MovieChat Forums > Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016) Discussion > this and charlies’ angels is proof that ...

this and charlies’ angels is proof that feminists do not understand women


They totally lack the ability to write compelling female characters and instead devolve into infantile and stereotypical portrayal of women which ends up not appealing to anybody

reply

They think they can create strong women by adapting male characteristics into female characters which quite frankly don't always translate very well into women, some of them feel like generic male types.

reply

You know there's something about the original made back in the 80's where an all male team like John Carpenter's The Thing and Predator enhances everything Ghostbusters is going for, the fact the original was all men made it feel more natural but when you look at the all female cast it just feels forced like many woke stuff now, so there's thing's about the story of Ghostbusters that didn't call for an all female cast.

reply

That's it..what you just said about it feels forced.. the same applies to Rey in SW, the latino girl in Dark Fate, Michael Burnham in Trek Discovery..

They all feel really forced and unrealistic unlike anything prior in the franchise, where even the lamest character just felt normal (it also didn't help that the actors aren't believable either)

reply

It's a curious boys thing Ghostbusters, the characters we know and love don't quite translate to women very well, some of the female cast feel like they're playing generic male types and it just feels awkward and clunky, which is true of many woke stuff where male characters don't quite translate to female characters.

Most of the woke actresses are bland and boring or completely sexless which wouldn't appeal to any major demographic at all.

reply

Agreed, and its exactly WHY the original Charlies Angels did work. They were hot woman, and their sexuality was part of their strength, just like in real life.

reply