As for Ghostbusters 3, I am not ageist and would not mind seeing elderly people running around chasing ghosts. I really do not like the idea of bringing in younger, hip, pretty people for the sake of modernizing the series. If they are going to go that route, then they really should not bother with bringing in the veteran cast. It would work against them in two ways. The veteran cast would be left with little to do and the younger folk would be left with little screen time to establish themselves. An additional thing to consider would be that the writer or writer’s would have to consider that the veteran audience would hunger to see more of the veteran ghostbusters and the newer viewers would quickyly want to see the newer, younger ghostbusters. If they do this, they could follow the Police Academy model. That way the following movie after 3 would be with the new gb without the training wheels. :P
Anyway, as for the rest. I really don’t care for Spiderman, The Thing prequel, or news about Lady Gaga. Oh… and Vampire movies. I am sick to death about Vampire movies… they all suck. A vampire is basically a parasite in my mind… we have those in real life. Tapeworms! Imagine that Twilight chick making out with a giant CG tapeworm with Robert Pattinson’s face on it. :P

“I thought “Star Trek” had a better story than “Avatar”. But that is from a male perspective. ”

You are saying Star Trek is a better movie than Avatar, because women can’t appreciate it. You are inversely saying Avatar is not as good since men can’t appreciate it. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Neither movie has a particularly strong story, and in my opinion and those of many other men, both friends, fans and critics, Star Trek has a weak story. That has nothing to do with whether it appeals more to men or less to women.

“I do understand why you as a woman would prefer “Avatar”. “Avatar” with its characters is a much more female friendly movie than any Star Trek movie to date.”

“Female friendly”? You mean overly-emotional, PMS induced irrational thinking? You’ve already made it clear you don’t think Avatar is as good a film as Star Trek and now you say it’s because it has characters men can’t relate to as well as women. The equation you have subtly set up is that it is inferior because it panders to women. The characters in Star Trek are plenty female friendly. I recall reading that Spock was a sex symbol when the show was on the air in the sixties, receiving huge amounts of fan mail from women. Certainly the actors in the new film only increased the sexual appeal of the characters. But give women a little credit, women can see through a bad story no matter how many hunky actors and sappy, touchy-feely dialogue spouting characters are written into it, which Hollywood has also chauvinistically assumed is what women want.

“Since “Avatar” has made 3+times the revenue, it stands to reason then that many more women prefer that movie.”

While this may have been meant as an innocent casual comment, it is the underlying analysis that ruffles my feathers. There is absolutely no scientific proof to your theory. Just your observations, based on your perceived stereotypes of women. To prove your assumption, you merely make a casual assessment of your unique experience. The first night I saw Star Trek, the theatre was mostly couples. I recall seeing a few pairs of women together, and some guys together as well. So, at worst, that’s a 50/50 ratio. At Avatar, I saw mostly families. Mom, Dad, and seemingly more boys than girls. I also saw several single men. Besides me and my girlfriends, I saw no other women together or alone. Now I would never assume I knew the exact demographic makeup of those screenings without sitting at the door and clicking off the the men and women as they exited. But you’re saying you eyeballed exact percentages. Not only that, but it represents every audience in every theatre everywhere. Then the final insult is that of the almost 200 million people who have seen Avatar, you’re saying almost 130 million of them are women? Really? Whereas of Star Trek’s 52 million audience, you claim 70% were men. The implication is that had Star Trek been more female friendly, it would have gotten those 130+ million women to see it as well. The irony is that either way you slice it, Avatar is even drawing more men than Star Trek did.

But it really isn’t even the unscientific way in which you are supporting your observations, but the fact tat your conclusions seem to be based on your initial assumption that Star Trek appeals to men and Avatar appeals to women. And the underlying reason for that assumption is that Avatar isn’t as good a story.

Again, I am not calling you a sexist, I am only pointing out that your argument is sexist, despite your actual intentions. Your point is not lost on me. Avatar has a wider appeal, whereas Star Trek is more limited. But to say that appeal is limited to women alone, especially when you think Star Trek is a better film because you are a man and then go on to offer unscientific evidence to prove it, well, what can I say … that is a sexist way to voice it, even though you did not necessarily mean it that way.

If I had to guess, I would say that Avatar is drawing more children of both sexes than either adult men or women. This is the same reason Star Wars did so well. And E.T. But again, I have read absolutely nothing about the demographics driving Avatar’s meteoric numbers and I would not presume to offer my guesses as proof of anything.

I stand by what I said and will not respond to anymore of your insulting replies. Have a nice f**kin’ day!

6 different villains
4 different love interests
ugly old actors and actress frowning and crying for 2 hours straight
multiple cringe inducing scenes
lots of cheese
recycled moral themes
PROFIT !