>>5397533Joke's on you, anon. I'm a progressive. I just happen to believe that basing your decisions on race, sex, gender, and/or sexuality is regressive as fuck.
>Is the only possible reason for hiring women or blacks to kiss up to progressives? No, seriously. Is there any other reason? Because this is always the explanation, when that happens.No, of course not. Unless you decide to replace the entire cast with them and then decide to deflect criticisms with "You're just a bigot!" Which is exactly what you're doing now.
>And, what is wrong with kissing up to progressives? It's not like they are belligerent assholes or child rapists, or anything. Every work of art picks and audience to speak to. What is wrong with picking one audience over another?So I take it I'm wasting my time here and responding to a complete troll at this point. Whatevs, I have the free time. The ultimate problem with picking one audience over another is that in this case you're picking an audience that had no interest in Ghostbusters over its well established fanbase. The filmmakers are free to do this, but don't pretend the old fans getting pissed off is unwarranted. They have every right to be mad and simply not enjoy the film.
<
If Ghost Busters had a four sexy action heroes, or teenagers, or Muppets, would that be better than four moms? Each one of those is a hook for some social group. Why so salty because they picked four women?
From a production standpoint, it would be just as bad. Replacing a well known and beloved cast always has negative repercussions among a fanbase. Maybe if you'd read my fucking post thoroughly you'd have gotten this point.
There's a very real possibility that this casting was politically motivated on some level. Even if it was purely a creative choice, politics are being thrown at anyone who disagrees. That's really shitty in of itself.
