Who Agrees Fourth Wave Feminism is Toxic Femininity And Should Be Abolished?

[another1]

That is actually you and the right-wing social media circle jerking doing that, not the producers.

No Jimmy. The right wing are responsible for creating a lie and letting the social media fucks call it progress. They're dependable and predictable on social media if nothing else. They're lapping it up so hard it makes a sick smacking sound. Thinking about it practically ruins this entire circle jerk for me. People really are just stupid, aren't they, Jimmy? Laughing dog I guess we haven't had much contact history so in case you're wondering I stopped believing that inanimate objects can feel pain

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I brought up the dumbing down, changing sexes, shitty writing, poor choices Hollywood feeding on little fads that jerk you off for money, point. I'll stick to that because there is no other issue here for me. Generally I do not care and I will enjoy any distraction they sell me, but they are starting to go too far when they allow x to decide to rile everyone up like this. The gender swaps are more like an attack on men and women both. Animals, insects and inanimate objects all suffer when Ghostbusters is badly filmed with femmales. You know this. It is a quality issue. There are a lot of factors but motivation is what's important. laughing dog, my perception about this is definitely the problem because I am right. I'm beyond caring about certain things man. Emotions do not apply here. It would take actual money to get me to give a FUCK beyond my own viewing experiences.

I feel like a damn cave man arguing about the mirage that forms around the matter and not pointing out that things this ridiculous are usually done on purpose in entertainment. And in this case, not by any well meaning women who just want to feel like they are treated equally. Any decent person wouldn't mind seeing them in more roles. Not that they aren't already in as many as men.

When women can lift as much as men there will be more steel workers. I see no other conflict to address regarding women in America besides emotions. You are aware of what happens to women in other parts world I guess. And how any of them would laugh at you if you cried about any of this... If they're even allowed to laugh at a man without having their clitoris removed?

I liked both Ghost Busters* original franchise (with the first one being the best) and the re-boot with the mostly female cast but I do think the first one was better because of the originality of the concept but mostly because Bill Murray's character was a con artist who didn't believe in the 'research' he was supposedly conducting. The fact that ghosts and other supernatural phenomena turned out to be very real was part of the cachet of the film, along with the fact that Murray never lost a beat in his snide, cynical portrayal. But honestly, the entire cast was great. In the female re-boot, the Kristen Wigg and Melissa McCarthy were far too earnest--they were true believers and so there was never a kind of breaking of the fourth wall with the actors sharing their skepticism with the audience. The real delights of that film were Jones, McKinnon and Hemsworth really stole the show. Loved the nods to the original cast and the musical number at the end was off the charts.

The original was better because it was funny and had good pacing and timing. The comic timing in the new (all female) one is completely off. And its basically poop jokes instead of snappy banter. The actresses in it are all pretty talented but weren't given much to work with and weren't made to look their best in the poorly written, produced and directed film. These reviewers sum it up pretty well. Do you dismiss them as just misogynist?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8oPFZlbxXk[/youtube]

 

[Toni]

I brought up the dumbing down, changing sexes, shitty writing, poor choices Hollywood feeding on little fads that jerk you off for money, point. I'll stick to that because there is no other issue here for me. Generally I do not care and I will enjoy any distraction they sell me, but they are starting to go too far when they allow x to decide to rile everyone up like this. The gender swaps are more like an attack on men and women both. Animals, insects and inanimate objects all suffer when Ghostbusters is badly filmed with femmales. You know this. It is a quality issue. There are a lot of factors but motivation is what's important. laughing dog, my perception about this is definitely the problem because I am right. I'm beyond caring about certain things man. Emotions do not apply here. It would take actual money to get me to give a FUCK beyond my own viewing experiences.

I feel like a damn cave man arguing about the mirage that forms around the matter and not pointing out that things this ridiculous are usually done on purpose in entertainment. And in this case, not by any well meaning women who just want to feel like they are treated equally. Any decent person wouldn't mind seeing them in more roles. Not that they aren't already in as many as men.

When women can lift as much as men there will be more steel workers. I see no other conflict to address regarding women in America besides emotions. You are aware of what happens to women in other parts world I guess. And how any of them would laugh at you if you cried about any of this... If they're even allowed to laugh at a man without having their clitoris removed?

I liked both Ghost Busters* original franchise (with the first one being the best) and the re-boot with the mostly female cast but I do think the first one was better because of the originality of the concept but mostly because Bill Murray's character was a con artist who didn't believe in the 'research' he was supposedly conducting. The fact that ghosts and other supernatural phenomena turned out to be very real was part of the cachet of the film, along with the fact that Murray never lost a beat in his snide, cynical portrayal. But honestly, the entire cast was great. In the female re-boot, the Kristen Wigg and Melissa McCarthy were far too earnest--they were true believers and so there was never a kind of breaking of the fourth wall with the actors sharing their skepticism with the audience. The real delights of that film were Jones, McKinnon and Hemsworth really stole the show. Loved the nods to the original cast and the musical number at the end was off the charts.

The original was better because it was funny and had good pacing and timing. The comic timing in the new (all female) one is completely off. And its basically poop jokes instead of snappy banter. The actresses in it are all pretty talented but weren't given much to work with and weren't made to look their best in the poorly written, produced and directed film. These reviewers sum it up pretty well. Do you dismiss them as just misogynist?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8oPFZlbxXk[/youtube]

I don't do video reviews on youtube. Sorry.

I don't agree that the reboot was 'off' even a little bit. I thought McKinnon and Jones were fantastic and made the most of their roles. This was something of a reversal with in the original, Bill Murray being the definite lead and Dan Akroyd being a close second. McCarthy and Wiig were supposed to be the leads but they were completely outclassed by McKinnon and Jones. I'm not normally much of a fan of Hemsworth--or wasn't. He made the most of the inside joke of his hunky onscreen persona being around as strictly eye candy and didn't take himself seriously. I was surprised at his comedic talent.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Again, one can't account for taste. Glad this abomination has one fan.

 

[ruby sparks]

I saw the original Ghostbusters. Didn't see the (male ghostbuster) 1989 sequel or the 2016 'female ghostbusters'.

But I see that the (male) 1989 only gets a 53% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes, while the (female) 2016 gets a 74%. The audience figures are, respectively, 61% and 50%.

The original 1984 gets 97% (critics) and 88% (audience).

So, the (male) sequel was arguably poor, but....... we're not discussing that one.

25 years later, a bunch of people decide to reboot with a (topical) gender twist, one that they hope will help make the movie a winner and the 'franchise' a winner again, moneywise. I'm failing to be surprised or to see any sort of significant gender politics problem with that whatsoever.

As has been noted, Supergirl first appeared in 1959. Batgirl 1961. Maybe they weren't trying to sell comics in those days.

And I seem to recall something slightly similar being occasionally done with women cowboy lead roles as far back as the 1950's, in that particular film genre.

I'm guessing some of these 'gender moves' worked, and others didn't, for a variety of reasons.

I wish someone would explain to me what the big gender politics problem is though. What is it that we should be so worried about that the subject (and the same films) come up again and again and again in the forum? Apart from subjective personal opinion and anecdote, nobody has yet substantiated that 'woke' castings (in cases where that is in fact what is happening) are, or were, objectively or as part of a trend, generally poorer or failures more often than others, and/or fail or are poorer specifically because of the gender 'issue/factor'. This has not been established, I don't think.

And if this is therefore a bit of a storm in a teacup or a mountain made out of a molehill, my curiosity turns to those who have such a problem with it that it keeps coming up over and over, in the politics forum.

 

[laughing dog]

Again, one can't account for taste. Glad this abomination has one fan.

"Abomination"? Ebert gave it a 2/4 which is not an abomination. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 74% - neither is an abomination. Or were you just being hard on yourself?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And if this is therefore a bit of a storm in a teacup or a mountain made out of a molehill, my curiosity turns to those who have such a problem with it that it keeps coming up over and over, in the politics forum.

You may want to climb down off of that high horse of yours and read what Another1 initially wrote, and the toxic and presumptuous reaction to it. There was no storm until people here personally attacked him for daring to express the opinion that Hollywood is being lazy when they push out remakes and make little effort but to cash in on gender swaps and hide from criticism behind allegations of misogyny.

 

[laughing dog]

And if this is therefore a bit of a storm in a teacup or a mountain made out of a molehill, my curiosity turns to those who have such a problem with it that it keeps coming up over and over, in the politics forum.

You may want to climb down off of that high horse of yours and read what Another1 initially wrote, and the toxic and presumptuous reaction to it. There was no storm until people here personally attacked him for daring to express the opinion that Hollywood is being lazy when they push out remakes and make little effort but to cash in on gender swaps and hide from criticism behind allegations of misogyny.

The only toxic and presumptuous reactions in this thread are yours and Another1's mewling about "gender swaps" and arrogant "aesthetic" pronouncements about quality of movies and roles.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is nothing presumptuous or toxic about wishing better for women in film. Stamping "Female" on a film does not a good film make. An actual effort should be put into such films to do the actresses in them justice. Lazy writing shouldn't be excused just because a film stamps itself with a gender swap.

But thanks for your ever present sniping and white knighting. It is very noble of you.

 

[Toni]

There is nothing presumptuous or toxic about wishing better for women in film. Stamping "Female" on a film does not a good film make. An actual effort should be put into such films to do the actresses in them justice. Lazy writing shouldn't be excused just because a film stamps itself with a gender swap.

But thanks for your ever present sniping and white knighting. It is very noble of you.

Ghostbusters was not a 'stamped female' kind of film. It was a reboot which is not at all uncommon in this era of Hollywood Plays It Safe and Sticks with Franchises and Reboots. Did they decide to capitalize on the comedic talents of four well known female actresses? Sure, just as the original decided to capitalize on the well known talents of Aykroyd and Murray and the rising star power of women. Yay! Jason Moama is cast in a lot of things because of his following as well.

You didn't like it? 'Kay. No need to have a hissy fit because not everyone agrees with you.

Also, we all know that Ebert didn't review the 2016 Ghostbusters film.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And if this is therefore a bit of a storm in a teacup or a mountain made out of a molehill, my curiosity turns to those who have such a problem with it that it keeps coming up over and over, in the politics forum.

You may want to climb down off of that high horse of yours and read what Another1 initially wrote, and the toxic and presumptuous reaction to it. There was no storm until people here personally attacked him for daring to express the opinion that Hollywood is being lazy when they push out remakes and make little effort but to cash in on gender swaps and hide from criticism behind allegations of misogyny.

Odd, because another1 specifically noted:

The redundant gender swapping in Hollywood remakes is more perturbing than the thought of women finally taking over.

Hollywood has been big on remakes since the 1950s and repeated sequels since about the late 90s. Why is it that when women are inserted into these roles, that the remake is perturbing relative to men being inserted into repeat roles? Ocean's 11 comes out as a remake of Oceans 11, and there isn't a peep about remake issues. Put women into Ocean's 8 and all of a sudden men are feeling peturbed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In reading this thread, I can see why masculinists have become very triggered over things into wanting to be social justice warriors. I guess that makes me Woke and I should demand purity on social media everywhere. So, as my first act as a Woke SJW masculinist, let me complain about something REALLY MEANINGFUL in life.

Charlie's Angels. Why are they all good-looking sexy women that men can watch drooling on the boob tube?? It's not fair and it's reverse discrimination against men.

We should have sexy men Charlie's Angels, too!

Reverse Sexism! Reverse Sexism!

The world will never be a just place unless this big priority problem is solved.

 

[ruby sparks]

Odd, because another1 specifically noted:

The redundant gender swapping in Hollywood remakes is more perturbing than the thought of women finally taking over.

"More perturbing than the thought of women finally taking over." Lol. I had missed that. Bit of a giveaway as to the underlying concerns, I'd say.

Ok so maybe I'll start using the word perturbed instead of triggered.

As to this:

White, American women don't know how good they have it. They have it so good, they have time to waste everyone else's time.

Hm. Yes. The amount of our time being wasted is arguably an issue, but it might not be female actors that are doing it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok so maybe I'll start using the word perturbed instead of triggered.

Would that make them Social Justice Worriers?

 

[another1]

"More perturbing than the thought of women finally taking over." Lol. I had missed that. Bit of a giveaway as to the underlying concerns, I'd say.

Ok so maybe I'll start using the word perturbed instead of triggered.

As to this:

White, American women don't know how good they have it. They have it so good, they have time to waste everyone else's time.

Hm. Yes. The amount of our time being wasted is arguably an issue, but it might not be female actors that are doing it.

They suck the novelty out of my treasured memories and replace it with a huge sign that says "women can't do what men can, here's proof". The optics department of this new female power club is really shitty, do you at least agree with that? And if you're going to claim that you care about their plight, shouldn't you bee agreeing with almost everything I've said? As for being perturbed by females taking over, yeah we lack history and that wasn't meant to be taken literally. The only part I'm 100% serious about is don't mess with my stories. I do have a right to defend what I see as sacred. They're kind of destroying monuments, in a way

 

[ruby sparks]

They suck the novelty out of my treasured memories and replace it with a huge sign that says "women can't do what men can, here's proof".

Do they? Is that what they do, as you see it?

I will offer you similar advice to that given to someone else by someone else on the forum. Show on the doll where the bad woke people hurt you.

The optics department of this new female power club is really shitty, do you at least agree with that?

I don't know what you are suggesting, so I don't know if I agree or not, but I have a feeling I don't.

And if you're going to claim that you care about their plight, shouldn't you bee agreeing with almost everything I've said?

Nope.

As for being perturbed by females taking over, yeah we lack history and that wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I see. Hm. Not literal you say. Well, that changes everything.

And if it clarifies, don't necessarily assume I was taking you seriously already anyway. I'm having a bit of trouble with that.

I do have a right to defend what I see as sacred.

You are not being denied your Social Justice Worrier rights here.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok so maybe I'll start using the word perturbed instead of triggered.

Would that make them Social Justice Worriers?

As you can see, I'm using it already.

 

[another1]

darn I hoped you would break apart the terrible sexist I am some more. I think you're being more detrimental to women in what you're saying when you defend the worst remakes in decades because you think you're woke, or want to appear that way. Or maybe you have bad taste, idk

 

[laughing dog]

There is nothing presumptuous or toxic about wishing better for women in film. Stamping "Female" on a film does not a good film make. An actual effort should be put into such films to do the actresses in them justice. Lazy writing shouldn't be excused just because a film stamps itself with a gender swap.

As others have pointed out, lazy writing and remakes in Hollywood have been around for decades. No peeps until women are put into "men's" roles. And it is presumptuous to force your ugly aesthetic values as somehow superior to those of others. And it is toxic to denigrate the women actresses and their roles just because of your values.

But thanks for your ever present sniping and white knighting. It is very noble of you.

Let me get this straight - a backhanded "compliment" from someone who has sniped at a couple posters in this thread and who races to whiteknight misogynists, toxic MRAers and Donald Trump because I accurately describe your posts?

 

[laughing dog]

I do have a right to defend what I see as sacred.

Well, it is pretty pathetic to think roles in movies are sacred. Apparently, you do not wish to extend that "right" to those whose disagreement may also be based on what they view as "sacred".