gotcha. but I think in the movie everyone character save Watney is reduced to a cardboard cut out. And its done purposefully so we become fully invested in Watney’s journey.
And not to get too far off the topic of GB, but that’s expected. A book has more room to develop and flesh out a large ensemble cast. A movie doesn’t have that sort of ability or even opportunity (Don’t count LOTR, its a great ensemble cast who all get good in depth development; however its a 3 movie trilogy totaling a billion hours). So I do not think Ridley Scott failed Wiig or didn’t know how to use her in the Martian. I think she did exactly what everyone did and was asked to do for the sake of making what was a damn good movie.
While it would be interesting to see Leslie Jones cast wildly against type as a stuck-up brainy scientist, she’s often very funny when doing her angry black woman schtick that she’s known for. She’s well known enough that when she appeared on screen, half of the audience I saw the movie with cheered, and she got a lot of laughs. Since we never see her talk to or interact with any MTA colleagues at all, inferring that she’s ‘patronized’ or works in a racist environment is complete invention on your friends’ part.
Interpretation =/= invention. They mentioned several scenes where the whites’ attitude toward her was problematic to the point of constituting
Her colleagues are the other ghostbusters. It’s not about Columbia Profs or MTA Workers, no? The other three ghostbusters, all white, are of whom I speak.
And I believe there are other black female actors than Leslie Jones but lovely try.
“The whites”?
I don’t recall any scenes, but perhaps my memory is faulty.
And yes, there are other black actresses, but Leslie Jones was cast in this movie. I’d assume the director wanted to use her strengths as a comedian rather than cast against type.
I saw GB over the weekend as well. I thought it was pretty OK – equal parts wonderful and terrible. When it was the four Ghostbusters interacting it was incredibly enjoyable with their back and forth. It was largely quite funny and really took me back to the original GB. The little quips toward YouTube commenters were definitely not lost on me. Hemsworth hamming it up was definitely funny but I found it just a bit overdone after a while. As funny as Leslie Jones was, I think it was a waste to have her playing the typical “sassy black woman” trope without any real character development.
Where I felt where the film really fell flat was during the action scenes – they were largely so boring and uninteresting – especially the finale. I agree with @nungesser that it felt like there was very choppy editing and content left on the cutting room floor. Maybe the inevitable director’s cut will smooth things out a bit.
I will further maintain I think I would may have liked it a lot more if it were a continuation of the original and not a reboot. There were tons of callbacks to the original – from cameos to recycling characters and set pieces. Some of them were funny and surprising but largely I found them to be lazy and unnecessary. Ghostbusters wasn’t a case like Star Trek that had decades of canon to contend with where it was deemed simpler to say “fuck it, we’re taking this franchise in a completely different direction so let’s literally wipe out the past.” I just don’t get why they needed to reboot rather than continue with some fresh material. I almost groaned at the post credits scene where “What’s Zuul” was said since that pretty much guaranteed that the inevitable sequel would retread even more old ground..
I’d gladly see the votes when you remove 1s and 10s. (maybe even 2s and 9s).
I feel that we’ll get a grasp on the value of this movie only when all this dust will settle.
At the moment i only have seen the trailer, that i found quite poor.
My point is that Leslie Jones is a talented, funny woman who was well used in the movie; as others pointed out, she proved to be essential to their team by being the history nerd of the group. I think that stereotyping her, as you are, is unkind, and saying that I support the stereotype “and all that implies” isn’t kind either. Please don’t do that.
Wow an inability to appreciate the possibility of racial stereotyping is projected as stereotyping in your interlocutor. Not sure we can argue past your style of “no that’s false because you are that thing you criticize” recursivity. It’s like talking about race with conservatives or those who don’t see the problems with our constructions of race and attack when things are pointed out to them: IM NOT PREJUDICES YOU ALL JUST KEEP BRINGING UP RACE AAAARGG
Must be tiring! Perhaps we can agree that Annie Potts was great in the original and in the remake? That’s what I heard.
You hit the two things that worry me about the movie, mainly it being a reboot when it didn’t need to be and the ‘angry black woman’ trope. That trope takes stage front and center in the trailers and makes me cringe every time. I’ll still see the movie this weekend hopefully. I’ll probably still enjoy it and there seems to be a lot going on with the movie to be hopeful about. I’m not the sort to listen to reviews and end up liking many movies with poor reviews.
This idea that a star as big as Leslie Jones would have no input or say in how her character written seems… patronizing and infantilizing to me. She’s a big star. And an adult woman. If the roll was distastful or seemingly racist to her I don’t think she would have taken it. I really don’t see how you saying you like her in the movie or pointing out that her role is integral to the plot (unlike Winston) is somehow supporting racism or anti-BLM… that is just the weirdest leap in logic I’ve ever seen… I guess I’m just commenting to say I see you and your point. Hello.
Is there some terminology being bandied about the Breitbart crowd or something where they’re playing as if they’re ‘defending Leslie Jones’ now?
There’s something odd about a couple of these conversations, as if the people screaming the loudest about ‘isms’ in the new Ghostbusters are also the ones who generally don’t care about such things and are using it as a tactic rather than for any concern about her or her role.
I will give credit where it’s due, as @nungesser pointed out is that despite her playing the “sassy black woman” trope (I edited my original post to clarify this since “angry” wasn’t really correct) she is still a valued part of the team thanks to her in-depth knowledge of the history and infrastructure of the city. I was just hoping for more.
In the original GB, Zeddemore’s back story was largely absent. He wasn’t just some out of work schlub desperate for a job, he was a combat vetran and overall badass with extensive martial arts and small arms experience. He didn’t know the science, but he was well suited to working in a high pressure environment. Of course that was all cut from the film and he ended up being pretty underutilized.
I’m honestly a little baffled, but given that the other side of the conversation devolved into all-caps screaming quickly, it’s not an argument I’m really interested in pursuing, to be honest. I completely get the ‘sassy black woman’ stereotype being something folks are sensitive about, but as @Missy_Pants says, Leslie Jones is a grown woman, I think she knows what she’s doing.
I think many of us are saying the same thing. She did great in her role, and it didn’t make me uncomfortable. I was just hoping for something more – maybe some more inversions of the trope beyond “history buff and infrastructure nerd” but I just never saw it.
Oh, I’m sure we all have a few preferences and changes we’d make. I’m like that with all movies.
For example, as far as I’m concerned there wasn’t nearly enough McKinnon/Holtzmann. In fact, a lot of movies would be better with Kate McKinnon (as Holtzmann or not).
Superman vs. Batman vs. Holtzmann would be awesome. (I think that’d be mostly Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent going to much needed therapy while Holtzmann saves the day)
