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

[Hawki]

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.

I'd prefer it if you quoted individual bits of posts instead of the whole article - I can't see where I said that you consider GB2016 to be terrible, only that I wasn't seeing individual examples cited.

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.

This is a transcript of my original post:

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.

Where, in any of that, did I make the claim that you didn't like it? I didn't reach that conclusion until you started writing:

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

So, therefore, I had to assume either:

a) You'd seen it, and were giving it your own assessment.

b) You hadn't, and were giving an opinion based on quality regardless.

I've experienced too many cases of "option b" to assume that it's always "option a."

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.

And I responded to that post with the above transcript. You only brought the question of quality into your second post, where I responded to the question of quality in my second post.

Which brings us to the original question, as to why TFA was well received and Ghostbusters 2016 wasn't, regardless of quality. Considering that:

-TFA retcons decades worth of canon to exist, GB 2016 retcons nothing, instead establishing an alternate continuity.

-TFA exists in a setting has never really dabbled with alternate continuities bar the Infinities line, whereas GB 2016 exists in a setting that's had a split continuity almost from the outset, along with exploring alternate realities.

-TFA and the new canon Disney has built around it has more or less invalidated Legends material from ever being created. GB 2016 hasn't prevented material for either of the previous two canons from being created.

The one difference in TFA's favour is that there's the sub-set of both audiences who may only care about the live-action movies in each circumstance, in which case, TFA retcons nothing, and GB 2016 is 'imposing' a new continuity. But even if that's the case, both installments are ones that come after a long hiatus, both feature female leads, and both are effectively relaunches of their respective brand. As you said, a way of explaining this is TFA is sort of a 'passing of the torch,' but as I stated, Star Wars as a series has based its storyline on that. Ghostbusters, by its nature, hasn't. I think the idea of 'the passing of the torch' being inherent to a re-launch's/continuation's reception is iffy, as Star Trek 2009 did, and Jurassic World didn't, but neither of them got the same level of hostile reaction pre-release, nor have I seen either plot point/lack of it really be brought up as a positive or negative.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The one difference in TFA's favour is that there's the sub-set of both audiences who may only care about the live-action movies in each circumstance, in which case, TFA retcons nothing, and GB 2016 is 'imposing' a new continuity. But even if that's the case, both installments are ones that come after a long hiatus, both feature female leads, and both are effectively relaunches of their respective brand. As you said, a way of explaining this is TFA is sort of a 'passing of the torch,' but as I stated, Star Wars as a series has based its storyline on that. Ghostbusters, by its nature, hasn't. I think the idea of 'the passing of the torch' being inherent to a re-launch's/continuation's reception is iffy, as Star Trek 2009 did, and Jurassic World didn't, but neither of them got the same level of hostile reaction pre-release, nor have I seen either plot point/lack of it really be brought up as a positive or negative.

You realize the subset that has only seen/cares about the movies is also the largest part of the fandom for both series right?

And I'm using a loose interpretation of "fandom" here as "people who like the product and would consume more of it" rather than "people who are obsessed with the product."

The largest portion of the audience for star wars doesn't know or care that there was an extended universe that existed for star wars and which Disney destroyed, just like the majority of people who like Ghostbusters have never seen or care to see the cartoons or care about their potential impact on the movies.

They also don't care about split-universes or different canons, or any of the other stuff that we nerds tend to cherish. That's what I'm trying to get across to you.

Also, while Jurassic Park didn't exactly have a "passing of the torch moment" it also wasn't a reboot, but a continuation of the series. The previous Jurassic Parks all happened within that canon, so I don't know why you would bring that up.

 

[Saetha]

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

Who said that? There are absolutely differences.

I mean, that's kinda the entire basis of equality? "These people are no different from you, treating them as sub-human is wrong," that whole thing?

You can argue that if you want, but I'm not about to agree if you do.

 

[Hawki]

You realize the subset that has only seen/cares about the movies is also the largest part of the fandom for both series right?

And I'm using a loose interpretation of "fandom" here as "people who like the product and would consume more of it" rather than "people who are obsessed with the product."

The largest portion of the audience for star wars doesn't know or care that there was an extended universe that existed for star wars and which Disney destroyed, just like the majority of people who like Ghostbusters have never seen or care to see the cartoons or care about their potential impact on the movies.

Of the general audience, yes, of course - the average joe isn't going to care about material beyond the movies of each. But it's case of "the more you're a fan, the more invested you are." Ergo, while the fans of both are more likely to get angry at perceived slights, the same fans are also more likely to be invested in material beyond the core product. So, in theory, you'd think they'd cancel each other out. Likewise, that's happened in Star Wars (fan outrage at the EU being made null), Stargate (fan discontent at Emmerich's reboot being a...well, reboot, rather than a continuation of the TV series), and Star Trek (general griping about the Kelvinverse). Each of these properties has followed the same pattern, but been mostly confined to their fanbase. Ghostbusters 2016 is the exception in that it's the pattern intensified into a firestorm.

Also, while Jurassic Park didn't exactly have a "passing of the torch moment" it also wasn't a reboot, but a continuation of the series. The previous Jurassic Parks all happened within that canon, so I don't know why you would bring that up.

Jurassic World is effectively a soft reboot/relaunch. It's in the same continuity technically, but it being in said continuity is technically a moot point, with films 2 & 3 going without mention. It's in that weird area that Star Trek 2009 is, where they're both re-launches of a property, but not strict reboots (in that 2009 doesn't reset anything in the Prime Universe, but spins off from it as part of its storyline).

 

[Thaluikhain]

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

Who said that? There are absolutely differences.

I mean, that's kinda the entire basis of equality? "These people are no different from you, treating them as sub-human is wrong," that whole thing?

You can argue that if you want, but I'm not about to agree if you do.

Being no different, and the differences not justifying discrimination are not the same thing. IF nothing else, a minority will always have a lesser proportion than a majority. Being left-handed isn't worse than being right-handed, but most stuff is made for right-handed people because most people are.

 

[Saetha]

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

Who said that? There are absolutely differences.

I mean, that's kinda the entire basis of equality? "These people are no different from you, treating them as sub-human is wrong," that whole thing?

You can argue that if you want, but I'm not about to agree if you do.

Being no different, and the differences not justifying discrimination are not the same thing. IF nothing else, a minority will always have a lesser proportion than a majority. Being left-handed isn't worse than being right-handed, but most stuff is made for right-handed people because most people are.

Right, but taking a right-handed hero and making them left-handed isn't going to change anything.

Which is my point. Taking a white hero and making them black isn't (Or shouldn't, at least) make them any different as a person. They're still a hero, and their story's still the same. A story's not going to be drastically different just because you change the hero's skin color. So it doesn't make any sense to say that stories about straight white guys are "stories on loop," but the same stories about a black guy instead are majorly different.


Like, if people want to say "I think black guys need more representation," cool. But insisting that changing only a hero's skin color somehow makes a cliched story into a unique and original one? That's absurd.

 

[MishaK]

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

Who said that? There are absolutely differences.

I mean, that's kinda the entire basis of equality? "These people are no different from you, treating them as sub-human is wrong," that whole thing?

You can argue that if you want, but I'm not about to agree if you do.

You say "Basis of equality" then start using the word "Different" instead of "equal". I'll help you. "These people are not beneath you, treating them as sub-human is wrong,"

 

[Phasmal]

I dunno, personally I think that people need to stop acting like franchises getting rebooted in a way they don't like is the end of the fucking world.

You can voice your opinion, sure, but there was a lot of unnecessary wailing and gnashing of teeth. It was irritating.
And also kind of the reason I went to see the new Ghostbusters (and I thought it was a pretty fun movie- but I am an awful SJW and I didn't really care for the old franchise).

It's fine to want your media to be raining men 24/7 if that's what you want, but it's also not a tragedy when they decide to do something different.

 

[1981]

What would happen if someone who doesn't like eating anything but fries tried to have a rational conversation with a 3-star Michelin chef? The chef would probably tell this person that cooking is a form of art, and that in order to gain insight into it, this person would have to train their palate to like a much wider variety of foods. Then this person gets upset. "How dare you tell me there's something wrong with me?!"

Everything has standards. If you can't or don't want to compete in a certain league, why even try?

 

[Zhukov]

Preferring a male lead isn't a problem. You do you.

Being a dick about female leads is going to raise some eyebrows and lead people to draw certain conclusions.

If you can do the former without the latter then congratulations on being a reasonable person without a massive chip on your shoulder.

 

[Gengisgame]

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?

Well you started this very defensively.

The purpose of my statements are safety buffers, this is a politically sensitive topic. It's sad but I need to state the obvious otherwise people will take things the wrong way and despite that you still had a problem with it as seen by your sarcastic gratitude. I shall not be responding to you again unless it's more civil, I don't see it being fruitful so I'm just clearing things up now.

Your point about white male leads is terrible if not a tad racist and sexist. I get it, you don't prefer them, let's not pretend that it's a matter of making the story magically better. If we followed your terrible logic we should have more films star mammals, then fish, then insects, then sentient abstract shapes but that's not what people want.

Variety is the spice of life but it still needs to be grounded in life, when you pick up a video game I can safely say that your avatars will almost have some default go to for you if you don't just stick with the actual default, of course just like me you will sometimes make something different but you still have a preference.

On feminism: I don't mean widely diverse, I mean having certain popular opinions, this is a popular opinion of what has become a tribal political group which is why you get it's members being so defensive at criticism aimed at the group that has little to do with actual ideology.

 

[Phasmal]

Your point about white male leads is terrible if not a tad racist and sexist. I get it, you don't prefer them, let's not pretend that it's a matter of making the story magically better. If we followed your terrible logic we should have more films star mammals, then fish, then insects, then sentient abstract shapes but that's not what people want.

Yikes, I don't think your "if we stop making films about white men we may as well make films about obscure sea creatures!" sentiment is coming off the way you probably meant it to come off.

I should hope the hole in that argument is self-evident.

 

[Achelexus]

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.

Well, it is a long going thing.
For ages the writers had been using women to open up and dissect a character. Just because this is a thing that works.
Men are rigid. You can take a strong, calm, tough, reliable male character, put him next to the right woman and watch him break. Or otherwise. Anyway, it works. You do this, and there's already a buildup, a crisis and a resolution. And a lot of people can relate to it, men and women both.
It does not really work the other way. There's no expectation of rigidity with women. There's also no intrigue to what the resolution would be. And it's not that there's no place for female leads, but there's no easy formula to write them and get a successful story.
And while it would be interesting to see such a formula created, I don't think it is really a problem that there isn't one.
Female leads are still being written. Some of them are written well and are successful. And in second to lead roles, the female characters are often depicted in a position of power. They make or break the hero. It works. When it does not happen the story feels somewhat toothless to me. Like these later movies where all of the males are idiots. There's no power on display.
I also don't think that women like women all that much. So that's an additional layer of the problem to you. Making a female lead that women are comfortable with... *bursts into laughter*

http://imgur.com/asyLp5L

I think this may be what you're talking about.

 

[Chanticoblues]

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

Who said that? There are absolutely differences.

I mean, that's kinda the entire basis of equality? "These people are no different from you, treating them as sub-human is wrong," that whole thing?

Equality is about equal treatment and opportunity. I think you're taking it a little literally.

 

[Gengisgame]

Your point about white male leads is terrible if not a tad racist and sexist. I get it, you don't prefer them, let's not pretend that it's a matter of making the story magically better. If we followed your terrible logic we should have more films star mammals, then fish, then insects, then sentient abstract shapes but that's not what people want.

Yikes, I don't think your "if we stop making films about white men we may as well make films about obscure sea creatures!" sentiment is coming off the way you probably meant it to come off.

I should hope the hole in that argument is self-evident.

Seems you didn't even understand the argument

Let me simplify it for you.

1. Other poster said X race was boring.
2. I said it had nothing to do with boredom, they where just disguising preference.
3. I used things other than human to highlight the idea that the protagonist being something else is rarely what people want.
4. I added the bit about video games to reinforce the idea.

Maybe you still don't get it, maybe I'm not explaining it well enough.

 

[Gengisgame]

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

Who said that? There are absolutely differences.

I mean, that's kinda the entire basis of equality? "These people are no different from you, treating them as sub-human is wrong," that whole thing?

Equality is about equal treatment and opportunity. I think you're taking it a little literally.

Equality doesn't really comes into this.

All that really matters is if people with money go and pay for it.

If your a poor white guy it may as well be a film starring Klingons.

 

[Saetha]

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

Who said that? There are absolutely differences.

I mean, that's kinda the entire basis of equality? "These people are no different from you, treating them as sub-human is wrong," that whole thing?

Equality is about equal treatment and opportunity. I think you're taking it a little literally.

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

Who said that? There are absolutely differences.

I mean, that's kinda the entire basis of equality? "These people are no different from you, treating them as sub-human is wrong," that whole thing?

You can argue that if you want, but I'm not about to agree if you do.

You say "Basis of equality" then start using the word "Different" instead of "equal". I'll help you. "These people are not beneath you, treating them as sub-human is wrong,"

???

So what you're both getting at is that the differences between the various demographics and minorities are so great that they literally can't have the same stories. Luke Skywalker, for instance, has to be dude. His story would not work if he were a girl. Otherwise his story would have to be about - what? Shoe shopping?

Like, to me what you're basically arguing is, for instance "There are inherent and major differences between black men and white men. Thus they cannot fulfill the same role in a story." Which is an idea that, at the very least, invalidates the concept of race/gender bending. It also begs the question of what differences are major enough to this point, which strays waaaay too close to racism.

I'm not sure either of you are following my overall point. Unless you seriously are trying to argue that.

 

[Achelexus]

http://imgur.com/asyLp5L

I think this may be what you're talking about.

Not really. "Sexist" is not such a big a word where I live.
You can do Galbrush. Laverne from the Day of the Tentacle is basically Galbrush.

And WataMote is pretty popular as far as I know.

You can do that. Although, I'm not sure if one can do this consistently with multiple characters.

The irony is that Watamote can only do this because it's japanese, anime has better gender balance and equal portrayal than western stuff, I believe. And isn't every character in DotT basically a stupid stereotype?