly ignored. It was like Fan4stic, the bad was well known and well expected. Bay's first Transformers wasn't great but it ended up being a lot better then expected. 2 was a complete piece of shit. 3 and 4 were alright. Ghostbusters is a hugely loved franchise. If this was a bad sequel or just a bad reboot it would likely be less hated. The problem is it's trying to be the first movie all over again. It looks like it's going to try to hit the same beats. People are also getting sick of the all the Hollywood bullshit these days. The trailer paints Ghostbusters to be potentially the worst of the modern reboots/remakes/rewhatevers. It's so unfunny, poorly shot, poorly directed, badly edited, the writing is horrid. Absolutely nothing about that trailer makes it feel like Ghostbusters.
 
pothb said:
Wait wait wait, so you're saying it's misogyny because I'm a dick to both sexes? Right? Because feminism is the movement against misogyny now right? So if my being a dick lends more credence to them and other SJWs, it means treating both sexes equally = misogyny, right? That's our reasoning right?

It's rare to see someone claim this so plainly while defending the sjws. I salute you, sir!
Click to expand...
I hope you performed an appropriate warm up before attempting such a ridiculous stretch. I called you a dick because you were being a dick, albeit an equal opportunity dick, if you wish to wear that as a badge of honor. Any additional labels you chose to add are besides the point, despite your feeble attempt to muddy the waters with semantics. And you are sadly mistaken if you think I am the voice for the feminist movement.
Nobody likes the terrible movie. A few people are trying to excuse the movie's unpopularity and gloss over all its other shortcomings by focusing on the guys being dicks to the female cast. Theirs would be an obviously ridiculous position if it weren't for the guys talking only about how unattractive McCarthy is. If you'd like to discuss that, start another thread in General Mayhem, and I'll be glad to join you in agreement there. But it has no bearing on the movie, or this thread. So, please quit making those of us who agree with you look like asshats, quit making the feminists look correct, and quit calling people fags.
 
dethklokworkorange said:
I hope you performed an appropriate warm up before attempting such a ridiculous stretch. I called you a dick because you were being a dick, albeit an equal opportunity dick, if you wish to wear that as a badge of honor. Any additional labels you chose to add are besides the point, despite your feeble attempt to muddy the waters with semantics. And you are sadly mistaken if you think I am the voice for the feminist movement.
Nobody likes the terrible movie. A few people are trying to excuse the movie's unpopularity and gloss over all its other shortcomings by focusing on the guys being dicks to the female cast. Theirs would be an obviously ridiculous position if it weren't for the guys talking only about how unattractive McCarthy is. If you'd like to discuss that, start another thread in General Mayhem, and I'll be glad to join you in agreement there. But it has no bearing on the movie, or this thread. So, please quit making those of us who agree with you look like asshats, quit making the feminists look correct, and quit calling people fags.
Click to expand...

Oh trust me he is not making you look like an asshat.
 
Koolthulu said:
There is a lot of hatred directed towards the new trailer, primarily because it stars four women (though the haters would have you believe misogyny is not the real driving force behind their invective) and seemingly not at all connected to its quality.

I will be so glad when the age of the SJW is over. The trailer is bad. If you replaced the women with men, it would still be bad.
Click to expand...

Oh heck yes. To an SJW everything they dislike is bad because (fill_in_some_excuse). Everything they view as bad is automatically labeled toxic and therein unspeakable. There is no debate, it's just verboten, end of story. You have no right to say (and if they had the ability to stop it: think) anything they find offensive. Even attempting to debate the viewpoint is considered evil, as it might "trigger" someone.

Insanity.
 
dethklokworkorange said:
I hope you performed an appropriate warm up before attempting such a ridiculous stretch. I called you a dick because you were being a dick, albeit an equal opportunity dick, if you wish to wear that as a badge of honor. Any additional labels you chose to add are besides the point, despite your feeble attempt to muddy the waters with semantics. And you are sadly mistaken if you think I am the voice for the feminist movement.
Nobody likes the terrible movie. A few people are trying to excuse the movie's unpopularity and gloss over all its other shortcomings by focusing on the guys being dicks to the female cast. Theirs would be an obviously ridiculous position if it weren't for the guys talking only about how unattractive McCarthy is. If you'd like to discuss that, start another thread in General Mayhem, and I'll be glad to join you in agreement there. But it has no bearing on the movie, or this thread. So, please quit making those of us who agree with you look like asshats, quit making the feminists look correct, and quit calling people fags.
Click to expand...
Yea, except people were saying I'm a misogynist. And you jumped in with them. He was calling me a misogynist not an "asshat", by implying that I would only do this to women. Maybe next time you jump in, read what the posts firsts.

If you didn't want to get associated with me, next time, don't associate with me.
 
pothb said:
Yea, except people were saying I'm a misogynist. And you jumped in with them. He was calling me a misogynist not an "asshat", by implying that I would only do this to women. Maybe next time you jump in, read what the posts firsts.

If you didn't want to get associated with me, next time, don't associate with me.
Click to expand...
People can dislike you for different reasons. Maybe next time you feel the urge to jump to conclusions, you should read their post first. Again, I didn't accuse you of misogyny, merely of using poor logic. But, now that you mention it, your claim that you can't be a misogynist because you are also a dick to males is absurd. Yes, that would show you are not favoring one side over the other, but that's not what misogyny means. Misogyny and misandry are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can be both; it's called being a misanthrope, a position I am moving closer towards the longer we continue this discussion.
Edit: Maverick pointed out I was looking for misanthrope, not Curmudgeon.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top