- Last Active
@akritenbrink You're pretty lucky to have avoided all this, to be honest. There are many communities (on Reddit and elsewhere) where men complain that progressives, feminists, "SJWs", and pretty much all left-wing people are ruining society by pushing their agenda into media. Any time women (or people of colour, or LGBT people, etc, etc.) are cast in major roles in films, they claim the representation is just pandering to this crowd. They tend to respond to this by either organizing hilariously ineffectual boycotts of the film in question (see also: The Force Awakens, Rogue One, Fury Road) or just endlessly harassing the women involved. As to why Ghostbusters was such a big deal compared to the rest of these films...I really don't know! Maybe it's because it was an all-female cast (at least the new Star Wars films had male protagonists too, right?). Misguided and toxic nostalgia also played a big role - the ridiculous argument that a bad reboot can ruin your childhood. People tend to get really unhealthily defensive of stuff they enjoyed as a kid.
It did seem from the pre-release timing of the backlash that a lot of people were mad about the gender of the new Ghostbusters. But why? That perplexed me. It's not like they were national heroes who fought off Communism with their dicks or something. It was a goofy movie from the 80's. We did not take it that seriously even back then. I mean it was popular, but was it a life changing film that made one a man?You'd be surprised at the arguments that get made to justify this stuff. One alt-right YouTuber claimed that Ghostbusters was about "four friends starting a small business together", which according to him is an inherently male story, so to remake it with women didn't make sense. Obviously not all the arguments were quite that ridiculous, but still.Anyway, I'm not saying everyone who objected to or didn't like the new Ghostbusters was part of these groups (and I haven't seen the film myself either, so I can't speak for its quality - it could be terrible for all I know!), but they were the main contributor to the toxic atmosphere around the film since pretty much the moment it was announced. I'm not buying the whole "engineered by Sony" narrative - this same thing has happened too many times with different films, games, shows and books for me to think that was the cause.
Apparently this is "everyone asks @A_Ron_Hubbard stuff" time, so I might as well jump in: sorry if this has already been discussed before, but are the Baldies awards happening this year? I really liked the last one, but I haven't heard anything about it for a long time.
Like @Melia004 said, the more episodic side stories pretty much completely vanish towards the end of season 3, and everything from that point on is pretty plot-heavy. The reason the larger plot moved so slowly in seasons 1-3 is because they didn't know how long the show was going to run for; once they set an end date, they could just get to telling the story without having to worry about stuff like that. And yeah, that's why some of the flashbacks in seasons 2 and 3 feel pointless - you can tell they had run out of things to say about certain characters, but had committed to doing more flashbacks for them anyway. Still, I'd say season 3 is better than season 2. It has some of the worst episodes of the whole show, but also some of the very best, especially towards the end. The lows were lower, but the highs were higher, if that makes any sense.
Yeah no.... I'm aware of that. And that's not what's bothering me (yet). Twin Peaks had a similar way of leaving things ambiguous / open / unsolved, and I loved that show.
If you don't like having to wait to find out what's going on; if it really, really bothers you... It's hard to say how you'll feel about the rest of the show. That basically was the show's whole catch--wtf is going on? Not every single question is answered, nor every mystery solved
My problem is more that they throw in these 1 episode side-stories that are a little silly. Like the example I gave about Hurley (?) not knowing what to do with the food.
I guess they needed to put in some human interest stories, some smaller story arcs to give the show some content in between the big, more consequential events. But those smaller stories feel a bit cheesy/soapie to me.
For example. It makes me want to fast-forward when another half episode is spent on showing us that the long-haired dude is an insufferable douchebag. I got that already in season 1. Let's move on. It's like watching The Walking Dead characters going through the same motions again and again and again.
I'm probably spoiled by The Leftovers. And yeah, I see the irony in that.
This whole season has been incredible, and much better than season 1 (which was already great). I know some people are annoyed about it, but I'm hyped to see McGillbowl and even more hyped to see (probably) Gus next year. I'm happy to just sit back and enjoy this show at whatever pace it wants to go at as long as it stays this good, although I will be disappointed if we don't get to some during/after Breaking Bad stuff eventually.