(snip)
I was thinking actually...
”Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with men, will be huge
Isn't that kind of what they did with the Ghostbusters remake but with women instead? And now she is complaining about it. lol
That's a false equivalency, unless you're denying that men have a societal advantage.
It is literally what they did though. They redone Ghostbusters, but with women. If they did it again with men, it would only be what it originally was. That's not what the new film is anyway, but even so, it isn't worth complaining about. The film simply didn't succeed. If it did succeed, no doubt there would have been a sequel with her in it.
And not to make that point because of a perceived societal advantage. We're talking specifically about this movie franchise. A movie that these women were, as is obvious, given the opportunity to star in. This despite it being orignally a male cast. They were given all the opportunity in the world and it failed. As I said, if it didn't fail no doubt they would have been given the opportunity again. In terms of this movie franchise specifically, there was no societal advantage to being male. It was just unfortunate it was a crap movie.
Edit: I will point out actually. The correct interpretation of what she said was more along the lines of, they aren't
proper ghostbusters because they are women. I didn't mean it like that which I guess makes it confusing. I just meant that making the movie all men
this time should be irrelevant. The movie isn't 'good' because it is all women, and 'bad' because it is all men.
