MovieChat Forums > Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) Discussion > Forbes Writer Blasts New Woke-Free ‘Ghos...

Forbes Writer Blasts New Woke-Free ‘Ghostbusters’: ‘Misogynistic Trolls Getting What They Want’

posted 4 years ago by Satan2016 (23309)
40 replies | jump to latest

https://www.dailywire.com/news/forbes-writer-blasts-new-woke-free-ghostbusters-paul-bois

There’s something strange in the neighborhood, something weird. Hollywood may finally be learning the lesson behind that newly-minted conservative axiom – get woke, go broke. Nothing better illustrates that than Sony’s reported decision to completely shelve the 2016 box office flop that was the feminist “Ghostbusters” remake in favor of a new movie that continues the original 1980s storyline unaltered, the one where a couple of scientists save the world by creating their own business while defying the EPA.

Unsurprisingly, the woke-scolds are deeply offended by the change of plans. Writing over at Forbes, entertainment reporter Scott Mendelson denounced Sony’s decision as placating “misogynistic trolls,” because apparently, incels in their parents’ basement are to blame for the box office failure that was the 2016 feminist reboot.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Well appealing to everybody including fans is usually the first order of business to insure the movie would do decently enough, these woke scolds are trying to put a square peg into a round hole a movie about ghost hunting isn't going to appeal to enough women alone for it to be profitable, a feminist genre movie is hardly a massive sell with any major demographic.

[–] Kowalski (57833) 4 years ago

THE IDEA IS,IT SHOULDNT HAVE TO APPEAL TO "ENOUGH WOMEN" TO BE SUCCESSFUL...FEMALE CAST ASIDE THE FILM SHOULD APPEAL TO ENOUGH PEOPLE,PERIOD....THEY MADE A MEDIOCRE MESS HOWEVER. THE FACT THAT THE FILM IS BAD SHOULD MAKE ALL OTHER POINTS MOOT.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

It was gender over substance. The all female cast did make it feel it was being made for a female orientated audience only which probably alienated audience members and may had resulted in it's lukewarm reception.

[–] Kowalski (57833) 4 years ago

A MOVIE WITH A MAJORITY FEMALE CAST SHOULDNT BE PERCEIVED AS AIMED AT A FEMALE AUDIENCE...THE MOVIE WAS BAD ALL BY ITSELF,GENDER ASIDE.. TO REST ANY PART OF QUALITY OR SUCCESS/FAILURE ON THE GENDER OF THE CAST WOULD ONLY LEND CREEDENCE TO THE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS THAT IT FAILED BASED ON FEMALE CAST.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Nobody cares if the Ghostbusters were all women, it's not like any of the actresses are sex symbols or massive box office draws, it's not if it's a story of social norms it's a movie about ghosthunting.

It's a curious boys thing Ghostbusters, it's a parody of pest control, who your gonna get to be exterminators? bums and misfits, it's a job that doesn't quite appeal to many women really.

[–] Kowalski (57833) 4 years ago

LMAO...BOYS THING...I SEE YOU ARE UNREACHABLE...HAVE A NICE DAY.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Shut up

[–] Kowalski (57833) 4 years ago

DONT THROW A TANTRUM.

[–] JBran (1583) 4 years ago

Kowalski your over-excited ectoplasm has stuck your caps lock key in.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

I hope this continues!

In the 1930s and 40s there were lots of very good movies starring female leads. The movies were dramas, mysteries, etc and the females were quality characters.

I do not know what went wrong there, but if they want to start that up, go ahead. Make movies with female leads and make them the hero. Replacing male characters with females, white characters with blacks, is very tiring, insulting, and heinous. So, just come up with new stories featuring what sex or race you want.

If they did it in the 40s, they can do it again.

[–] Kowalski (57833) 4 years ago

THEY WERE NEW CHARACTERS...NO REPLACING HAPPENED...THEY JUST FUCKED IT UP...REAL BAD.

[–] sslssg (27625) 4 years ago

I think one of the problems is that currently everything (at least it seems) is a remake/reboot/sequel and so because there is nothing really new being made, the only female lead roles are the ones that are just recycled.

I guess it won't stop until every one of these remakes flops.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Female versions of things tend to work better as off shot characters like a work colleague, sister, cousin or girlfriend.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2645) 4 years ago

Jesus. This Scott Mendelson guy is an absolute bitch. I'm glad he's run off crying to his safe space or whatever snowflakes do.

When will these losers understand it doesn't matter the age/sex/race of the characters. It matters they are well written. You will go nowhere forcing your BS understanding of equality on the audience. I don't know why more women aren't outraged at this sort of thing. Expecting women to carry a bad film just because they're female...

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

That's correct.

As I mentioned, in the 40s there were lots of female films, but they were well written. Trash with females or females replacing loved male characters is terrible and will fail.

Who pays to make movies that you could ask and idiot about and he would tell it will fail?

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Sometimes male characters don't translate well into female.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

They never do.

Many people have probably watched Ghostbusters every time it's been on TV. If you have that going on, you can't replace the characters. If you're remaking a 1928 French film, then go ahead.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Pest control isn't exactly a job that appeals to many women really.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

Women love supernatural stuff though!

If it was their daughters or anything that would have been okay.

I laughed at Thor (can't spell his last name) in the film. He was great. When he plays a fool he's so good at it.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

As said before female versions of things tend to work better as a work colleague, girlfriend, sister or cousin. They could've easily had been a mixed cast of guys and girls as Ghostbusters like with Extreme Ghostbusters which would've been less of a issue with fans or perhaps a better sell with audiences.

[–] Kowalski (57833) 4 years ago

" female versions of things tend to work better as a work colleague, girlfriend, sister or cousin. "

HOW CAN YOU BE SO SEXIST AND NOT EVEN REALIZE IT?

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

You might like films with females if they were well written characters that made sense.
I'm a huge film fan and love movies from the 30s and 40s. For whatever reason, there were a lot of lead actresses that would be the main character in films. There were a lot of films about women and they were dramas, mysteries, etc that would keep you interested.

In these films, women were smart and had to solve problems as a woman would, which is using their brains and strategy, not kung fu and machine guns. So, you might like that kinda stuff.

We currently get movies where the lead should be a man but they stuff a female character into the role and it is obviously stupid. With Ghostbuster, because they use technology, you could have women, but the film went wrong because there was no explanation why they are women. Also, it wasn't a good movie but rather like a bunch of skits.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

If your gonna have an all female cast you have to have a good reason for it, Ghostbusters isn't like a story of women's rights it's a story about ghosthunting. Race or gender really doesn't matter it's the quality that matters.

None of the all female cast have the same comic timing or chemistry as the original cast.

A lot of feminist genres movies now are flopping.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

They are horrible and I can't wait until it ends.

They have been failing for years now. How and why is Hollywood paying for films that obviously will fail?

Meanwhile, if they would hire some writers, they could make films with women. These films seem like an attempt to annoy men, than to be good films. It's weird.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Making all women films to annoy isn't raising expectations too high as just scarring off customers, it's like it somebody made an ok film with an all black cast and said this is a black movie for black people, it's one thing if it's coming from audience members but when it's coming from the cast and crew themselves it's not so much inducing audiences flocking to the cinema as inducing face palms.

Think in the 2020's the feminist trend would be ending.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

Yes.

Almost nothing in our society is "market drive" it's people in producing forcing things on you you never asked for. The only way it stops is if it totally fails, then rich people may give you some version of what you actually want.

I hope it ends.

However, as I've been saying, it doesn't have to end. They can just do it properly instead of trying to piss people off, which is a white people thing. Fake liberal white people do hateful things to piss other white people off, a lot.

In Thor, they made the one character black. A white guy makes a Viking black, which is stupid, and they doesn't give him any lines and he's just a "token black guy" standing there being black. And, he's a "magical negro" on top of it because he knows more than the white characters.

Those are all white covert racist things to do, tokenism, and the Magical Negro.

These movies strike me as petulant "gay" white people moves which are bitchy, not profound attempts to create stories.

That's why we hate them, they are "Bitch moves" and that's what isn't liked.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

It's pandering to SJWs and feminists.

Making genre movies feminist and SJW can create demographic problems.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

Like I've said above, it seems like an attempt to annoy males, by other males who are bitchy.

Genre movies are typically liked by males and Hollywood is dumping money, then losing it, into creating films, costing MILLIONS, to piss off young male viewers, which is the demographic.

It is WEIRD from a business perspective.

If I was funding a film, I would be like:

1. Do we have a good script with lots of twists and turns.
2. Is it fast paced.
3. Do we have witty dialogue.
4. Is the lead character a cool male with a code of honor.
5. Do we have an actor with charisma and an athletic body.
6. Do we have a smart supporting cast that everyone would want to hang out with.
7. etc.

If you have wimpy looking heroes, no attention getting stories, people doing bizarre things, like women beating up giant guys, and so forth, it will fail!!

Any moron knows this so WHY do they make them?

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Feminist movement in Hollywood, give women more roles, filmmakers probably think "if we have all women leads it will make it seem really progressive" or "If we have wimpy looking heroes it will make it seem less sexist".

In these feminist genre movies that bombed not many of the lead actresses are huge box office draws or sex symbols for young boys.

Now Hollywood are using female versions of things as a gimmick, it's like doing a gay reimagining of Romeo & Juliet or an all Asian remake of Friends, it really isn't relevant, it's the quality that's important.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

Yes, but for real, Hollywood is filled with old jewish guys. Are they really "feminists" because I don't believe it. Plus, they want to make money. Some movies will make a billion dollars in a short time, so why would they risk pissing a sure thing audience off?

I makes no sense to me and it almost feels like a conspiracy. I say that because no business wants to piss off customers. But, a PLAN to upset people wouldn't mind that.

Do you know, when the US took over Japan, they PLANNED to demoralize people and they outlawed certain cultural things, like swords? You can't own one. Also, Plato said that the way yo make a population violent is to have "fun violence" not gross realistic violence. I recall that anime about 20 years ago was filled with really gross violence.

Now, Japan is feminized and they even have a low birthrate BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO FUCK, and that is because they now have psychological problems form the feminization.

I have a feeling that something like that is going on with Hollywood. This feminist stuff and replacing women with men is EVERYWHERE and it can't be. The creative process doesn't work that way. These ideas aren't successful, yet they continue over and over, and that makes no sense where money is concerned.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Would a female Ghostbuster been better if it was one of the og cast's daughter or niece? Would the script had been better if it was a mixed cast of guys and girls? Yes only if you got different writers.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

Too worried about women empowerment than making a quality film.

[–] sut6432 (2832) 4 years ago

Why did Ghostbusters of all franchises have to be the one that was sucked into this moronic political vortex???

It’s a movie about scientists that open a business about catching ghosts...now it’s a polarizing “pick a side of the fence” political hot button topic. Screw everyone who turned Ghostbusters into this mess. Mainly...Paul Feig. Why did that douche have to choose Ghostbusters???

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

Because the people that run Hollywood like to lose money for some reason.

They could hire a panel of normal people to judge movie ideas and they would save billions.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

A movie about ghosthunting wasn't going to appeal to enough women who are into chick flicks and rom come etc for such a large scale investment to be profitable.

[–] TimMC (9143) 4 years ago

Misogynistic Trolls = Normal People.

[–] MickyMac (2938) 4 years ago

To be frank a genre movie starring only four women was never going to be a easy sell with any major demographic especially since none of the lead actresses are particularly huge draws at the box office.