[Studlock]

Gorefest, on 09 August 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Studlock, on 09 August 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

This related to both this specific film, internet rating, and wider cultural phenomenon of men disliking things aimed at women (I actually remembering reading a lit review on this subject but I can no longer find it): http://fivethirtyeig...ngs-are-broken/

Erm. I'm sure Ghostbusters isn't 'aimed at women'. Just because it has a mostly female cast doesn't mean that it is a 'chickflick' or similar discriptor. It's aimed at the general public, as most summer blockbusters are. So I stopped reading after the second paragraph. Because the author just mutilated their own point by formulating it that way, in my opinion.

It doesn't have to be a 'chickflick' to be courting a women audience--just having a majority woman cast is often enough to signal to society that its interested in courting women as an audience unlike most summer blockbusters (especially action movies) which are definitely branded toward young men. But that's not really the point--its looking at the internet ratings (before the movie was out btw) and looking at how it was rated by men, and by women. Men outnumbered women 5 to 1 in the ratings on IMBD and significantly marked it at a lower rating. You can go ahead and disagree with his analysis but the numbers don't lie.

@ Apt, sure that good be the result, but are you willing to argue that men objectively have better taste that women--essentially stating the women are objectively inferior to men?

And finally at the Redpiller stand-in, uh, good burn man.

[Aptorian]

Studlock, on 09 August 2016 - 11:27 PM, said:

Gorefest, on 09 August 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Studlock, on 09 August 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

This related to both this specific film, internet rating, and wider cultural phenomenon of men disliking things aimed at women (I actually remembering reading a lit review on this subject but I can no longer find it): http://fivethirtyeig...ngs-are-broken/

Erm. I'm sure Ghostbusters isn't 'aimed at women'. Just because it has a mostly female cast doesn't mean that it is a 'chickflick' or similar discriptor. It's aimed at the general public, as most summer blockbusters are. So I stopped reading after the second paragraph. Because the author just mutilated their own point by formulating it that way, in my opinion.

It doesn't have to be a 'chickflick' to be courting a women audience--just having a majority woman cast is often enough to signal to society that its interested in courting women as an audience unlike most summer blockbusters (especially action movies) which are definitely branded toward young men. But that's not really the point--its looking at the internet ratings (before the movie was out btw) and looking at how it was rated by men, and by women. Men outnumbered women 5 to 1 in the ratings on IMBD and significantly marked it at a lower rating. You can go ahead and disagree with his analysis but the numbers don't lie.

@ Apt, sure that good be the result, but are you willing to argue that men objectively have better taste that women--essentially stating the women are objectively inferior to men?

And finally at the Redpiller stand-in, uh, good burn man.

Oh no, we're going to derail this thread aren't we...

See Studlock, I was kind of worried that you might take offense, it was a joke made in jest. So was Maarks, by the way, the way I read it.

You complain about red pill commentary but the piece you link to and the research in it, is in and of itself a part of the (some times quite rabid) feminist discourse, that makes everything about gender war, instead of gender understanding. That's what Maark was referring to, I think.

Your question:

Quote

@ Apt, sure that good be the result, but are you willing to argue that men objectively have better taste that women--essentially stating the women are objectively inferior to men?

Is in and of itself insane.

You're arguing that one group having a better taste in films (which was a joke), means that the other group is somehow made inferior by such a declaration?

You are attributing a very large non-homogeneous group of peoples likes or dislikes to the idea that one group feels superior or inferior to the other. You are taking millions of people and mushing them into one easily quantifiable and eaily dispised ball of hatred that you label "men".

When in reality we're talking about a pop-culture subject that was a train wreck from the moment it was launched. People don't hate New Ghost Busters because it's "made for women". They hate it because it looks god awful.

Go back and look at the first page of this thread and read the forumites reactions to the trailers. Everyone is apprehensive if not outright dismissive. Now consider that we're on a very civil messaging board that makes the rest of the Internet look like barbarians and what do you expect?

You're using IMDB and metacritic-like scores to synthesize an opinion on gender equality through some kind of alchemical-pseudo-social science funnel that only ever churns out "This is what's wrong with the world", instead of accepting that maybe it's okay to just not like the same things. (Maybe people commenting on IMDB are garbage people that should be launched into the sun.)

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and people on the internet are assholes.

This post has been edited by Apt: 10 August 2016 - 07:41 AM

[worry]

Not to wade too far out, but yes, in fact, the IMDB message boards are a bottomless cesspool admixture of vile and inane, and always have been. They are the grandaddy of Web 2.0's legacy of self-righteous mean-spirited blather. They kinda have a special place in my heart.

[worry]

Also, while fivethirtyeight might have feminist leanings -- in the regular simple non-moron person sense -- I don't see how anyone would take them as particularly activist in nature.

Also, to suggest the movie seemed a trainwreck from the beginning, and that's what people were reacting to, is to rewrite history. The movie had the same reactionary bile aimed its way from that subset of gynophobes that spout off every time women do anything that seems to encroach on "their" territory, and that started long before the wonky trailers were released.

And yah, the trailers weren't great, and everyone felt at least uneasy about that here, but we all know 99% of trailers should be shipped directly from the movie studio to the junkyard w/o stopping at any theaters in-between anyway. And also the movie actually came out already, some of us saw it for real, and it was actually pretty good (not an attempt at 'objectiveness' but useful in contrast to the trailers). It's fine not to be interested in the movie, of course, but rating it low out of spite or to make a point or whatever is just kinda lame (not that I'm inflating the importance of IMDB scores next to, say, world hunger or anything, and I'm not really a data-junkie/fivethirtyeight fanboy either, but some people like that stuff, and it's not exactly pseudoscience). Anyway, it's like those adults who complain about how annoying Barney the Dinosaur is. Who cares what you think about Barney, dude? Why you barging into the sample population?

[Aptorian]

worry, on 10 August 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

Also, to suggest the movie seemed a trainwreck from the beginning, and that's what people were reacting to, is to rewrite history. The movie had the same reactionary bile aimed its way from that subset of gynophobes that spout off every time women do anything that seems to encroach on "their" territory, and that started long before the wonky trailers were released.

Yes and no.

To argue that the majority of the hatred towards the film is gender focused, or that is the controversy's origin, I think is absurd. Most people can recognize a film that looks bad when they see one. Doesn't have to be a gender issue.

However, yes, clearly there have been vocal meninist groups (or what ever you want to call them) that took offense to what they saw as "their film" being hijacked by evil women. But vice versa I saw just as big a push from women groups heralding the film as a victory for women, a film you should support because it empowered women in films, etc.

Making the film an instant hot button issue where, as I think QT pointed out on another page, you cannot criticize Ghost Busters 3 without being accused of being a misogynist. Which is silly. Critizing a film about or for women, is not the same as being against women or feminism. Feminism or women's issues is not a shield that should just deflect any and all criticism.

I think New Ghost Busters looks terrible because the writing seems terrible, the acting looks bad and the special effects detract from the movies horror origin. Not because there's 4 women leads and a male secretary in the film.

EDIT: More on point with Studlocks article.

Are the men disliking Ghost Busters and other women-centric content doing it because this content does not appeal to them personally?

Or are they doing it out of spite to keep the woman down?

The statistic that something like 5 times the amount of male-users will give negative scores compared to women, to me, suggests that 5 times the amount of users are male than women, not that the men go out of their way to take a shit on content for women.

Occam's razor suggests that neck beards are too busy watching naruto porn to spend their time hounding women on IMDB.

This post has been edited by Apt: 10 August 2016 - 09:31 AM

[Maark Abbott]

worry, on 10 August 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

Not to wade too far out, but yes, in fact, the IMDB message boards are a bottomless cesspool admixture of vile and inane, and always have been. They are the grandaddy of Web 2.0's legacy of self-righteous mean-spirited blather. They kinda have a special place in my heart.

Sort of like 4chan, but less... Ehhhh... 4channy?

[Morgoth]

Apt, on 10 August 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

worry, on 10 August 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

Also, to suggest the movie seemed a trainwreck from the beginning, and that's what people were reacting to, is to rewrite history. The movie had the same reactionary bile aimed its way from that subset of gynophobes that spout off every time women do anything that seems to encroach on "their" territory, and that started long before the wonky trailers were released.

Yes and no.

To argue that the majority of the hatred towards the film is gender focused, or that is the controversy's origin, I think is absurd. Most people can recognize a film that looks bad when they see one. Doesn't have to be a gender issue.

However, yes, clearly there have been vocal meninist groups (or what ever you want to call them) that took offense to what they saw as "their film" being hijacked by evil women. But vice versa I saw just as big a push from women groups heralding the film as a victory for women, a film you should support because it empowered women in films, etc.

Making the film an instant hot button issue where, as I think QT pointed out on another page, you cannot criticize Ghost Busters 3 without being accused of being a misogynist. Which is silly. Critizing a film about or for women, is not the same as being against women or feminism. Feminism or women's issues is not a shield that should just deflect any and all criticism.

I think New Ghost Busters looks terrible because the writing seems terrible, the acting looks bad and the special effects detract from the movies horror origin. Not because there's 4 women leads and a male secretary in the film.

EDIT: More on point with Studlocks article.

Are the men disliking Ghost Busters and other women-centric content doing it because this content does not appeal to them personally?

Or are they doing it out of spite to keep the woman down?

The statistic that something like 5 times the amount of male-users will give negative scores compared to women, to me, suggests that 5 times the amount of users are male than women, not that the men go out of their way to take a shit on content for women.

Occam's razor suggests that neck beards are too busy watching naruto porn to spend their time hounding women on IMDB.

First and foremost, the mighty roar of the meninist crowd was heard long before the the first trailer was released. Arguing otherwise is inherently dishonest. I remember all that shit when it was revealed who would be the main characters. Furthermore, the idea that a movie will not appeal to someone because the main leads are women and not men makes me cringe deep in my soul.

Also, Apt, you know that's not what that statistic means. Seriously, you have a weird ass taste in movies but you are not dumb. So either you misunderstood somehow, or you're just being less honest about your biases than Maark, whom at least is very open about his leanings.

[Tsundoku]

The word 'Meninist' just makes me think of the international scourge of Larxist-Meninism.

[Aptorian]

Morgoth, on 10 August 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

Also, Apt, you know that's not what that statistic means. Seriously, you have a weird ass taste in movies but you are not dumb. So either you misunderstood somehow, or you're just being less honest about your biases than Maark, whom at least is very open about his leanings.

Which part?

I assure you that I hate all people equally.

[Maark Abbott]

QuickTidal, on 10 August 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

I don't have anyone on Facebook no. I guess that means I'm wrong about him joking? My bad.

Eh what? My comment about cishet patriarchies was made in jest yes, but a jest aimed at those triggerkin who are upset that people aren't liking this film because obviously disliking a film means you are a Zerg Missogylisk with +3 carapace and +3 Missile Attack. It's a bit daft to accuse people of arbitrary sexism because they haven't enjoyed (or are not interested in) a film.

[Aptorian]

Maark Abbott, on 10 August 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

Zerg Missogylisk

This is the best thing I have read all day.

[Maark Abbott]

Apt, on 10 August 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 10 August 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

Zerg Missogylisk

This is the best thing I have read all day.

Unit image is obviously going to be a Lurker with a fedora and neckbeard combo.

[Maark Abbott]

Morgoth, on 10 August 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

or you're just being less honest about your biases than Maark, whom at least is very open about his leanings.

Bias? I do look forward to an explanation as to why mocking extreme SJW culture makes me biased, or misogynist, or homophobic, or Aquaman. Please, continue.

[Aptorian]

Time to movie this conversation into the discussion forum perhaps?

[Vengeance]

This is for the discussion that was started in the Ghostbusters movie thread.

[D'rek]

Apt, on 10 August 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 10 August 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

Zerg Missogylisk

This is the best thing I have read all day.

You require additional pile-ons.

[Maark Abbott]

D, on 10 August 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

Apt, on 10 August 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 10 August 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

Zerg Missogylisk

This is the best thing I have read all day.

You require additional pile-ons.

*You must construct

I'm sorry D'rek. But I get super anal about unit quote references and such. You require would go with 'more minerals' or 'more Vespense gas.

[D'rek]

Maark Abbott, on 10 August 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:

D, on 10 August 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

Apt, on 10 August 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 10 August 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

Zerg Missogylisk

This is the best thing I have read all day.

You require additional pile-ons.

*You must construct

I'm sorry D'rek. But I get super anal about unit quote references and such. You require would go with 'more minerals' or 'more Vespense gas.

Oops. 1998 is hard to remember


Anyways, on-topic, it is always going to be very difficult to discuss overall reactions or trends of the "general population" because its so easy these days for a small but vocal/active minority to make themselves look a lot larger.

Yeah, there certainly was a group of hateful "meninists" who got angry about Ghostbsuters 3 as soon as the female main cast decision was announced, but who knows how big that group really was. It could've been thousands of upset men, or it could've been 12 guys with a lot of time on their hands. With most online discussion places allowing multiple anonymous user accounts per person, it's nigh-impossible to tell.

We can be certain that the general populace wasn't particularly motivated to go see the movie, as the box office numbers were low (or at least low compared to what Sony had expected and needed for it to be profitable), but there's still no way to know why that box office turn-out was low. Critics, journalists, random internet denizens and more can all speculate on why it is, but I don't see anyone actually conducting a worldwide door-to-door "Why didn't you go see GB3?" survey, so again all the information they are gleaning to speculate on the why is coming from internet comments which probably only reflect a vocal minority of the populace.

[QuickTidal]

Can we clarify (for nitpicking sake) that this was NOT Ghostbusters 3. It's not a sequel to the existing films. I would no more call it Ghostbusters 3 as call Robocop (reboot) the 4th one, or Total Recall (reboot) Total Recall 2. It was a completely new entity exiting in its own universe and is the first of such.

/pushes nerd glasses up

[Studlock]

So apparently Apt failed statistics. When looking at Ghostbuster's specifically the average rating is 4.1 out of 10, average men rating is 3.6 out of 10, and average women rating is 7.7 out of 10 (which is a non-great score, basically agreeing with critics opinion of it being a fine movie, nothing less and nothing more). What's interesting here is that the men's average score is significantly lower than the women's average score--highlighting a pretty big difference in opinion between men and women on this specific movie before it even came out. None of your conclusions actually make any statistical sense (but aren't apparently because statistical analysis is a pseudo-science--I doubt you understand enough actual science to come to that conclusion, and you definitely don't understand statistics enough to come to any sensible conclusion). That there is more men than women explains why the average is so low. And this follows his other work on the issue: http://fivethirtyeig...aimed-at-women/


The funny thing is the article didn't even say the movie was good, or great, or even worth your time. If you had actually read instead of letting your own implicit, (or in the case of embarrassing individual who uses terms like SJW seriously explicit) bias you would have come to a similar conclusion. That article wasn't about the aesthetic quality of Ghostbusters, it was using Ghostbuster as case study to highlight a bias between men and women when it comes to rating things on the internet--a topic that come up in the thread before hand. Now you argue this is 'vocal minority' or that people on the internet are 'assholes' (though that wouldn't follow--if people on the internet were simply assholes, and there wasn't divergence between opinion between men and women you would see a similar rating for both men and women), but the way you're arguing it is idiotic. Of course you can dislike the movie without being explicitly or implicitly sexist about (and looking at the 7.7 rating, most women weren't that hot about it either) but that article shows that a rather larger number of men have a bias toward that film because it is a women-centric movie (if not in its themes then its casting). None of your arguments have actually refuted that, or gave a more convincing explanation as to why the divergence is there.

@ D'rek--the base line numbers of voting before the film was out was 12, 921. 7, 547 who were men and 1, 564 who were women. These aren't insignificant samples of people (both men and women). Self-selection may be playing a part however (i.e. people who are more emotionally invested in voting voted, and that's why there is a bigger divergence between men and women) so it could still be a 'vocal minority' in that sense.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 10 August 2016 - 07:26 PM