• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Ghostbusters Trailer 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
PSY・S;204002448 said:
hollywood: has long history of sexism against women in film
hollywood: makes one dumb hot male character
men: absolutely lose it
Click to expand...

Are you talking about people in general or on this board? I'm not seeing anyone absolutely losing it.
 
plagiarize said:
How is that lame?

I don't know if 'female secretary who doesn't give a fuck' was a stereotype before Ghostbusters but I've seen it in way more things than I've seen 'male version of the female airhead secretary'.

Plus Janine was not in any way shape or form a feminist icon.
Click to expand...

Well I dunno, I think it's lame. :P Guess that part is subjective. I don't think it's necessarily sexist, because I don't think a male character being an idiot is a portrayal of an entire gender. Same goes for women.

I just think there's something clumsy about gender-based jokes in a movie that is a gender-swapped reboot. Like the ghost logo with boobs. If this were an original movie, that joke would make no sense at all. Why would he make a ghost logo with boobs? It doesn't work in-universe. It's a self-aware reference to the fact that this is a reboot with women, as opposed to men.

It's really hard not to call this movie "Female Ghostbusters" when the movie itself references that fact. They should just be Ghostbusters, and own that shit, without constantly referencing gender or gender stereotypes, imo.
 
This seems like a fun Netflix movie. Not exactly something I'd rush to the theater to see, but there could be something there.
 
It's a pity it's so nice to look at (I'm a sucker for ghost stuff I guess) but the writing is so awful, uninspiring, boring, bland, and half-smile-funny-maybe if you were being kind.
 
Phil0sophy said:
What? Is this a serious comment? So because men aren't regularly portrayed as dumb eye candy in Hollywood that means it can't be sexist?

It clearly is JUST the same as casting a woman in the same role and also to further that point, I can't remember the last time I witnessed a woman cast in that kind of role in a major blockbuster, can you?

The fact is, sexism is sexism, male or female.
Click to expand...

Casting a man in what is traditionally a female stereotype that many feel is degrading isn't degrading men.

What makes it sexist isn't that the secretary is shown as dumb, but that the dumb secretary is always a woman. If the dumb secretary had been regularly played by both men and women, then sure maybe secretaries might not like the stereotype, but it wouldn't be sexist.

It's sexist because it's a stereotype that dumb secretaries are always women. Not because it's a stereotype that secretaries are always dumb. Casting men in the dumb secretary roll takes gender out of the equation.
 
Yo if anyone likes this trailer up vote it. Usually I don't down vote or up vote YouTube stuff but I feel like this trailer deserved. It wasn't the best trailer in the world but it got me to laught more times then I thought. Also this trailer is going to get so much down votes for shits and giggles that some likes should help.


Much better trailer!!!!
 
It looks better than that original cringeworthy trailer, but as someone who is neither a fan of the type of American humour they've gone for here, or Ghostbusters as a franchise, there's not really anything in this for me
 
Phil0sophy said:
What? Is this a serious comment? So because men aren't regularly portrayed as dumb eye candy in Hollywood that means it can't be sexist?

It clearly is JUST the same as casting a woman in the same role and also to further that point, I can't remember the last time I witnessed a woman cast in that kind of role in a major blockbuster, can you?

The fact is, sexism is sexism, male or female.
Click to expand...

Something isn't sexist against men just because there's a single stupid man in it. Might as well say The Dark Knight is sexist for saying that men are crazy because there's crazy men in it.

Something is sexist when it feeds into pre-existing sexist tropes and stereotypes.

There's also the larger issue that sexism against men is barely a thing that can exist because Men are in a cultural position of power. It's like crying about "Heterophobia."
 
plagiarize said:
Casting a man in what is traditionally a female stereotype that many feel is degrading isn't degrading men.

What makes it sexist isn't that the secretary is shown as dumb, but that the dumb secretary is always a woman. If the dumb secretary had been regularly played by both men and women, then sure maybe secretaries might not like the stereotype, but it wouldn't be sexist.

It's sexist because it's a stereotype that dumb secretaries are always women. Not because it's a stereotype that secretaries are always dumb. Casting men in the dumb secretary roll takes gender out of the equation.
Click to expand...

But the commentary is lost because this has no relation to the original movie. Again, why is this in Ghostbusters?
 
Phil0sophy said:
What? Is this a serious comment? So because men aren't regularly portrayed as dumb eye candy in Hollywood that means it can't be sexist?

It clearly is JUST the same as casting a woman in the same role and also to further that point, I can't remember the last time I witnessed a woman cast in that kind of role in a major blockbuster, can you?

The fact is, sexism is sexism, male or female.
Click to expand...

Treating them like equivalents is underplaying it.

Further, as I said earlier, Hemsworth's character got a lot better than Weaver's.
 
knkng said:
But the commentary is lost because this has no relation to the original movie. Again, why is this in Ghostbusters?
Click to expand...

Just because it's called Ghostbusters doesn't mean it needs to be a 1-1 carbon copy. It's allowed to do things that aren't pandering to fans of the original film.
 
I never saw the original Ghostbusters so I can't muster any nostalgia from this. Half the jokes landed the other just fell flat.

I really like Melissa Mcharty so I laughed at her bits. The rest was okay. I think some jokes fail because the way the trailer is cut and will probably work better in the movie.

The monster CG looks cool.
 
Phil0sophy said:
Or

Hollywood : Has a long history of sexism against women in film

Hollywood : In response swaps the sexism and decides to role reverse the sexual stereotype (when there wasn't even one in the original movie) instead of rising above it and making something based upon equality.

Everyone : Thinks this is little more than a device to push a socio-poltical agenda which does absolutely nothing for equality and if anything just poisons the well further.


How hard is it for someone to say "You know what? Instead of us just being sexist towards men because it was done towards women for so long, why don't we just bring men and women together fighting side by side in equal ground? Could that do more for equality?"
Click to expand...
So you want to never have dumb characters in movies? One dumb male secretary isn't stereotyping men. It isn't sexist.

Like I said, it may be unfair to secretaries... but to men? How?

"There can also be stupid male secretaries." Is not a sexist comment.
 
Drifters said:
Oh so it was obvious huh?

To your points,
1.) McKinnon looks to fill the roll of Ramis being the "science nerd" as it shows her developing a trap which correct me if I'm wrong, but Egon worked on containment within the first movie. Hmm, interesting.
2.) Correct, however, Wiig is assumed to the shoe in replacement for him even tho his stick was "junk" science. The whole "Dr." tag was also very loosely based on the fact that he had his Ph.D; I'm guessing Wiig (as the trailers has shown) gets the social science part of it but has some short comings (aka as Peter) which is nicely filled in from the rest of the cast.
3.) McCarthy being Stantz is reduction to the finest as Ray and Ego developed the tool set that they used-- seems to be the same thing here.
4.) Jones and Hudson being African American, again, seems overly simplified way of a shout out to the former cast.

Anyways, still is a hot mess.
Click to expand...
1. Donatello
2. Michelangelo
3. Leonardo
4. Raphael
 
Inferno313 said:
The film depicting Hemsworth that way isn't sexist at all. There's no stereotype of Men being attractive, yet dumb and ditzy for the film to feed into. It's taking a female stereotype and applying it to a man to call attention to how ridiculous it is.
Click to expand...
Do you live under a rock?

Looks awful again, jokes all seem so forced.
 
People liked Ghostbusters 2? People thought it was more than the worst kind of "let's sell some toys and cereal" cash grab?

It's still so weird to me living long enough to see what I still think of as a fun popcorn flick become a cultural landmark. I mean I owned a toy pack and played Ghostbusters more than even Transformers or Star Wars, but even I can't think of it as some sort of sacred cow.
 
Phil0sophy said:
I agree it does fall short of the original but my point is there is no way this movie will be better than Ghostbusters 2, you can see that even based on the trailers that it won't be.
Click to expand...

The new trailer is better than Ghostbusters 2 all by itself. Ghostbusters 2 is terrible.
 
Horribly unfunny. Didn't crack a smile once.

But I really, really like the look of the film. It's so neon and colorful.
 
Drifters said:
Did my part. Downvoted.

The problem with this shit is the fact that they tried to find the female equiv's of the original cast. They literally act as it is some homage to the original movie which it comes of as insulting.
Click to expand...

What "part" is this?
 
Inferno313 said:
Just because it's called Ghostbusters doesn't mean it needs to be a 1-1 carbon copy. It's allowed to do things that aren't pandering to fans of the original film.
Click to expand...

Jokes usually have a basis in something. I'm not asking it to be a carbon copy of the original movie, but much like the mosh pit scene, there is no setup or pay off here beyond "person fall down".

"That guy dumb, haha funny! Girl want sex with him, haha funny!"

If you're going to claim that it's a commentary on Hollywood stereotypes, then you have to back it up with something more than just "it exists, so it makes perfect sense to put in Ghostbusters". What is the commentary by putting this in Ghostbusters?

plagiarize said:
Because it's funny. And Ghostbusters is a comedy.
Click to expand...

I addressed this earlier. Just because something is classified as comedy doesn't mean that you can ignore tone and intention of the jokes. It makes about as much sense as Melissa McCarthy talking about sticking a flute up her pussy.
 
Phil0sophy said:
The point is, it's sexist irrespective of it being a woman or a man, they are essentially saying "The man is dumb, the women are smart" and yes it may have happened to women in regular basis in Hollywood but just because it has doesn't mean it's acceptable to do the same thing to men?

That's like something you do when you re 5 years old, surely he more mature way to deal with sexism is by not being sexist whatsoever?

I don't believe swapping a woman out of the role and adding a man eliminates gender from the equation at all, if anything it enhances the fact that this movie is agenda driven, would Feig have cast a woman as the secretary in the same role? I find that doubtful, he wouldn't have because he finds it insulting as he has said in many interviews, so if he doesn't like it then why is it ok to cast a man in the same insulting role?

I mean it wouldn't even be an issue if Hemsworth as only slightly stupid or dumb but the level of stupidity on show is essentially the issue here, outside of anything but a party movie it just looks like he is trying to make an "example"
Click to expand...

Men can be stupid. Having a man play a stupid character traditionally played by women is not sexist against men. If you always have men playing stupid characters, that is sexist against men. But you don't.

Again, what are you suggesting? That no man or woman ever play a stupid character ever again? When the stupid secretary is always female it suggests that gender may have something to do with. When the stupid secretary is either gender it suggests that gender has nothing to do with it. This is something I honestly think you can understand.

Your argument boils down to "They cast a man as a stupid person, that's sexist!"

This is a comedy. Kevin is a comic character. They have gender flipped the dumb secretary because they think it's funny and hope other people will feel the same way. I laughed when I heard who they had cast in the 'Janine' roll. Are they also trying to make a point about sexism? Yeah. Clearly.

But it's also simultaneously a joke that I laughed at, and that continues to make me laugh when I watch the trailers.
 
Lord Error said:
I liked it, quite a bit. Some jokes were funny, some not, kind of like in the first trailer, but it looks like good fun overall. Still that fan trailer can't be beat.

The fan edit trailer was so much better. so I think that is the case.
Click to expand...
It really must be the case. I mean comedy is pretty much 90% timing so I just gonna chalk up that first trailer being such a dud as pretty much the editor's fault and be more fair to the movie. I mean it's not the first time a trailer for a movie wasn't great and I know these things are made by the director of the film.

So yeah I'm willing to admit I might have been wrong before, this trailer presents the movie in a much better way (although not feeling that whole retreading the old movie with the giant monster ghost again). This might just be finally starting to sell me on the movie.
 
knkng said:
Jokes usually have a basis in something. I'm not asking it to be a carbon copy of the original movie, but much like the mosh pit scene, there is no setup or pay off here beyond "person fall down".

"That guy dumb, haha funny! Girl want sex with him, haha funny!"

If you're going to claim that it's a commentary on Hollywood stereotypes, then you have to back it up with something more than just "it exists, so it makes perfect sense to put in Ghostbusters". What is the commentary by putting this in Ghostbusters?
Click to expand...

I don't know because I haven't seen the film.

Typically setup and pay off are not the things you find in a movie trailer. They go in the actual movie.
 
knkng said:
I addressed this earlier. Just because something is classified as comedy doesn't mean that you can ignore tone and intention of the jokes. It makes about as much sense as Melissa McCarthy talking about sticking a flute up her pussy.
Click to expand...

You asked why it might be in a Ghostbusters movie. I gave you a reason. I'm not denying that they're also trying to make a point with the joke... but why can't they attempt to make people think about issues while trying to make them laugh at the same time? Why do the jokes have to be completely devoid of social commentary?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Avatar: The Last Airbender: Season 2 | Official Trailer | Netflix
3
136
Mengy replied
Jennifer Runyon, ‘Ghostbusters’ and ‘Charles in Charge’ Actress, Dies at 65
8
394
Chuck Berry replied
The Devil Wears Prada 2 trailer
2
292
Woggleman replied
One Piece - Season 2 Trailer
News  2
51
1K
Nankatsu replied
Keeper Trailer #2
5
487
Reizo Ryuu replied
Top Bottom