joshvanrad
Sr Member
Looks like you've missed a lot. I'd go back and read all of what's been said.
Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Looks like you've missed a lot. I'd go back and read all of what's been said.
Granted, I've only been visiting this forum for less than a year so far, but...that seems like saying "wow...why so much sugary foods in this candy store?" Yes, we argue minutae to death. In a forum like this I doubt we'd have trouble getting 21 pages out of Ghostbusters even if the only announcement had been "there is no movie"
Solo4114
Master Member
You mean like this thread?
http://www.therpf.com/f47/ghostbust...rector-producer-85947/?highlight=Ghostbusters
I wasn't expecting such a back-and-forth after my last post.
Last I checked, feminism -- raw, non-"feminazi", non-peg-to-the-opposite-extreme feminism -- is the idea that women should be treated equally/equivalently/comparably to men... that gender should be irrelevant as far as day-to-day out-in-the-world interactions go, interviews, hiring, firing, school acceptance... even social behaviors based on gender. Like, hold a door for someone just because you're being polite, not because "you're supposed to hold the door for a woman". Treatment free from bias, for or against. Equal pay, equal opportunity, equal rights, etc.
I'll agree with you there. The Twilight films, and the books moreso, despite having a female central character definitely put her in a role submissive to the males in her life -- her father, Edward, Jacob... Even her referred-to-but-not-seen step-father. The whole story is an excruciating foray into abusive relationships, creepy situations (if Edward is a couple hundred years old, why is he in a high school math class?), and conservative Mormon, female-submissive family values. Add in bad writing and the main character, who is left intentionally nonspecific so any girl reading can project herself into Bella's shoes, is so nonspecific as to be completely affectless and shallow.
True. My girlfriend, who doesn't have an RPF account, let alone post here, was the one who first brought Feig's Tweet to my attention, expressing annoyance -- echoed by many female Tumblr users she later quoted to me -- at Feig emphasizing the gender of his principle cast. I know that's not the same as women posting in here, but I can attest to it being not simply a few of us guys in this thread who object to this.
Except that that's the wrong way ot go about effecting change. I know it's trite, but what I said earlier applies: "Be the change you wish to see in the world." I think Morgan Freeman's comment about racism applies equally here about sexism. The only way to change the status quo is to... well... change it. Start thinking and speaking as if we're in a post-sexist world, be an example to others who see you speak, and soon it will be a post-sexist world. Sexism is generally used to mean discrimination against, but Feig's Tweet was just as sexist the other way -- it is also preferential treatment for. There are many levels of increasingly subtle and disorienting psychological and sociological things going on as you go further and further into it. But the only way for it to not have been sexist -- against women or against men, for women or for men -- would have been to not draw any attention to it at all.
And I object to stunt casting in general. I object to studio interference in general. I object to politics in the Business and creative decisions by committee in general. Likewise, bad storytelling, bad science, and so on. Most times it doesn't hit so close to home for me. It's a film that I just don't go see. But when it's an intellectual property that I care about, I take it more personally. That's why I can rant for so long about the new Trek films, or the Star Wars Prequels, or Michael Bay's treatment of the Transformers.
I can only speak for me, but yes I would have been just as annoyed if his initial Tweet had emphasized anything 'categorical' about the main cast. "I've cast some hilarious gays" or "I've cast some hilarious Korean-Americans" or "I've cast some hilarious Little People" -- I would have taken just as much issue.
I was annoyed, yes. If it had been something closer to my childhood and nostalgia nerve, I would have been moreso. I did not like him emphasizing that. There was a sort of corollary that played in my head as soon as I saw him say that: "Does that mean white Americans aren't allowed to watch it? If I watch it, am I not allowed to be inspired by it?" Any arbitrary exclusion or inclusion is, to me, a bad thing. I liked Red Tails. It wasn't epic, but it didn't suck. My enjoyment of it was somewhat diminished by Lucas' comment, but not eradicated. I exhort telling good stories, regardless of who the focus is. Leave the modifier out. Those who will appreciate them will appreciate them. Those who won't, won't.
I'm curious how my point of view encouraging gender equality does not express gender equality. Not snark. Genuine curiosity.
I may have had to include a line-item acknowledging that there are sexist objections out there to the casting of this film, but mine is not one of them, nor have I seen such in this thread. Only by people quoting outside sources that I don't pay much attention to have I run across anyone saying "women can't be Ghostbusters". I agree the Lowest Common Denominator out there in the world has some issues with the chromosome set of the main cast, and perhaps a separate thread about such would have been warranted to keep it separate from those of us on here who are almost entirely objecting to this being a reboot when such is not only not needed, but can argued to be harmful to the franchise.
--Jonah
Last I checked, feminism -- raw, non-"feminazi", non-peg-to-the-opposite-extreme feminism -- is the idea that women should be treated equally/equivalently/comparably to men... that gender should be irrelevant as far as day-to-day out-in-the-world interactions go, interviews, hiring, firing, school acceptance... even social behaviors based on gender. Like, hold a door for someone just because you're being polite, not because "you're supposed to hold the door for a woman". Treatment free from bias, for or against. Equal pay, equal opportunity, equal rights, etc.
I'll agree with you there. The Twilight films, and the books moreso, despite having a female central character definitely put her in a role submissive to the males in her life -- her father, Edward, Jacob... Even her referred-to-but-not-seen step-father. The whole story is an excruciating foray into abusive relationships, creepy situations (if Edward is a couple hundred years old, why is he in a high school math class?), and conservative Mormon, female-submissive family values. Add in bad writing and the main character, who is left intentionally nonspecific so any girl reading can project herself into Bella's shoes, is so nonspecific as to be completely affectless and shallow.
True. My girlfriend, who doesn't have an RPF account, let alone post here, was the one who first brought Feig's Tweet to my attention, expressing annoyance -- echoed by many female Tumblr users she later quoted to me -- at Feig emphasizing the gender of his principle cast. I know that's not the same as women posting in here, but I can attest to it being not simply a few of us guys in this thread who object to this.
Except that that's the wrong way ot go about effecting change. I know it's trite, but what I said earlier applies: "Be the change you wish to see in the world." I think Morgan Freeman's comment about racism applies equally here about sexism. The only way to change the status quo is to... well... change it. Start thinking and speaking as if we're in a post-sexist world, be an example to others who see you speak, and soon it will be a post-sexist world. Sexism is generally used to mean discrimination against, but Feig's Tweet was just as sexist the other way -- it is also preferential treatment for. There are many levels of increasingly subtle and disorienting psychological and sociological things going on as you go further and further into it. But the only way for it to not have been sexist -- against women or against men, for women or for men -- would have been to not draw any attention to it at all.
And I object to stunt casting in general. I object to studio interference in general. I object to politics in the Business and creative decisions by committee in general. Likewise, bad storytelling, bad science, and so on. Most times it doesn't hit so close to home for me. It's a film that I just don't go see. But when it's an intellectual property that I care about, I take it more personally. That's why I can rant for so long about the new Trek films, or the Star Wars Prequels, or Michael Bay's treatment of the Transformers.
I can only speak for me, but yes I would have been just as annoyed if his initial Tweet had emphasized anything 'categorical' about the main cast. "I've cast some hilarious gays" or "I've cast some hilarious Korean-Americans" or "I've cast some hilarious Little People" -- I would have taken just as much issue.
I was annoyed, yes. If it had been something closer to my childhood and nostalgia nerve, I would have been moreso. I did not like him emphasizing that. There was a sort of corollary that played in my head as soon as I saw him say that: "Does that mean white Americans aren't allowed to watch it? If I watch it, am I not allowed to be inspired by it?" Any arbitrary exclusion or inclusion is, to me, a bad thing. I liked Red Tails. It wasn't epic, but it didn't suck. My enjoyment of it was somewhat diminished by Lucas' comment, but not eradicated. I exhort telling good stories, regardless of who the focus is. Leave the modifier out. Those who will appreciate them will appreciate them. Those who won't, won't.
I'm curious how my point of view encouraging gender equality does not express gender equality. Not snark. Genuine curiosity.
I may have had to include a line-item acknowledging that there are sexist objections out there to the casting of this film, but mine is not one of them, nor have I seen such in this thread. Only by people quoting outside sources that I don't pay much attention to have I run across anyone saying "women can't be Ghostbusters". I agree the Lowest Common Denominator out there in the world has some issues with the chromosome set of the main cast, and perhaps a separate thread about such would have been warranted to keep it separate from those of us on here who are almost entirely objecting to this being a reboot when such is not only not needed, but can argued to be harmful to the franchise.
--Jonah
jlee562
Sr Member
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to write out a thoughtful response. Secondly, I apologize because I've clearly overstepped in saying that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism. I was a little 'ramped up' when I wrote out my last post and over generalized. Plus I really wasn't intending my comments to be about you specifically....Solo wanted to make your post the "litmus" test.
And for sure not all women will think the same. It's just that that for a few pages the discussion was a bunch of guys holding up strawmen and patting themselves on the backs about how not sexist they were being.
There are different ways to affect change, and generally I would agree with the perspective that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. But where I think Solo went off the rails is that I haven't really advocated anything in this thread. I honestly do not see how I've conflated anyone's opinion with the general criticism I've cited and then labeled an individual as sexist. I've pointed out where people's arguments don't seem to connect and/or where there is a false standard being applied.
If we can step back to something you wrote earlier: "As always, turn it around. No hoopla was raised by the production team or studio about the original film featuring an all-male team."
While I can't argue this is logically false; conceptually, it's wrong. That's what I'm referring to when I said that it was an ontological difference. The inverse is not simply to ask if a rebooted ghostbusters film would be marketed as having a cast of "really funny men," the inverse is to ask that; in a society in which the vast majority of financially successful films starred women; in which the government was 97% female; in which men made $.80 on the dollar compared to women; in which women were institutionally treated generally better than men, would it THEN be significant if the director of a film decided to gender swap and say that the ghostbusters were going to be men?
I don't think the answer to that question is the same as simply asking "well, would they say here are some really funny men?" Do you? Or can you at least see where there's reasonable room for there to be a difference; even if you don't agree that you might personally answer differently?
And all of this is well and good...err, I don't mean that to sound dismissive. Rather that I would argue that some people's reactions include sentiments of sexism, even when the author may not consciously intend to project that (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory ). And also that from a feminist perspective, some of the arguments here would just be considered silly. Conceptually, to someone who is a feminist, the idea that casting all-women would even be seen as "stunt casting" is problematic. In a "perfect world," casting all women would be unremarkable. And yes, I totally see where this dovetails with your point about "be the change..."
I DON'T think everybody that has a problem with the new GB reboot is sexist. But I do think among the people who have problems with the new movie, those people are disproportionately influenced by sexism.
Only in so far as I wrote above. The equal and opposition of a sitution which is already unfair is not a situation which is fair. That perpetuates a false equivalency, which in turn delegitimizes the feminist perspective. And it may be that you and I just fundamentally disagree on the best way to affect change, and thus, the best way to have a constructive discussion. But I want to offer the idea that saying, for example: "the only way for it to not have been sexist -- against women or against men, for women or for men -- would have been to not draw any attention to it at all" is deeply unhelpful.
Again, I can't say that this is logically false, but it's not. And I won't argue that women can't be sexist against men generally at a personal or institutional level. But I flat out reject the premise that sexism effects men and women equally. It doesn't. Because even if we want to label Feig's comments as "feminist," how does announcing the movie as having "really funny women" advance a prejudice against men? Sorry, I can't make the leap to therefore say that this represents "sexism" in the opposite direction.
Everybody has conscious and unconscious impulses. We're biologically wired to have them. But everybody has to "check their privilege" as well. Of course it's impossible to just isolate the love that we all have for a franchise like GB (especially in a forum such as this). I just think the discussion would have played out much differently if the cast were not all female. Sorry, I don't buy that 20 pages of discussion resulted from the RPF being just SO ANNOYED by the words "that's who I'm gonna call!"
My point has always been that if you wouldn't make a big deal about casting all white men, then you shouldn't make a big deal about casting anything other than that subset. That's where my objection to how Feig/Sony have handled it. Not that they cast an all-female main cast, but that they then made a talking point of it. It doesn't need to be pointed out. It will be apparent from the casting press release and accompanying photos. The very act of pointing it out is sexist (or ageist, or racist, or various other -ists out there, depending on the project and casting involved).
Right. Casting all-women is not stunt casting. Casting all-women before a script has been written and characters set and then making a publicity point of that casting choice is stunt casting. Out of curiosity, do you remember that Morgan Freeman interview I alluded to, and what he was saying? I don't want to make a reference that misses its mark.
Right. When I point out that the inverse announcement (all-male casting) would almost certainly never have been made, that isn't to take anything away from the cause of equivalency. It's the same sort of mental test I exhort for many things, from grammatical stuff (remove the other person from the sentence to determine whether to say "I" or "me") to gender or race or orientation stuff (would you make a point of mentioning it if they were another/the other option? Then you shouldn't here). I object to the use of terms like "tomboy" or "spunky" to indicate a female character who "isn't acting girly". And so on. I look for alternatives that emphasize that equivalency, not erode it. But that's a mental test to see if such measures are indicated.
I still disagree, and repeat what I said earlier. If he'd just cast those actresses and not made a point of it being because he preferentially likes working with funny women, then any objections to them would be on the objectors, be it because they don't find those actresses funny, or because they don't like the idea of female Ghostbusters, or because they don't want a reboot, or whatever. All from people processing the announcement and gleaning those little data points for themselves and drawing their own conclusions based on personal opinion. Id est, not having Paul or Sony put up a big neon arrow pointing at something they think you should notice about the casting choice.
Never said it did, and it totally doesn't.
It doesn't. It draws attention to the casting choice as for some reason being out of the ordinary and worthy of attention. Which passively perpetuates sexism against women (bias for is not the same as bias against, but it's still bias).
I've spent over twenty years working actively on noticing the stuff that normally ticks along under the threshold of consciousness. I prefer to have some choice in the matter and not be a slave to instinct. I've been more successful in some areas than others, but treating people egalitarianally (that is now a word) unless and until they give me a reason not to is something I've had practice with since a very young age. If not for Paul/Sony making a talking point of casting all women for the main roles, my objections to the film would have been that I disagree with the reboot direction, and with the cast being that I don't find them that funny, but am willing to reserve judgement until there's a final product to evaluate. Nothing at all about their gender. That's just me, though. I can't speak for everyone involved in this thread.
--Jonah
KrangPrime
Master Member
it's the internet. it's what we does from our basements ;o)
reading that SXSW interview by feig... he seems to be turning around his initial statements (probably after all the hate?) first he said he was going to move it to Boston. Now he claims to be saying the movie might take place partially in NY, but locations are so expensive to film there(or all in NY, but interiors filmed in boston as 'faux ny')? anyone else noticing either back tracking, or this studio really doesn't know what the fudge they are going to do at this point because everyone is hating on this idea? it'd be hilarious after all this anger that the thing never even gets made....all our bitching for nothing ;o)
If the male led version IS being done by Aykroyd and Reitman, I will have a tad more hope for it. But ONLY if it's set in the original universe. If they use the same equipment as feigbusters..it still won't have that same flare or nostalgia. I know i'm repeating myself at this point...but You simply don't start a production process on a major movie franchise with 'the only way this'll work for me is if it starred four funny women'.... if you do, you're just the wrong person for the job.
that's just as bad as saying, 'I like star wars, but only if Tim Burton directs and Johnny Depp stars in it'.
Last edited:
jlee562
Sr Member
Coincidentally, the Nightly Show had a show dedicated to the discussion of the intersections of race and gender in the comic book/super hero genre:
http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/roj...-race--gender---superheroes-season-1-ep-01031
http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/roj...-race--gender---superheroes-season-1-ep-01031
Honestly I don't believe it really matters what was said or who directs it at this point... They've been trying to get a GB3 made for years. Ackroyd and Ramis even had a couple of scripts written, but the studios kept shutting it down. Right now, I'm just happy to hear that one is finally coming out. Its like a History of the World Part 2 or Doctor Detroit 2: The Wrath of Mom... just give me something to watch and stop messing around. I think the studios themselves have to stop announcing they are going to work on something and just work on it. That way when it comes out in the theaters, its' too late for the haters to moan and gripe about how bad something is gonna be and give them all kinds of headaches before they even shoot the first scene. Just make the movie already.
KrangPrime
Master Member
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/paul-feig-ghostbusters-women-spy-1201471590/
more of the same from our favorite one trick McCarthy......no wonder he focuses on women so much, he apparently got traumatized by boys at a young age.
but in this case, it's going to ruin him because he's not the right person for ghostbusters.
I'm actually hopeful for Peanuts. so far, nothing about that says to me 'this is going to be horrible'. even the CG. but the other one;o)
more of the same from our favorite one trick McCarthy......no wonder he focuses on women so much, he apparently got traumatized by boys at a young age.
but in this case, it's going to ruin him because he's not the right person for ghostbusters.
I'm actually hopeful for Peanuts. so far, nothing about that says to me 'this is going to be horrible'. even the CG. but the other one;o)
Westies14
Master Member
Full breakdown of Feig's plot at the end: http://indierevolver.com/2015/04/17...plot-and-problems-of-paul-feigs-ghostbusters/
I would welcome and encourage a movie with female Ghostbusters- even a team of ALL females if it followed the original continuity and was an extension of the original story/fanchise. But if the information in that synopsis is true it's both outright insulting to fans (especially costumers) as well as even reading a bit misogynistic. (The MALE Ghostbusters weren't laughed at in the media. They were certainly doubted, but not ridiculed. And they got to frickin' name themselves!)
KrangPrime
Master Member
how much do you want to bet that all the 'hearse, a 'reimagined slimer' and firehouse nod' where added in after all the hate came down?
So, it seems the real problem is that idiot amy pascal. she courted someone who clearly stated 'I have no interest in this' for a year? I'd claim I owe an apology to Feig, if only he had the gumption to say 'NO'....he could have saved himself a whole lot of backlash.
And sounds like their secretary is going to be the token guy. in this case, an 'intern'.
that whole plot just sounds convoluted. more concerned about viral videos and websites than actual, you know, ghosts. my bet is, that just like with TMNT and aliens, this was the SECOND idea that got approved after all the backlash.
edit - also found this link. a timeline of events from the leaked emails. seems ivan was against the idea from the start and pretty pissed when it went on..... it also has an email of amy teling ivan 'you shouldn't seem combative online about pauls ideas'....... but what WAS surprising, was an article from a friend of dan's that claimed he actually seemed to like the idea. I guess so long as it's ghostbusters to dan...
https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/?...nt=0&maxrecipient=0&file=&count=50&offset=300
Last edited:
I am rather annoyed (understatement) at the people who are genuinely mad that tey're all women, and the people who are shouting "You've ruined my childhood", as that's badly diluting the criticism Feig should be hearing -- that emphasizing their gender before any story points is gimmick-y stunt casting, and sexist in its own right, whether he can see that or not; and Feig and Sony should be hearing the legit complaints about the uncalled-for rebootiness of it, rather than continuation. It doesn't have to be the same story, with the same tropes, the same '80s-ness, the same tech. It doesn't have to be, as Amy put it "a subversive love letter to New York" -- new story, new characters, new tone, but an organic outgrowth from the foundation of the first two (plus he video game).
But they've obviously only noticed the loud shouting of the haters. *sigh*
--Jonah
But they've obviously only noticed the loud shouting of the haters. *sigh*
--Jonah
KrangPrime
Master Member
I haven't gotten through all the emails yet, since alot of them seem repeated.. but there IS one in there between amy and paul where they basically make fun of a guys blog and say they should have a dramatic recital of all the bitching. Not sure if the blog was one of the legitimate gripes or not, but they'd have to go on a total internet blackout not to see any of the bad AND legitimate complaints. but even if they did see everything, and had no reaction to the thousands of gripes posted within minutes of any article related to this reboot....and didn't react at all....
But what is also interesting, is that it seems like the Chris Prat version was seriously being considered and developed even BEFORE the Feig Version had even been officially signed on. If that's not a company that either doesn't know what it's doing, or doesn't know how to properly plan sequentially, I don't know what is..
But what is also interesting, is that it seems like the Chris Prat version was seriously being considered and developed even BEFORE the Feig Version had even been officially signed on. If that's not a company that either doesn't know what it's doing, or doesn't know how to properly plan sequentially, I don't know what is..
Similar threads
