Yet another Ghostbusters movie

[Ralif Redhammer]

Feminism and the women's rights movements began in the 19th century. Misogyny can't be excused as something they didn't know better about in the 80s.

That being said, I think it's okay to watch and enjoy these movies, but it's important to recognize elements as problematic when they are.

I don't think its to fair to judge 80's movies with social mores from 30+ years later.

 

[Tonguez]

"It's perfectly problematic for an 80s movie. Sure, it's not super rape-y, like Revenge of the Nerds, but it's definitely uncomfortable (I mean, we all recognize that it's probably wrong for professors to sleep with coeds under false pretenses, right, even when they are all cool and stuff). And the whole pursuit of Dana ... that's wasn't charming, that was creepy as eff. Again, times change, but if you watch this movie with a younger generation, you have some 'splainin to do as to why Venkman is "funny charming" and not "creepy rapey.""
.

Its true that Peter Venkman is portrayed as a fast talking womanizing charlatan, but they're not suppose to be positive traits, Venkman is a 'bit of a dick' who needs to change his ways for the team to succeed, which is why although Venkman is the front man, it is Ray and Egon who are ultimately the true heroes of Ghostbusters.

Admittedly, thats probably not something a casual viewer is going to pick up on

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I wonder if there's a time where Bill Murray didn't just show up and ad lib the whole thing?

Anyway, my favorite lines of the entire movie are actually between Ray and Winston. There's nothing funny about it, and it still gives me chills:

[video=youtube;iK6hI423gcw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK6hI423gcw[/video]

b. All the good quotes and lines are his. Fun fact- this is probably because all of the lines you are so fond of were ad libbed by Bill Murray. He was basically improv'ing his whole role in terms of dialogue.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here's the simple question to ask - did women of the time *enjoy* being treated like that? If not, it wasn't okay.

Hint: No, they didn't enjoy it at the time.

They didn't but a lot of them at the time didn't take it to seriously. I watched a lot of those movies at the time with my mother and sister and they found a lot of it funny.

Have not seen Revenge of the Nerds for a long time but yeah I can see that one not aging well. Rewatching some of that stuff I missed a lot of the jokes the 1st time around (Married with Children comes to mind).

Even at the time some of that was so over the top though it wasn't offensive as such or it was deliberately offensive kinda like South Park. A lot of National Lampoon stuff falls into that category.

If people think Ghostbusters is bad has anyone watched Blazing Saddles recently (its on Netflix over here). Is it art, satire, or needs to be burned?

I laughed at Married With Children and Blazing Saddles. Police Academy has not aged well however and my wife thought it was trash and I stopped watching after the 3rd one. Blues Brothers is very funny still but they didn't go into shock value to much like the National Lampoon stuff.

Some of that stuff I remember watching as a kid though because it had boobies in, or because it was offensive (even then). Dad got VHS tapes for free and would bring home a lot of them in the 80's. Want to rewatch some of the old Bud Spencer and Terrance Hill stuff but can't find them anywhere.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

Um .... Mel Brooks was making fun of prejudice in that movie; there are many things that you can accuse Mel Brooks of, but subtlety isn't one of those things.

To the extent that someone, today, misses the forest (the black characters in the movie are the smart ones, the ignorant rubes are the white people) for the trees (use of N-word), then they can't really be helped.

In fact, given the time period (1974), this would be an example of a movie not of its time, but instead critiquing its time.

I still liked Blazing Saddles. A lot of people complain about Married With Children online and I rewatched it and Al is the rube and usually gets his just desserts. Some of the things Peggy and Kelly come out with or how they are portrayed has not aged well but they mock everyone in that show. The men basically are beer drinking imbeciles and the context is real women would not like them.

Blazing Saddles was one of the movies we had on VHS, it shocked my wife a lot when we watched in couple of months ago. She asked "Is this really a western" and I couldn't really explain what it actually was easily. Animal House just seemed to be the prototype of American Pie and I didn't remember watching that one back in the day.

Is there such a thing as good offensive and bad offensive?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

So, that's not an easy question. For Americans familiar with the First Amendment, I am reminded that the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting, and that the right to provoke, offend, and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment.

But that just tells us about the government; it doesn't tell us how we should view things that are offensive. Great art often shocks, provokes, or offends people, often when it is made, before becoming banal at later dates - I mean, it's difficult for us to understand, today, that the Rite of Spring (supposedly?) caused a riot.

But part and parcel is understanding the ways in which the art is both a conscious attempt to make a point (Blazing Saddles as, inter alia, a critique of racism) and the ways in which art unconsciously reflects societal norms (16 Candles, Ghostbusters, Revenge of the Nerds). Arguably, the first generally can be met more positively because that's the intended purpose than the second, even though, in the case of unintentional reflection of societal norms, the artist (creator) never even meant to offend.


But, as far as I am concerned, this isn't about that. As I have stated, if you watch some of these things with an audience today, you really need to explain it. I don't want a child growing up to think that Venkman's approach is funny, or appropriate, in those scenes. If you're a parent, you've probably had some moments of discomfort as you've watched some supposedly great show or movie from your childhood, and it has things that you just didn't remember.

Maybe it leads to some self-reflection.

Could just be over analysing things as well. Millions of people saw Ghostbusters as a kid, I don't think it would have had much enduring impact beyond "I liked it as a kid" or disliked it whatever.

The 1st amendment makes porn legal in the USA, we don't actually have the equivalent here but its kind of in our society mores by default.

I don't remmebr much of Revenge of the Nerd beyond it being funny but I do remember it had naked women and the guys were perving at them using cameras IIRC. I also remember one of the lines regarding what they saw which I won't repeat here. IIRC it was nerds vs jocks but its probably been 30 odd years since I have seen that film. Most of the films I remember fondly are things like ET, Gremlins, Goonies, Labyrinth, Ghostbusters, Lost Boys, Batman. Fairly typical 80's movies for the most part and VHS of the 60's and 70's as well- Herbie the Love Bug, Sound of Music, Rocky Horror Picture Show, BLazing Saddles, Watch Out We're Mad.

 

[trappedslider]

I've watched Ghostbusters 1 with kids who are half my age if not a tad younger (mind you I'm only 33) and they found Venkman's attempts pathetically funny.