Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

What I find curious... wasn't the Ghost T rex in Feigs initial script outline? the one with the executed prisoner?(as if getting electrocuted wasn't enough, he needs to get hit by lightning to become a 'super ghost'..ugh). I so, SO hope that the musical number is still in tact. that right there will give rifftrax loads of material. I especially want thor to belt out a big dance number...

Okay stop right there.....I'm not nerdy enough to follow every little detail about a series through the years and what's being done with it but.....

WTF is this about super ghosts and musical crap??!

EXCUSE ME?

Oh gawd we may have something worse then the second film? Lord have mercy on us all!
 
Okay stop right there.....I'm not nerdy enough to follow every little detail about a series through the years and what's being done with it but.....

WTF is this about super ghosts and musical crap??!

EXCUSE ME?

Oh gawd we may have something worse then the second film? Lord have mercy on us all!

In the initial outline, a prisoner was going to get executed, and as he died, his GHOST got hit by lightning as it was exiting, and he turned into a super ghost that was able to command all the armies of the past. at the end, it was supposed to be a big musical number for some reason,with the ghost controlling an army of possessed people as I seem to recall. granted, it has been so long, I can't remember all the details, but those two plot points stuck in my mind ever since.
 
In the initial outline, a prisoner was going to get executed, and as he died, his GHOST got hit by lightning as it was exiting, and he turned into a super ghost that was able to command all the armies of the past. at the end, it was supposed to be a big musical number for some reason,with the ghost controlling an army of possessed people as I seem to recall. granted, it has been so long, I can't remember all the details, but those two plot points stuck in my mind ever since.

..............
.........................
....................................

I.
Got.
Nothing.

No I do,if I hear of such in the movie I'm gonna run for my dear little soul and pretend this doesn't exist!
 
This is spot on and I have to say this is how I feel about the matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvO3XoGG7u4

NSFW *LANGUAGE*

That was some major sexist garbage. I might have chuckled if he was going with sarcasm, but he was telling it straight.

Also using photos of women being scared in haunted houses to prove that only women are scared of ghosts, while there are dozens of men in those galleries who were scared ****less too.

And women aren't badasses? It's like he time traveled from the 19th century and he is probably also baffled why women are allowed to vote. I just looked up his name and now not at all surprised by this video, he is consistent.
 
I didn't get that video personally. I don't know about anyone else, but if I see a ghost, I'm not staying calm, cool, and collected with an expression that would make bull from night court proud.. I'm running for the hills and selling my house and hoping it doesn't follow me to my new home.
 
That was some major sexist garbage. I might have chuckled if he was going with sarcasm, but he was telling it straight.

Also using photos of women being scared in haunted houses to prove that only women are scared of ghosts, while there are dozens of men in those galleries who were scared ****less too.

And women aren't badasses? It's like he time traveled from the 19th century and he is probably also baffled why women are allowed to vote. I just looked up his name and now not at all surprised by this video, he is consistent.

It's also worth pointing out that he used the incorrect photo to demonstrate how they don't have the Ghostbusters logo on their uniforms. He probably meant to show the on-set photo where they didn't have the logo and loaded the properly released photo where their uniforms do sport the logo by mistake. Oops.

I didn't get that video personally. I don't know about anyone else, but if I see a ghost, I'm not staying calm, cool, and collected with an expression that would make bull from night court proud.. I'm running for the hills and selling my house and hoping it doesn't follow me to my new home.

You would think that someone like him would have remembered one of the more iconic scenes in the movie like this one.

scaredvank_zpsakynifto.png


Yep. Not frozen with terror at all.
 
Last edited:
This thread illustrates the problem with awarding Feig the job on these conditions perfectly. Everyone's talking about women and sexism instead of Ghostbusters, even in response to discussion purely about the story or development. I'd start a new thread intended to focus on the thing as a film and continuation of the property - no dragging social issues into it, especially from outside of here - but I know some of you won't be able to help yourselves from crudding that one up as well. :facepalm
 
Fair enough. The quotes you pulled actually illustrate it perfectly. Your response to my complaint about it being a reboot, separate from the original films, try to shift the conversation to a discussion about me trying to separate "Feig-Ghostbusters" from "original Ghostbusters." That part is a given. That couldn't at all be the point I was trying to make - that's the foundation of Feig's approach.

Erm, see, that's not what I was doing though. I had been making analogies to other film franchises (Trek, Spiderman, Fantastic 4), which you kept dismissing. My next post, replying to the one of your which I quoted above explained the point:
Jeyl made the comparison to JJTrek, which I thought was a valid point. You said that the situations (grabbing a "name" director and adding "in the moment" actors) were not at all similar.

Your reasoning - that they tied in the old universe, therefore the situations are different, doesn't really hold much water.

Tying in the old universe is not an objective criteria by which one can judge the success or failure of a reboot.

That's what I mean when I say you're trying to delineate Ghostbusters...I did not say, as you seem to have misinterpreted, that you were trying to delineate the new film from the old ones.

You replied "Blocked the troll."

Just like a pages later when you kept insisting that it was I who said Feig's movie must start from scratch - that was Feig himself.

Right, and I admitted that I misread you there. I retracted what I wrote, and edited my post accordingly. Although I do stand by saying that your post was blurring the lines between history and opinion.

My own response which you quoted above? I have no idea what you're trying to point out with that. I really don't.

What I wrote: "...the way in which you're trying to delineate Ghostbusters from other franchises makes no objective sense."
What you wrote "...is not my trying to "delineate it" from the original films."

If you're imploring me to read your words, can I ask the same from you? "Other franchises" is not "the original films."

You would have to read a lot of Sony emails (they're all on wikileaks, search terms like "ghostbusters," "feig," "ivan," "paul," etc) to put the whole puzzle together. Here are some easy, publicly-available mainstream articles in the biggest film trade of all that spell it out pretty well:

"But Amy Pascal, who greenlit “Ghostbusters” before being pushed out as head of Sony Pictures, and who will earn her first producing credit on the movie, says he deserves that accolade. “He loves women,” she says. “That should make him the sexiest man alive, if any woman has any sense at all.”
It was Pascal who long pursued bringing “Ghostbusters” back to the bigscreen. She approached Feig early on, when she was still studio head. “I was courting him for like a year,” she says..."

"Initially, Feig wasn’t interested in a standard remake, saying, “I just couldn’t get my head around it.” But every day, he takes a four-mile walk to clear his head, and it was on one of these constitutionals that the idea hit him to reboot the film with women. “I know how to do that movie, and I know all these funny women,” he recalls thinking. Pascal loved the idea."

(Reference: http://variety.com/2015/film/news/paul-feig-ghostbusters-women-spy-1201471590/ )

I put out a request for a link to the bit where she claims that he turned her down a few times due to lack of interest. I'll post it up when I've got it. But in any case, for once in this thread, read our actual words and note that our problem is with SONY HIRING FEIG when he puts "women" ahead of "Ghostbusters" on his priority list and not with Feig wanting to execute his vision once hired or make female-driven comedies. And in case it needs to be said - it shouldn't - that's a "Ghostbuster fan" perspective and not a "sexist" one. I'd be happy to see a good story about REAL ghostbusters of any gender made.

I did read a lot of the wikileaks emails actually.

But at this point, I would also point out that you seem to be under the impression that sexism and criticism of the film are inherently mutually exclusive. Look, I don't think everyone here is a raging misogynist. I don't think every comment here is sexist. I don't even think it's fair to say that I've been the one crying "sexist!" at every turn. I have called out comments which are sexist :):cough::NeilT::cough::); and, I have argued that sexism is a part of the backlash. But only in response to such comments which claim that it doesn't exist. I would suggest that a group of men are not the best arbiters of whether or not sexism exists. But hey, maybe that's just me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm in the "Who cares?" camp.
The original Ghostbusters will still exist, and this will probably be forgotten in a year, just like everything else Melissa McCarthy does.
I'm sure I'll rent it when it comes to my local Redbox, but I won't be paying to see it in a theater.
I like Kristen Wiig a lot, so I'll see anything she does. I don't know who the other 2 women are.
Not impressed with the prop and costume design so far, but I suspect it may actually be part of the plot, so I'll wait and see before I get all super-negative.
But frankly I don't care enough about this to love or hate it.
Best I can muster is a halfhearted "meh".
 
I'm in the "Who cares?" camp.
The original Ghostbusters will still exist, and this will probably be forgotten in a year, just like everything else Melissa McCarthy does.
I'm sure I'll rent it when it comes to my local Redbox, but I won't be paying to see it in a theater.
I like Kristen Wiig a lot, so I'll see anything she does. I don't know who the other 2 women are.
Not impressed with the prop and costume design so far, but I suspect it may actually be part of the plot, so I'll wait and see before I get all super-negative.
But frankly I don't care enough about this to love or hate it.
Best I can muster is a halfhearted "meh".

It's this general sentiment that I think will be behind ticket sales. "I like XYZ actress, so I guess I'll go see." After the trailer is released, that number will grow somewhat. But I don't really think it's gonna end up being anything special. It'll just be, y'know, another movie. It won't be a mega hit like Bridesmaids was. It probably won't totally bomb (although that's possible). It'll just be a "meh" movie. Folks will see it. Some will like it. Some will think "Eh. It was alright for a Friday night out." Sony will greenlight a sequel if the BO Returns start decently strong and show less than 50% dropoff in week 2. And that'll be that. It'll all end up being...pretty forgettable.
 
Wow, look at you guys! I was content to walk away after the motorcycle pics, but I'm in between coats of paint again so I've got a few minutes to kill. Look, you guys can **** and moan until the film drops (as I'm sure some will) but 2 facts will remain.

1) The film was stunt cast.
2) It will suck because it was stunt cast.

It's just that simple. Now, if you want to get technical, I don't find the first thing likable or remotely funny with any of the people involved. I have zero doubts this thing will move exactly like a bad Saturday Night Live skit- It's practically unwatchable! But, instead of running 10 minutes too long, it will be an insufferable 90 minutes.

That aside, I disliked the film the moment Fieg opened his mouth. Predictably, whenever someone does something this transparent, you'll get a group of people who will assign nonsensical social importance to it. Like I said a million posts back, loons are authoring college papers on this thing right now. Feig, went for a "first" here because it was easy and the outcome was predictable. He's stirred up a playground-logic filled social commentary and nothing more. While it may be all the buzz on-line, it will not transfer to box office dollars.

I'm shocked a couple of you are taking the bait. You've got people here just lying in wait for someone to have a PC slip so they can be branded sexists, misogynist or whatever the de rigueur retort happens to be. It can't be that you simply dislike the look of the film. I mean, you gotta be sexists, right!?? Please, as with any debate, those who scream for tolerance the loudest (and use it as a weapon) have it in the shortest supply. Such is the case here. You've got a few people who simply can not accept a dissenting opinion of this film and they're not beyond using a little social rhetoric to punctuate a point. As I said before, I'm content to give an opinion and move on. I couldn't give the first damn who likes it or not.

All of that said, this film is gonna suck and that video was funny as hell! Get a sense of humor fellas! Dude makes a great point! Feig has this cast playing predictable, silly caricatures. Moronic stunt casting at work! This film had nowhere else to go but bad...

I find it ironic that the very thing so many are defending is the catalyst that doomed it in the first place. Can't wait for the next round of set pics to show up.

I look forward to revisiting this thread whenever this turd drops. Back to work!

Big Kiss! :love

-Rylo
 
Last edited:
I just don't get why the detractors feel so persecuted. The last I checked, y'all were the majority (although I still consider myself agnostic on this film, so to speak).

But look, if you're going to go off about "social commentary" and political correctness, can we at least have an adult conversation about it? I mean, isn't that what everyone has been asking for?

http://io9.com/stop-calling-it-the-all-female-ghostbusters-1717423271
US polling organization [Gallup] has done large-scale surveys that show most Americans wildly overestimate the number of minority groups around them, whether those are racial minorities or sexual ones. In 2001, Gallup found that the average American says “33% of the US population is black,” despite the fact that the census at that time showed only 12.3% of the population was black. And in 2015, Gallup found that “the American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian,” even though only 3.8% of Americans identified themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered in the same poll.

Gallup describes this odd form of cognitive bias as “Americans’ historical tendency to overestimate the prevalence of other subgroups in the US population.” Maybe that explains why people keep calling it the “all female Ghostbusters.” They’re overestimating how many women they’re actually seeing. An all-male group is just a regular bunch of people. But when the group is entirely women, suddenly it seems REALLY noticeable, as if the Ecto-1 were a clown car packed with so many women that it’s mindboggling.

People talking about the film can’t get it through their heads that these are just four women, out of thousands of people who have starred in thousands of action comedies. And yet, given that over half the population is female, statistically it has to happen that you’ll get four leads who are ladies once in a while.
The other problem with calling it the “all female Ghostbusters,” though, is that it’s simply a bad description. It doesn’t matter that the main characters are female. As I said earlier, this isn’t a chick flick about girl problems, or a story about what it means to be a woman. There is no reason to call attention to the lead characters’ gender other than to make it seem like some kind of excess or special exception.
(emphasis added)

The reason that some of us have found some of the comments problematic, is that from a feminist perspective, gender would not have been a casting consideration for any of these roles. Therefore if we are going to say that Feig's motivations in casting were "feminist," one would actually not expect Feig to have picked a woman, simply on the basis of her gender. Likewise, when you say that it's "stunt casting," why is it "stunt casting" to cast four women? It couldn't possibly be because of a lack of gender equality now, is it?

Please note that none of this is meant to imply or otherwise impugn you, Rylo as a sexist or misogynist.
 
The idea that it's four women replacing four very well-beloved male characters is reason enough to call attention to the gender. "To make it seem like some kind of excess or special exception" are not the only possible reasons to mention that fact. Don't believe everything you read on io9. It's also worth noting that Sony and Paul Feig called attention to it first.

And no, we're not calling for a conversation about social commentary or political correctness. Some of us are trying so hard to talk about Ghostbusters...
 
It sounds like they are founding a lot of their jokes on the original movie, i.e. referrencing them a lot. They apparently do that a lot
The Aykroyd line? Come on!!! Turning down The fire station? Yawn.

So they need the old movies to be funny? I think that is a weak spot. Because a lot of jokes may go right over the heads of a lot of the younger generation.

The car. The packs. The uniforms. Watered down versions. IMO also not working without knowing the source material (yes, the source for the designs are the old movie designs).

They so much depend on them, they cling so strongly to the originals yet try so hard to be different or de-construct them (see above spoiler). But in the end they seem to just imitate the original, right down to the body type and race of the originals.If that is not sexist. Unless they can really set them apart I have no real hopes here to see a new Ghostbusters movie but just a gender bent bizarro version of the original one. I pray to be wrong.
 
At this point, I could fly off the handle and yell about how your reframing of my arguments is really "trolling." Or mention how it was actually you, Westies, who brought my name back into this conversation that you're trying so hard not to have.

But, no, the fact that it's four women "replacing" four well beloved male characters is NOT reason enough to single out their gender if we are talking about feminism.

If Feig is going to be lambasted for "social commentary," then y'all better make sure you know what you're talking about.

The fact that Feig likes to cast women is no more extraordinary than the fact that Tim Burton likes to cast Johnny Depp.

- - - Updated - - -

It sounds like they are founding a lot of their jokes on the original movie, i.e. referrencing them a lot. They apparently do that a lot
The Aykroyd line? Come on!!! Turning down The fire station? Yawn.

So they need the old movies to be funny? I think that is a weak spot. Because a lot of jokes may go right over the heads of a lot of the younger generation.

The car. The packs. The uniforms. Watered down versions. IMO also not working without knowing the source material (yes, the source for the designs are the old movie designs).

They so much depend on them, they cling so strongly to the originals yet try so hard to be different or de-construct them (see above spoiler). But in the end they seem to just imitate the original, right down to the body type and race of the originals.If that is not sexist. Unless they can really set them apart I have no real hopes here to see a new Ghostbusters movie but just a gender bent bizarro version of the original one. I pray to be wrong.

But it appears that Reitman was the one who insisted on it.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/30236
Yeah, we had a nice meeting with Ivan. I’m open to everything and heard all his ideas. I didn’t commit to any but took away his headlines, some of which I agree with and others that I don’t. But he gets the reboot and that this movie will take place in a different world from the original. He just is looking for nods to the old movie, which Katie has been wanting to do anyway. Will there be as many nods as Ivan would like? Probably not. But at this point, I just want to see how our first draft shakes out and what it can hold and what it can’t and then we’ll take it from there. But the bottom line is that we heard Ivan and he made it clear that he wouldn’t get in our way, that he would definitely weigh in on things but that in the end, the decisions were ours to make. We’ll see if he sticks to that but for now he feels heard and respected and it was good to get inside his head. I genuinely like him and he remains one of my comedy directing heroes. So, all good at the moment. But we will make this movie our own. It will be a full reboot.
 
This thread is more than 8 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top