|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 28, 2019 19:36:21 GMT
I know it's long, but they do raise a good question at a key point: If the 2016 film had been created and marketed as a parody movie instead of a Ghostbusters reboot, would it have succeeded? if it had a male cast and done pretty much everything else the same, would it have succeeded? |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jan 29, 2019 13:12:11 GMT
I don't think you can make that kind of determination. If it had an all male cast, They would be unable to use the sexism card as part of their campaign to guilt people into liking the movie. If one or more of them were gay you could use that card, but it will still limit what they can use to layer on the guilt.
AS far as 2016 being marketed as a parody, I think that would still be problematic. It would have to actually be funny to be a successful parody. At best it would be lumped in with all the other unfunny parody movies of the late 2000's (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Scary Movie 2-whatever, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 29, 2019 15:12:16 GMT
I don't think you can make that kind of determination. If it had an all male cast, They would be unable to use the sexism card as part of their campaign to guilt people into liking the movie. If one or more of them were gay you could use that card, but it will still limit what they can use to layer on the guilt. AS far as 2016 being marketed as a parody, I think that would still be problematic. It would have to actually be funny to be a successful parody. At best it would be lumped in with all the other unfunny parody movies of the late 2000's (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Scary Movie 2-whatever, etc.) no, you really can't do any whatiffery. if you made a virtually identical movie with one being male primary cast, and the other being female primary cast, and one flopped while the other didn't, you could claim sexism on the part of the audience. the bottom line from my perspective is that first and foremost, it was NOT a great movie. it was an okay movie verging on decent. then it got all the sexism/countersexism claims piled on top of it. which buried any reasoned debate. the fact of the matter is there WERE people kvetching because it had a female primary cast, and those people were loud. the fact the production staff overreacted does not negate that fact. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jan 29, 2019 17:40:51 GMT
Okay, can you name any two movies identical except for the gender of the cast? I don't know of any.
Until we have examples to actually refer to, all we have left is whatiffery.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 29, 2019 18:15:27 GMT
Okay, can you name any two movies identical except for the gender of the cast? I don't know of any. Until we have examples to actually refer to, all we have left is whatiffery. there really aren't. therefore we agree on the whatiffery. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 29, 2019 23:38:59 GMT
Would comparing the box office of the Oceans movie franchise be any use Oceans 13 made around $311 million worldwide, Oceans 8 $297 but of course you need to adjust for inflation between the two.
Whilst there's a difference Oceans 8 did not flop and go belly up,
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 30, 2019 3:44:24 GMT
Would comparing the box office of the Oceans movie franchise be any use Oceans 13 made around $311 million worldwide, Oceans 8 $297 but of course you need to adjust for inflation between the two. Whilst there's a difference Oceans 8 did not flop and go belly up, it is an example of a movie franchise getting an installment with a female principal cast, so there's that. |
|
