People need to stop thinking that preferring male leads is a problem.

[Gengisgame]

One of the most common lies you have probably seen on the internet is someone saying

"the sex or race of the lead character doesn't matter to me at all"

Maybe the person typing this is a particularly rare individual whose mind contains no form of bias in this regard but for practically everyone else these things matter to some degree and depending on what it is it matters more and that's ok, that doesn't mean you have a problem with these things, it just means you get more enjoyment out of your preference.

You may prefer your comedies to star a certain sex, you may consider a specific character to be certain sex, you may prefer that stars only be one armed, albinos, that's all ok, as long as your civil about it you can want whatever you want.

Now we have people telling us that if you have certain preferences your problematic, I don't need to go into details but we know the media unleashed a barrage of articles going on about how awful these people where. Many of these people where awful but that's irrelevant just as many of Taylor Swift and Beyonces fans are horrible people when they voice opinions.

But I didn't start this because of the entitled SJW and the clickbait media, it's because I see people going on about how much they disliked the new Ghostbusters and keep saying it's not because it had nothing to do with women, whether this is true or not it's a reactionary defense against this apparently horrible preference.

Paul Fieg directed comedies aimed at women, starring women, when he comes along and takes reign of what of the most popular male led comedies of all time and has it star women there's nothing wrong with saying "hold on, I may have a problem with this change".

I know many of you will disagree, it goes against ingrained mantras you've heard over and over again but most of those same people are hypocrites, they believe that I should be unable to voice my preference in what I buy with my money and must listen to there's because of some oppression scoreboard the seem to keep track of.

Just a reminder as I often need to add to posts like these, I have no problem if your personal preference is not the same as mine, you could love the idea of an all female Ghostbusters, that's ok. I would have been a lot more accepting of an all female cast if had been Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Emma Stone because these are comedic actresses whose work I have found funny in the past (personal preference at work) and at the same time understood why this would mean nothing to a guy who has never watched anything with them in it.

May add more depending on comments.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Preferences shmeferences, I think you kinda left out the most important factor here: how something like the concept of "female cast in a previously male series", when attached to an obnoxious, fingerwagging political agenda demanding everyone to praise it and calling them bigots if they don't, committing various fallacies in the process, can easily become repellent, or more repellent, as a result.

Rationally speaking, you should identify the amount of "agenda" in a given project, have some reasons for "suspecting" a bigger amount of agenda than is certain or unambiguous, and then reject/acccept the product according to those degrees.

A lot of irrational people, however, when seeing this agenda at work, start suspecting it behind every corner - so any instance of "hey, female lead" is perceived as devious SJW pushing.

And in the middle between this ideal, and this anti-ideal, your emotional reactions get influenced, and even if you reject that irrational side, it can still cause you to develop a distaste for a "female cast".

Becoming aware of that, could have a significant effect on curbing that, but the point is, it kinda becomes hard to distinguish between genuine preferences, and preferences influenced by this agenda's presence - and the rejection of feminist agenda, can melt together with a distaste of female leads, inside the brain.

_______

So I agree with this OP, people have preferences like that and it shouldn't matter, but I'd argue that most of those, in either direction, are a result of people accepting or rejecting the PC agenda, not their "real" preferences if there is such a thing in the first place.

I don't really see a problem with movies having an agenda in general, I think it matters what that agenda is. What is the 'agenda' behind having an all female cast anyway? Wanting to see more women in movies?
What's wrong with that?

 

[Dizchu]

I don't think anyone says that liking male leads is a problem. The problem is when female characters are typically relegated to the sidelines. I think plenty of stories work better with male characters, Breaking Bad for example is an exploration of the excesses of the masculine ego and the lack of female characters is fine. Similarly I think the exploration of male fraternal relationships can be good fun and is arguably the main reason why people liked the original Ghostbusters so much.

But then you have plenty of media where female characters aren't present and it seems to be purely because the writers are too inexperienced or too apathetic to write female characters. In terms of narrative, "male protagonist" is widely considered the default and has been for much of human history. When that status quo is challenged people can end up getting salty. This problem is made infinitely worse by the fact that mainstream media doesn't want to work with new IPs anymore, which works against the rising pro-egalitarian zeitgeist. So as a result you get things like female-led Star Wars films and a gender-swapped Ghostbusters.

The only real "agenda" at work here is making money. People keep saying "if you want more women in films, just films about them!" which is a great idea if you're being idealistic, but is unrealistic. Sadly the only feasible way to get more women, LGBT people and non-white people into mainstream films is to hijack existing properties. It's not exactly something I'm comfortable with, but that's the cultural landscape of the 2010s.

 

[Saelune]

I'm fine, and even encourage more diversity in media. I just encourage quality media more. I also think source material should be respected, and frequently isn't solely to pander to "progressiveness".

You can pander to progressiveness and still make quality. In Marvel for example, Black Panther, Ms. Marvel, and the entire second X-Men team were all such attempts...successful quality attempts. Turning the Human Torch (a white character) black isn't. Nor is trying to switcheroo Spider-Man or (ironically) Ms. Marvel using their name alone instead of making quality characters like say, Sam Wilson, aka The Falcon, aaka Captain America, a title he earned both in universe, and by being a quality character on his own.

Sure, make more female/black/LGBT leads. I am perfectly fine with that. I know as an LGBT person, Id love more representation there. I just want it to be quality, since I don't want to be represented by a shitty character. I already hate having Jenner represent transgendered people in real life, since they are a shitty human. I'd be just as bothered, if not more so, if they made an entire team of Trans Ghostbusters, instead of the biological women that we got instead.

Plus too many people don't want to actually think deeply on the topic. They just want to sling accusations and pat themselves on the back for being so forward thinking, yet are just pandered to monkeys.

Women, blacks, LGBT, and everyone else deserve better than what we are getting. Instead of turning straight white male characters into something else, look for the diverse characters. If they are lacking, make new ones who are well-written, thought out, and not pandering BS, and let them stand on their own merits of quality. But that requires originality, something that is apparently scary to too many in the various industries giving us this garbage.

 

[Lufia Erim]

I'm obviously not as intelligent that the rest of you, so no wall of text from me.

I think Tyler Perry is to blame for african american stereotypes in movie.

Also having a female lead is too much of a headache to deal with. No matter how she ( or they) is written, people won't be happy. Too perfect? Uproar. Too flawed? Uproar. Too sexy? Uproar. Not sexy enough? Uproar. It's as if people care so much, that nothing it adequate enough. No one cares about men, so you can literally write him how you want and no one gives a shit.

 

[Gengisgame]

Becoming aware of that, could have a significant effect on curbing that, but the point is, it kinda becomes hard to distinguish between genuine preferences, and preferences influenced by this agenda's presence - and the rejection of feminist agenda, can melt together with a distaste of female leads, inside the brain.

You are right, I would say that the last few years has greatly colored my preference for female leads. I watched the first episode of Preacher and within moments of the female leads introduction a small boy asks her "where is your boyfriend" they boys older sister says "girls don't need boyfriends" and the exchange goes with the independent powerful woman route, ham fisted to the nth degree.

At the same time I understand why feminists have become the way they are, they see a scantily clad female as a problem, they could see a male lead as "another male lead", women only said X amount of words, they sit in classes or read articles and are told about all these statistics and now view a product with the wrong kind of outcome as a problem.

You could say both where made for a specific audience in mind, that you shouldn't get your knickers in a twist over either which I agree with as long as they stop pretending that example 1 is anything more than a feminist power fantasy and not morally superior reflection of how real life should be.

 

[Catnip1024]

Can you give an example of a film, with this sort of firestorm around it, that wasn't due to it being a reboot of a pre-existing and beloved franchise? I'm not very film-savvy these days, I can't lie, so the only things I can think of are Ghostbusters and Oceans.

Sadly the only feasible way to get more women, LGBT people and non-white people into mainstream films is to hijack existing properties. It's not exactly something I'm comfortable with, but that's the cultural landscape of the 2010s.

Well, pretty much every film these days is either a sequel, a reboot, or a movie adaptation of an already existing IP, so it's not solely these instances at fault. And it still irritates me when films are rebooted with similar characters to the original, if done in a bad way.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I read a comment the other day concerning the new Ocean's 11 remake. He observed that nobody criticized Bad Moms for having all female leads. Maybe, it's because they didn't make a big deal about the casting. Also, there was a point to having the cast to be predominately female. As in, it's a movie about mothers dealing with high expectations and pressures. Compare that to what they did with the casting of Ghostbusters and Ocean's 11. Is there a point to making the cast all females other than to be a gimmick?

I don't think people have a problem with diversity of casting. It's when they compromise the integrity of an established IP to do it. That is when people tend to get upset. Can there be a great heist movie made with all female leads? Yes. In fact, one was made 20 years ago with all female leads. Also, they were all African-Americans. Set It Off [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117603/?ref_=nv_sr_1]

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I don't think anyone says that liking male leads is a problem. The problem is when female characters are typically relegated to the sidelines. I think plenty of stories work better with male characters, Breaking Bad for example is an exploration of the excesses of the masculine ego and the lack of female characters is fine. Similarly I think the exploration of male fraternal relationships can be good fun and is arguably the main reason why people liked the original Ghostbusters so much.

But then you have plenty of media where female characters aren't present and it seems to be purely because the writers are too inexperienced or too apathetic to write female characters. In terms of narrative, "male protagonist" is widely considered the default and has been for much of human history. When that status quo is challenged people can end up getting salty. This problem is made infinitely worse by the fact that mainstream media doesn't want to work with new IPs anymore, which works against the rising pro-egalitarian zeitgeist. So as a result you get things like female-led Star Wars films and a gender-swapped Ghostbusters.

The only real "agenda" at work here is making money. People keep saying "if you want more women in films, just films about them!" which is a great idea if you're being idealistic, but is unrealistic. Sadly the only feasible way to get more women, LGBT people and non-white people into mainstream films is to hijack existing properties. It's not exactly something I'm comfortable with, but that's the cultural landscape of the 2010s.

I can certainly understand what you're saying, and it really is unfortunate that Hollywood is cowardly and much more willing to spend money on remake after godawful remake than give new IPs (with new more diverse casts) a chance. I have to disagree with your conclusions though.

You mention both Ghostbusters and Star Wars in your post, so I'm going to talk about why one of those movies more or less succeeded and one more or less failed (putting quality of the movies aside, because it's something that is subjective and which someone could easily argue one way or the other).

Star Wars succeeded because Star Wars was accepting of the previous movies in the series, and the previous fans of the series. Disney knew that the only way to expand Star Wars was a continuation. People accepted the new characters, including Rey because the movie was a passing of the torch from an older generation to a newer one. Were some people disgruntled by a female lead? Of course, but the reception of the movie was still extremely positive and the movie made bank.

Comparing that to the new Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters was the opposite, it was a rejection of the previous series in favor of taking the series in a new direction. The original Ghostbusters don't exist in the new Ghosterbusters movie, the female characters aren't a new generation of Ghostbusters taking up the mantle of ghostbusting, they're a straight up replacement for the characters people already loved. The movie failed because it didn't respect the original franchise, it was almost like the director was saying that he and his friends could redo the original Ghostbusters better than the original cast had done it.

Both movies where actually very similar to the original movies in terms of plot. Star Wars The Force Awakens is almost beat for beat A New Hope, and parts of Ghostbusters 2016 are a scene for scene remake of the original Ghostbusters, but Force Awakens was presented to the audience as a continuation, whereas Ghostbusters was a replacement. I think that's what people had the biggest problem with, and the female cast was a secondary issue for many people. Had Ghostbusters done the Star Wars thing and been a "passing of the torch" style movie it might have been more widely accepted and there would have been less "outrage" over the female leads.

 

[Hawki]

Star Wars succeeded because Star Wars was accepting of the previous movies in the series, and the previous fans of the series. Disney knew that the only way to expand Star Wars was a continuation. People accepted the new characters, including Rey because the movie was a passing of the torch from an older generation to a newer one. Were some people disgruntled by a female lead? Of course, but the reception of the movie was still extremely positive and the movie made bank.

Comparing that to the new Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters was the opposite, it was a rejection of the previous series in favor of taking the series in a new direction. The original Ghostbusters don't exist in the new Ghosterbusters movie, the female characters aren't a new generation of Ghostbusters taking up the mantle of ghostbusting, they're a straight up replacement for the characters people already loved. The movie failed because it didn't respect the original franchise, it was almost like the director was saying that he and his friends could redo the original Ghostbusters better than the original cast had done it.

Both movies where actually very similar to the original movies in terms of plot. Star Wars The Force Awakens is almost beat for beat A New Hope, and parts of Ghostbusters 2016 are a scene for scene remake of the original Ghostbusters, but Force Awakens was presented to the audience as a continuation, whereas Ghostbusters was a replacement. I think that's what people had the biggest problem with, and the female cast was a secondary issue for many people. Had Ghostbusters done the Star Wars thing and been a "passing of the torch" style movie it might have been more widely accepted and there would have been less "outrage" over the female leads.

There's a number of flaws in your argument:

-The Force Awakens was set up as a continuation, but it was a continuation based on invalidating the entire expanded universe to exist. Also, Star Wars already had the theme of passing the torch within its mythos. Ghostbusters has never really dabbled with this concept, except maybe in Extreme Ghostbusters. Being a Jedi, fighting the Dark Side...that's something that arguably has a 'calling' to it, something that goes beyond one generation. Being a ghostbuster is a JOB. A paid job that you do because you want a pay cheque.

-If we're talking about replacements within a series, then Ghostbusters II is just as guilty of 'replacing' The Real Ghostbusters as the 'true' continuation. By the time GB 2016 rolled around, there were two Ghostbusters canons, and the film canon was still being continued in comic and game form. Saying Ghostbusters 2016 'replaced' 'Canon 1' can only be applied to its choice of medium - it won't stop more works being produced in the original canon.

-There's so many 'repalcement canons' out there, even if we exclude comic book movies, which get a reboot every decade or so (within the space of my liftetime, I've seen three Batmans, three Supermans, and three Spider-Mans, off the top of my head), then it's noticable that fan outrage has never reached GB 2016 levels.

-I keep seeing the claim that GB 2016 didn't 'respect the franchise' (which is an incredibly nebulous concept), but so far I haven't seen any direct examples of this supposed "disrespect." If I squinted, the only way I could say it did is that the film kills (supposedly, I thought his actual fate was left vague) Bill Murry's cameo, and even then, if there's sub-text, I saw it more as a take on Murry's repeated dis-interest in the franchise. Likewise, how is it that GB 2016 gets accused of "disrespecting the franchise" while GB 2 is given a free pass for establishing that an entire cartoon series never happened within its own continuity? Because having seen the film, I thought it mostly walked a good line between 'respecting' the original and being its own thing.

-There's also the little nugget that the story in GB 2016 just couldn't work if it was set in the original film canon - not unless the world forgot about the existence of ghosts (again). It couldn't work in terms of plot, character, or theme. Not saying that this was the only story that could be told, but it's a story that needed a fresh start to function.

-Finally, what has GB 2016 actually prevented from occurring? Ghostbusters III? A film that was stuck in development hell forever, with one of the original four dead, and the other being a stick in the mud (for the record, I don't resent Murry, same way I wouldn't resent Alec Guiness for disliking being associated with Star Wars)? It's not a film that needed to exist, but the same can be said for every sequel ever made bar those that had to continue a plot point from the original when left open.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I'm not entirely sure how to respond, as I'm not exactly sure what the point of the thread is. The title is a statement, but it seems to have arisen from a conversation no one else has been party to.

Do people think a preference for male leads is a problem? All people? Some? A few? Who are 'the people' being referred to in the first place?

Is the point of the post 'it's okay to have preferences'? Well, gee, thank you for the permission I didn't realise I needed.

I'll just randomly touch upon my own feelings on protagonists genders: the default, white, presumed-straight male POV is, frankly, a bit tedious. I've no issue with people preferring male leads and [generally white and straight] narratives, but I reserve the right to regard them as being a tad boring; seemingly wishing only to have the same kinds of stories told on a loop. Little is learnt about human nature when we're constantly staring down at our own feet, instead of looking up and around.

Variety is the spice of life, and we sure as hell don't have enough of it in popular culture.

At the same time I understand why feminists have become the way they are, they see a scantily clad female as a problem, they could see a male lead as "another male lead", women only said X amount of words, they sit in classes or read articles and are told about all these statistics and now view a product with the wrong kind of outcome as a problem.

Re the underlined: what, you mean wildly diverse across a spectrum of critical thought?

 

[Zontar]

Do people think a preference for male leads is a problem? All people? Some? A few? Who are 'the people' being referred to in the first place?

I think it's in reference to people like Amy Pascal who thought that the best way to handle the third instillation of a beloved cult classic that had the surviving original cast and director involved would be to kick out said director, reduce the surviving cast to only cameo roles, and make it a reboot directed by a man who should never, ever touch anything that isn't a parody of a mainline movie which focuses more on pushing fringe ideology then being a good movie.

That and the media critics who support such nonsense who's voice is about 10,000 times louder then it should be.

It's a very small but very, very loud minority that Sony just learned the hard way isn't worth catering to when it comes to blockbusters.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Star Wars succeeded because Star Wars was accepting of the previous movies in the series, and the previous fans of the series. Disney knew that the only way to expand Star Wars was a continuation. People accepted the new characters, including Rey because the movie was a passing of the torch from an older generation to a newer one. Were some people disgruntled by a female lead? Of course, but the reception of the movie was still extremely positive and the movie made bank.

Comparing that to the new Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters was the opposite, it was a rejection of the previous series in favor of taking the series in a new direction. The original Ghostbusters don't exist in the new Ghosterbusters movie, the female characters aren't a new generation of Ghostbusters taking up the mantle of ghostbusting, they're a straight up replacement for the characters people already loved. The movie failed because it didn't respect the original franchise, it was almost like the director was saying that he and his friends could redo the original Ghostbusters better than the original cast had done it.

Both movies where actually very similar to the original movies in terms of plot. Star Wars The Force Awakens is almost beat for beat A New Hope, and parts of Ghostbusters 2016 are a scene for scene remake of the original Ghostbusters, but Force Awakens was presented to the audience as a continuation, whereas Ghostbusters was a replacement. I think that's what people had the biggest problem with, and the female cast was a secondary issue for many people. Had Ghostbusters done the Star Wars thing and been a "passing of the torch" style movie it might have been more widely accepted and there would have been less "outrage" over the female leads.

There's a number of flaws in your argument:

-The Force Awakens was set up as a continuation, but it was a continuation based on invalidating the entire expanded universe to exist. Also, Star Wars already had the theme of passing the torch within its mythos. Ghostbusters has never really dabbled with this concept, except maybe in Extreme Ghostbusters. Being a Jedi, fighting the Dark Side...that's something that arguably has a 'calling' to it, something that goes beyond one generation. Being a ghostbuster is a JOB. A paid job that you do because you want a pay cheque.

-If we're talking about replacements within a series, then Ghostbusters II is just as guilty of 'replacing' The Real Ghostbusters as the 'true' continuation. By the time GB 2016 rolled around, there were two Ghostbusters canons, and the film canon was still being continued in comic and game form. Saying Ghostbusters 2016 'replaced' 'Canon 1' can only be applied to its choice of medium - it won't stop more works being produced in the original canon.

I'm talking the movie franchise only here. I honestly think that most Star Wars fans couldn't care less about the extended universe. Same with Ghostbusters fans and the cartoons.

-There's so many 'repalcement canons' out there, even if we exclude comic book movies, which get a reboot every decade or so (within the space of my liftetime, I've seen three Batmans, three Supermans, and three Spider-Mans, off the top of my head), then it's noticable that fan outrage has never reached GB 2016 levels.

Are you sure? I distinctly remember outrage EVERY TIME there's a new actor announced to play either Batman or The Joker. Remember the huff everyone got up to about Ben Affleck playing Batman?

-I keep seeing the claim that GB 2016 didn't 'respect the franchise' (which is an incredibly nebulous concept), but so far I haven't seen any direct examples of this supposed "disrespect." If I squinted, the only way I could say it did is that the film kills (supposedly, I thought his actual fate was left vague) Bill Murry's cameo, and even then, if there's sub-text, I saw it more as a take on Murry's repeated dis-interest in the franchise. Likewise, how is it that GB 2016 gets accused of "disrespecting the franchise" while GB 2 is given a free pass for establishing that an entire cartoon series never happened within its own continuity? Because having seen the film, I thought it mostly walked a good line between 'respecting' the original and being its own thing.

I'd say the disrespect comes from taking jokes directly from the original movie and then making them less clever and delivering them poorly.

-There's also the little nugget that the story in GB 2016 just couldn't work if it was set in the original film canon - not unless the world forgot about the existence of ghosts (again). It couldn't work in terms of plot, character, or theme. Not saying that this was the only story that could be told, but it's a story that needed a fresh start to function.

Wait, are you telling me that a movie about the origin of the Ghostbusters couldn't exist if the Ghostbusters already existed? Well color me shocked.

That's exactly what I'm saying, this movie should not have existed within that form, and that story should have worked differently. That's my whole point that the movie would have been more well received had it continued the canon of the original movie, instead of trying to be a modern replacement for it.

-Finally, what has GB 2016 actually prevented from occurring? Ghostbusters III? A film that was stuck in development hell forever, with one of the original four dead, and the other being a stick in the mud (for the record, I don't resent Murry, same way I wouldn't resent Alec Guiness for disliking being associated with Star Wars)? It's not a film that needed to exist, but the same can be said for every sequel ever made bar those that had to continue a plot point from the original when left open.

I didn't say it prevented anything from occurring. What I'm saying is they could have made "Ghostbusters the New Generation" or something and been better off than they were trying to replace the original movie.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I think it's in reference to people like Amy Pascal who thought that the best way to handle the third instillation of a beloved cult classic that had the surviving original cast and director involved would be to kick out said director, reduce the surviving cast to only cameo roles, and make it a reboot directed by a man who should never, ever touch anything that isn't a parody of a mainline movie which focuses more on pushing fringe ideology then being a good movie.

I've not seen the film, btw, nor do I particularly intend to (as, out of childhood, I've never seen the appeal of Ghosbusters), but the very concept sounded terrible, so the tone-deaf studio machinations which resulted in nu-Ghostbusters aren't something I'm likely to defend.

However, which "fringe ideology" are you referring to? In nu-GB, or Feig's other films (none of which I've seen)?

It's a very small but very, very loud minority that Sony just learned the hard way isn't worth catering to when it comes to blockbusters.

Surely the only people the studio was truly "catering" to were themselves, hence why it's performed so badly given the concept was wildly misjudged seemingly from the off?

 

[Hawki]

I'm talking the movie franchise only here. I honestly think that most Star Wars fans couldn't care less about the extended universe. Same with Ghostbusters fans and the cartoons.

Considering some Star Wars fans paid for a highway billboard begging LucasArts to continue the expanded universe, considering the shotstorm that brewed on Wookiepedia when the "Legends" concept was introduced, considering the calls for boycotts of TFA based on the invalidation of the old universe...I disagree.

I can't comment on Ghostbusters, but then it's a double standard, don't you think? It's okay for x to invalidate y, but not okay for z to invalidate x?

Are you sure? I distinctly remember outrage EVERY TIME there's a new actor announced to play either Batman or The Joker. Remember the huff everyone got up to about Ben Affleck playing Batman?

Those are protests based on the "I can't see this actor playing the role of this character" rather than the movie they take part in.

I'd say the disrespect comes from taking jokes directly from the original movie and then making them less clever and delivering them poorly.

Examples? Also, disrespect in this case usually implies intent. Dante's "not in a million years" line in DMC could be interpreted as disrespect because it's a concious line where he faces the camera directly, made in the knowledge that there was fan discontent. I can't recall any such moment in the 2016 movie. Also, the notion of "it isn't as funny as the original" doesn't belie supposed intention. Considering the cameos, including a bust of Ramis, I found it to be quite respectful.

Wait, are you telling me that a movie about the origin of the Ghostbusters couldn't exist if the Ghostbusters already existed? Well color me shocked.

That's exactly what I'm saying, this movie should not have existed within that form, and that story should have worked differently. That's my whole point that the movie would have been more well received had it continued the canon of the original movie, instead of trying to be a modern replacement for it.

You're intentionally or otherwise distorting my point in saying that "a movie about the origin of the Ghostbusters couldn't exist if the Ghostbusters already existed?" No shit. If the movie's be all and end all was to give a new cast the spotlight, then yes, it could work. For instance, if the movie depicted a world where ghosts were known to exist, where the Ghostbusters were already established, yet took place in a continuity separate from the originals, then yes, it wouldn't make sense to be in its own continuity. As I pointed out, it couldn't work on the character or thematic level if it took place in the original continuity. Exactly the same way that GB2 can't work if The Real Ghostbusters occurs in the same continuity. The same way that practically any reboot or re-imagining couldn't work if set in the same continuity of the original. And yet it's Ghostbusters 2016 that's singled out.

And I wouldn't mind so much if people actually cited personal gripes with the film itself in its level of execution (which is fair game), but the equivalent of it is me saying that "GB2 is bad because it invalidates the cartoon" or "The Force Awakens is bad because it invalidates the EU, rather than judging them on their own merits. Or, not judging them at all, but regardless, you've already made judgement as to the movie's quality, so I therefore have to assume that you have seen it.

...you HAVE seen it, right? I ask because the last time I engaged in lengthy debate, the user stopped discussion as soon as I asked that question.

I didn't say it prevented anything from occurring. What I'm saying is they could have made "Ghostbusters the New Generation" or something and been better off than they were trying to replace the original movie.

In what way does it "replace" the original movie? Did it take the original movie off the shelves? Did it retcon it within its own continuity? Did it say "GB original never happened, this is the real story?" By that standard, every re-imagining or reboot is, by design, intended to 'replace' the original.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm talking the movie franchise only here. I honestly think that most Star Wars fans couldn't care less about the extended universe. Same with Ghostbusters fans and the cartoons.

Considering some Star Wars fans paid for a highway billboard begging LucasArts to continue the expanded universe, considering the shotstorm that brewed on Wookiepedia when the "Legends" concept was introduced, considering the calls for boycotts of TFA based on the invalidation of the old universe...I disagree.

I can't comment on Ghostbusters, but then it's a double standard, don't you think? It's okay for x to invalidate y, but not okay for z to invalidate x?

Are you sure? I distinctly remember outrage EVERY TIME there's a new actor announced to play either Batman or The Joker. Remember the huff everyone got up to about Ben Affleck playing Batman?

Those are protests based on the "I can't see this actor playing the role of this character" rather than the movie they take part in.

I'd say the disrespect comes from taking jokes directly from the original movie and then making them less clever and delivering them poorly.

Examples? Also, disrespect in this case usually implies intent. Dante's "not in a million years" line in DMC could be interpreted as disrespect because it's a concious line where he faces the camera directly, made in the knowledge that there was fan discontent. I can't recall any such moment in the 2016 movie. Also, the notion of "it isn't as funny as the original" doesn't belie supposed intention. Considering the cameos, including a bust of Ramis, I found it to be quite respectful.

Wait, are you telling me that a movie about the origin of the Ghostbusters couldn't exist if the Ghostbusters already existed? Well color me shocked.

That's exactly what I'm saying, this movie should not have existed within that form, and that story should have worked differently. That's my whole point that the movie would have been more well received had it continued the canon of the original movie, instead of trying to be a modern replacement for it.

You're intentionally or otherwise distorting my point in saying that "a movie about the origin of the Ghostbusters couldn't exist if the Ghostbusters already existed?" No shit. If the movie's be all and end all was to give a new cast the spotlight, then yes, it could work. For instance, if the movie depicted a world where ghosts were known to exist, where the Ghostbusters were already established, yet took place in a continuity separate from the originals, then yes, it wouldn't make sense to be in its own continuity. As I pointed out, it couldn't work on the character or thematic level if it took place in the original continuity. Exactly the same way that GB2 can't work if The Real Ghostbusters occurs in the same continuity. The same way that practically any reboot or re-imagining couldn't work if set in the same continuity of the original. And yet it's Ghostbusters 2016 that's singled out.

And I wouldn't mind so much if people actually cited personal gripes with the film itself in its level of execution (which is fair game), but the equivalent of it is me saying that "GB2 is bad because it invalidates the cartoon" or "The Force Awakens is bad because it invalidates the EU, rather than judging them on their own merits. Or, not judging them at all, but regardless, you've already made judgement as to the movie's quality, so I therefore have to assume that you have seen it.

...you HAVE seen it, right? I ask because the last time I engaged in lengthy debate, the user stopped discussion as soon as I asked that question.

I didn't say it prevented anything from occurring. What I'm saying is they could have made "Ghostbusters the New Generation" or something and been better off than they were trying to replace the original movie.

In what way does it "replace" the original movie? Did it take the original movie off the shelves? Did it retcon it within its own continuity? Did it say "GB original never happened, this is the real story?" By that standard, every re-imagining or reboot is, by design, intended to 'replace' the original.

I like how you're assuming that I think that Ghostbusters is a terrible movie or that my post has something to do with the movie's quality when in the first post I specifically stated that the quality of neither Star Wars the Force Awakens nor Ghostbusters 2016 matters to my point.

You immediately read my interpretation of why Ghostbusters failed (and it did fail, it's $70 million shy of breaking even) and assumed that I somehow hated the movie.

I don't hate the movie, I think it's mediocre, just like I think Star Wars the Force Awakens is mediocre (in 2 different, very opposite ways). My post wasn't about quality, it was about why one movie was received well by fans while another comparable movie was received poorly. It's really that simple.

 

[Saetha]

I'm not entirely sure how to respond, as I'm not exactly sure what the point of the thread is. The title is a statement, but it seems to have arisen from a conversation no one else has been party to.

Do people think a preference for male leads is a problem? All people? Some? A few? Who are 'the people' being referred to in the first place?

Is the point of the post 'it's okay to have preferences'? Well, gee, thank you for the permission I didn't realise I needed.

I'll just randomly touch upon my own feelings on protagonists genders: the default, white, presumed-straight male POV is, frankly, a bit tedious. I've no issue with people preferring male leads and [generally white and straight] narratives, but I reserve the right to regard them as being a tad boring; seemingly wishing only to have the same kinds of stories told on a loop. Little is learnt about human nature when we're constantly staring down at our own feet, instead of looking up and around.

You know, this is something that's always confused me.

If there's no difference between men and women, white and non-white, straight and LGBT - then wouldn't you just be getting the same "stories on loop" anyway? Sure the protagonist may look a little different - but that doesn't (And shouldn't) drastically alter the story. Like, if you took all those "stories on a loop" and changed all the male protagonists to female ones, you'd still have the same story, on the same loop.

Like - Eragon, for instance, would not have suddenly become a unique and original story if the main character were a chick. The protagonist's gender/race/orientation don't really decide if the story's "looping" or original.

 

[Chanticoblues]

If there's no difference between men and women, white and non-white, straight and LGBT

Who said that? There are absolutely differences.