I’d say the Gaga was for pandering to fans of a celebrity to get them to watch. Making a Gaga centric episode at the height of Gaga’s popularity is pandering. As compared to having a few lines by George Harrison or Paul McCartney which were at their height of popularity 20 years earlier. When contemporary celebrities were used like Smashing Pumpkins is was as a cameo, not the focus of the entire episode.
The all woman Itchy Scratchy episode would be panned because it’s punching down on the feminist movie remakes.
Is that feminist? Giving women a recycled story with a history and a ton of baggage instead of a universe thats really theirs? You’re setting them up to never be their own thing, always compared to the original.
That’s the other thing. Take a beloved franchise, with expectations through the roof. Hire the laziest writers you can find, making sure none of them understand what people connected with in the source material. Market it as “look, the movie you loved, but with vaginas now!”
I’m convinced ghostbusters 2016 was created solely to give ammo to chuds.
I’m too familiar with internet anonymity to truly believe this but I wouldn’t be surprised if the ghostbusters backlash was started by the studio.
There’s no way they didn’t know it was bad…but they already paid for it and would get shit for canning it. So they made it seem like the release was sabotaged by the patriarchy.
Corporations are ALL about dividing and conquering.
You don’t hire the writers because they’re lazy, you hire them because they’re cheap and you want to minimise production costs because there are women in the film so you’re not expecting to sell any tickets except to people who’ve fallen for the social media marketing campaign you ran that said anyone who doesn’t watch the film is a misogynist. It’s just classic race-to-the-bottom profit seeking.
I could guess, but why don’t you just go ahead and say it? I’m not sure what you’re implying, it could be anything.
I’d say the Gaga was for pandering to fans of a celebrity to get them to watch. Making a Gaga centric episode at the height of Gaga’s popularity is pandering. As compared to having a few lines by George Harrison or Paul McCartney which were at their height of popularity 20 years earlier. When contemporary celebrities were used like Smashing Pumpkins is was as a cameo, not the focus of the entire episode.
The all woman Itchy Scratchy episode would be panned because it’s punching down on the feminist movie remakes.
Is that feminist? Giving women a recycled story with a history and a ton of baggage instead of a universe thats really theirs? You’re setting them up to never be their own thing, always compared to the original.
See, ladies? We made movies for you but no one liked them…obviously because of misogyny, not because they were obvious and soulless cash grabs.
It’s corporate feminism.
That’s the other thing. Take a beloved franchise, with expectations through the roof. Hire the laziest writers you can find, making sure none of them understand what people connected with in the source material. Market it as “look, the movie you loved, but with vaginas now!”
I’m convinced ghostbusters 2016 was created solely to give ammo to chuds.
I’m too familiar with internet anonymity to truly believe this but I wouldn’t be surprised if the ghostbusters backlash was started by the studio.
There’s no way they didn’t know it was bad…but they already paid for it and would get shit for canning it. So they made it seem like the release was sabotaged by the patriarchy.
Corporations are ALL about dividing and conquering.
You don’t hire the writers because they’re lazy, you hire them because they’re cheap and you want to minimise production costs because there are women in the film so you’re not expecting to sell any tickets except to people who’ve fallen for the social media marketing campaign you ran that said anyone who doesn’t watch the film is a misogynist. It’s just classic race-to-the-bottom profit seeking.
I’ve no idea either.