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

[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.

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.

Bullshit. People criticize bad remakes all the time, and always have. The only difference here is film makers and some media responding to such criticism by declaring their critics sexist, racist, or whatever. You can't hide behind a skirt when there is no skirt to hide behind. A remake that puts another man in for a role that had a man in it initially has to simply take the criticism without the excuse of accusing the critic of misogyny.

And it is toxic to denigrate the women actresses and their roles just because of your values.

You should probably stop doing that then. As I wrote above, these women are talented actresses and they deserve better than to be given substandard scripts and production.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's not about wokeness, it's about trying to make money.

You are both right. It is trying to make money (or more often avoiding losing money for a substandard effort) off of wokeness.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What isn't in the quote is any suggestion by another1 that remakes without the female inserts are an issue.

Whats isn't in the quote is any mention whatsoever of gender. And if you are wondering if another1 thinks remakes starring men have been pretty bad too, you could always, you know, ask him, rather than leaping to conclusions and pretending he wrote something he didn't.

 

[Toni]

Bullshit. People criticize bad remakes all the time, and always have. The only difference here is film makers and some media responding to such criticism by declaring their critics sexist, racist, or whatever. You can't hide behind a skirt when there is no skirt to hide behind. A remake that puts another man in for a role that had a man in it initially has to simply take the criticism without the excuse of accusing the critic of misogyny.

Except when some people criticize how horrible it is to cast women in roles formerly held by men. You know: misogyny.

And it is toxic to denigrate the women actresses and their roles just because of your values.

You should probably stop doing that then. As I wrote above, these women are talented actresses and they deserve better than to be given substandard scripts and production.

Laughing dog is some kind of casting director? I did not know that.

 

[Toni]

That's how it was advertised and promoted. And clearly little effort was put into it. The cast deserved better, as did the franchise/original.

Really? I thought it was pretty well done and as far as most remakes go, it was pretty good. It seemed to me that a lot of thought and effort was put into making an updated version. I thought it was a little bit of a let down as they changed the premise so they lost that cynical conman finds out his scam is real thing that the original had going for it. I understand why they changed the premise but that change lost some of the charm/ partially broken fourth wall thing that Murray had going on. Plus, the original was, well, original. Also in the remake, I did not like the parade of balloon figures near the end. I did think the flash mob was really funny though.

You did like it? 'Kay. No need to have a hissy fit because not everyone agrees with you, and many see it as substandard and stamped as "female" to avoid such criticism.

I'm not the one having a hissy fit or calling into question other people's taste levels. I'm not the one crying that they've ruined my childhood by making a remake of a beloved film from my childhood. That would be some other poster(s).

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

Relevance?

"Ebert's" review was referred to. He didn't review it. He was dead at the time and still is. Which is sad but still a fact.

 

[laughing dog]

Bullshit. People criticize bad remakes all the time, and always have. The only difference here is film makers and some media responding to such criticism by declaring their critics sexist, racist, or whatever. You can't hide behind a skirt when there is no skirt to hide behind. A remake that puts another man in for a role that had a man in it initially has to simply take the criticism without the excuse of accusing the critic of misogyny.

Criticism driven by the gender swap is evidence of misogyny no matter how much bullshit you spout,

You should probably stop doing that then. As I wrote above, these women are talented actresses and they deserve better than to be given substandard scripts and production.

Unsurprisingly, you think your aesthetics trump those of talented actresses.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The originals don't exist as the same thing, once they have been pooped all over.

How sad for you.
I grew up thinking James Bond WAS Sean Connery. Best lines, best women, some of the best toys, some of the best villains, THE best villainous henchmen. He had it all and his legacy has stood the test of remakes, restarts, parodies, and Peter Sellars.
They could cast Paul Reubens as the next Bond, played as PeeWee Hernan, with Gadget Hackwrench as Q, and i would loose nothing in my regard for Diamonds Are Forever.

 

[ruby sparks]

They’ve remade James Bond films with a new actor? Why wasn’t I told about this?

I am now very perturbed indeed!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Except when some people criticize how horrible it is to cast women in roles formerly held by men. You know: misogyny.

Sure, misogyny exists. That doesn't invalidate the text you quoted. And not wanting a character to gender swap isn't necessarily sexist either. Gender can sometimes be core to a character. Wonderwoman wouldn't make much sense if recasted as a male.

I'm also still curious if you think this is mostly about misogyny or about people not wanting characters they have come to know and enjoy changing something fundamental about them. If the former, then again I ask you why nobody complains about the long list of female action characters I listed a few pages back. Nobody objects to Danerys Targarean, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sarah Connor, Supergirl, Xena Warrior Princess, etc being women. Why not? They are all in role-types that have previously been filled by men. Arnold's Terminator came before Sarah Connor solo films. Kevin Sorbos' Hercules launched Xena. Superman preceded Supergirl.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They’ve remade James Bond films with a new actor? Why wasn’t I told about this?

I am now very perturbed indeed!

Well, the Moore you know, the better you do.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Bullshit. People criticize bad remakes all the time, and always have. The only difference here is film makers and some media responding to such criticism by declaring their critics sexist, racist, or whatever. You can't hide behind a skirt when there is no skirt to hide behind. A remake that puts another man in for a role that had a man in it initially has to simply take the criticism without the excuse of accusing the critic of misogyny.

Criticism driven by the gender swap is evidence of misogyny no matter how much bullshit you spout,

1. That's not true. There are oles that could be rightly criticized given a gender swap in either direction.

2. Much of the criticism isn't driven by the gender swap. The gender swap is often used as a shield against criticism. Saying so apparently riles up your comrades, and you feel the need to white knight for them. Good boy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's not about wokeness, it's about trying to make money.

You are both right. It is trying to make money (or more often avoiding losing money for a substandard effort) off of wokeness.

No. It's just trying to make money. That's like saying remaking charlies angels with men is necessarily because of misogyny. I mean, it could be, but it's completely unsubstantiated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Also, I still can't believe you guys are complaining about this. So many men dying in the world and your activism is crying about a movie people are free to make that harms no one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Also, I still can't believe you guys are complaining about this. So many men dying in the world and your activism is crying about a movie people are free to make that harms no one.

It would have been a simple brief comment if so many didn't feel the need to leap at it and turn it into such a hubub. Had people not micharacterized what another1 wrote, I wouldn't even have commented at all.

 

[ruby sparks]

They’ve remade James Bond films with a new actor? Why wasn’t I told about this?

I am now very perturbed indeed!

Well, the Moore you know, the better you do.

Good one.

I will offer the observation that less is often Moore.

 

[laughing dog]

Bullshit. People criticize bad remakes all the time, and always have. The only difference here is film makers and some media responding to such criticism by declaring their critics sexist, racist, or whatever. You can't hide behind a skirt when there is no skirt to hide behind. A remake that puts another man in for a role that had a man in it initially has to simply take the criticism without the excuse of accusing the critic of misogyny.

Criticism driven by the gender swap is evidence of misogyny no matter how much bullshit you spout,

1. That's not true. There are oles that could be rightly criticized given a gender swap in either direction.

Then the gender swap is irrelevant and is not driving the criticism.

2. Much of the criticism isn't driven by the gender swap. The gender swap is often used as a shield against criticism.

You are admitting that there is criticism driven by the gender swap. But you continue to blather on trying to deny the obvious. I am sure your misogynist and toxic MRA comrades are grateful for your efforts.

 

[Toni]

Except when some people criticize how horrible it is to cast women in roles formerly held by men. You know: misogyny.

Sure, misogyny exists. That doesn't invalidate the text you quoted. And not wanting a character to gender swap isn't necessarily sexist either. Gender can sometimes be core to a character. Wonderwoman wouldn't make much sense if recasted as a male.

I'm also still curious if you think this is mostly about misogyny or about people not wanting characters they have come to know and enjoy changing something fundamental about them. If the former, then again I ask you why nobody complains about the long list of female action characters I listed a few pages back. Nobody objects to Danerys Targarean, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sarah Connor, Supergirl, Xena Warrior Princess, etc being women. Why not? They are all in role-types that have previously been filled by men. Arnold's Terminator came before Sarah Connor solo films. Kevin Sorbos' Hercules launched Xena. Superman preceded Supergirl.

It’s apples and oranges. New characters are new characters. In the Ghost Busters reboot, the characters were all new characters. No one was Petra Vinkman for example. Yet we can see examples in this thread of people whining that their childhoods have been ruined by the reboot. Because it had a mostly female lead cast.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Also, I still can't believe you guys are complaining about this. So many men dying in the world and your activism is crying about a movie people are free to make that harms no one.

It would have been a simple brief comment if so many didn't feel the need to leap at it and turn it into such a hubub. Had people not micharacterized what another1 wrote, I wouldn't even have commented at all.

So your answer is to whine about meta-discussion. OMFG!

 

[another1]

The originals don't exist as the same thing, once they have been pooped all over.

How sad for you.
I grew up thinking James Bond WAS Sean Connery. Best lines, best women, some of the best toys, some of the best villains, THE best villainous henchmen. He had it all and his legacy has stood the test of remakes, restarts, parodies, and Peter Sellars.
They could cast Paul Reubens as the next Bond, played as PeeWee Hernan, with Gadget Hackwrench as Q, and i would loose nothing in my regard for Diamonds Are Forever.

What kind of message are the gender swapping scenarios sending to everyone, Keith. I see nothing unfair about the 007 franchise yet... but you do know the um, next changes to come to 007, right? Get back to me when they drop THAT turd.
The need to hit a Christian is sometimes stronger than the need to insert a good point, I totally understand.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Also, I still can't believe you guys are complaining about this. So many men dying in the world and your activism is crying about a movie people are free to make that harms no one.

It would have been a simple brief comment if so many didn't feel the need to leap at it and turn it into such a hubub. Had people not micharacterized what another1 wrote, I wouldn't even have commented at all.

So your answer is to whine about meta-discussion. OMFG!

You whine about an answer to your question on a topic you say doesn't matter but keep posting about. Good job.