monolith21
Sr Member
So Jeyl...you consider me to be a misogynist? Based on what may I ask? Is it solely because I don't think a remake of the film is a good idea?
Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
EvilRocketeer
Master Member
The Hangover...bridemaids is a female version of that
No. I just think it's unfortunate that of all the people you could call a 'crybaby', it's the director standing up for his work and not the actual whiners who say that he's ruining their childhood for making it a reboot and/or having an all female Ghostbusters team.
Solo4114
Master Member
Ah, but the difference is that Bridesmaids isn't sold as "The Hangover 4" (or wherever in the sequence it'd fall), nor is it "The Hangover: Ovaries Edition!" or whatever. It's Bridesmaids. Similar theme, but not attempting to capitalize on the Hangover's branding the way Feig's "Ghostbusters" is. For that matter, this raises some real questions about branding. Like, what will Feig's "Ghostbusters" be called as compared to the all-male cast version? Are they both going to be "Ghostbusters" just with the "O" in either the shape of the male or female symbol?
As to the question of "We can't have ONE franchise?!" I'd pose a counter question of "Why would you WANT to?" Wouldn't it be better to have your own, independent, highly successful franchise?
Also, let's be honest: a lot of comedy-centric "franchises" really aren't much of a franchise at all. Not the way, say, the big action films are. And I mean that for male-driven and female-driven comedies alike. What you tend to see more of is ensembles of particular comedic actors working with the same director and/or each other repeatedly on different projects. See also, the Judd Apatow Players, the Paul Feig Players, the Christopher Guest Players, and the Edgar Wright Players.
The comedy "Franchises" that most readily come to mind for me are:
- Usually two-film franchises (Anchorman, Blues Brothers, Charlie's Angels, Rush Hour, Shanghai Noon/Knights, etc.)
- The Revenge of the Nerds "franchise" (two feature films and several direct-to-video films)
- The American Pie franchise (three feature films and a slew of branded other films)
- The "Vacation" franchise (two well-regarded films, and two "meh" films)
I mean, there are others, I'm sure, but my point is that typically you get, like, one or two theatrical releases within a franchise, and then it fizzles. Hell, THAT'S WHAT GHOSTBUSTERS IS! It's a two-film franchise that fizzled after #2 from a box office and production perspective.
You ask me, the real problem here is in trying to turn a comedy series into some mega-franchise a la comic book movies.
--EDIT--
Oh, and as for "can't we have ONE franchise?"
I'll give you three:
Twilight, The Hunger Games, and Divergent. All female-centric. I'm not saying all good, mind you. But all focused on female main characters. And the Hunger Games series, in particular, is pretty damn good. (the other two....not so much, at least by my standards)
Filandrius
Sr Member
Don't forget Fifty Shades of Grey! 
Not the best examples considering that there is a huge emphasis on the female lead character being very, if not hilariously dependent on the male lead character. Heck, the Hunger Games is the only series where Katniss can have the whole poster to herself. Divergent and Twilight? Maybe on those individual character sheet posters, but never on the main ones.
vintageslant
Active Member
My six year old daughter just watched 1 and 2 for the first time yesterday. She asked me after when is there going to be no 3. The question is if it happens and it's as terrible as I think it will be should I keep this from her? Honestly with my childhood memories about to be sacrificed for the mighty $ I would rather not had her ask.
Solo4114
Master Member
I'm not saying they're good examples. Personally, I think Twilight is an atrocious example, but it is a female-dominated franchise. The Hunger Games is, I think, the best one.
My point is more that there are female franchises out there -- and successful ones at that. If Feig and his supporters want to complain about how the "boys club" of Hollywood won't allow there to be female dominated franchises...they're factually wrong. They're right that such franchises aren't common, and there's probably info that supports that such franchises don't compare to male-driven franchises for box office earnings, but that's a different argument.
Riceball
Master Member
I think that Jeyle's ideal movie is one with an all female cast and by all female I mean all female without a single guy in the entire cast, written by a woman, produced by women, and directed by a women. Anyway, I don't see why anybody who considers themselves a feminist would be supportive of this movie, it's nothing but gender bending an existing franchise, it's like saying that we don't think that an all female (lead) cast would work for some sort of original idea so we have to co-op an existing franchise instead in order to cash in on the name recognition.
You guys do know that you don't have to go watch this movie when it's released, right?
Who ho gives a rats ass if they remake any movie now a day? I mean it's eventually going to happen to almost every movie that has a fan base. I learned a trick way back in 1984, which is to ignore the movies that you don't like. For me it's Temple of Doom, Ghostbusters 2 (which I think I've only seen once).
if this movie fails, then you win, if this movie is actually good and adds to the franchise, then you win.
Who ho gives a rats ass if they remake any movie now a day? I mean it's eventually going to happen to almost every movie that has a fan base. I learned a trick way back in 1984, which is to ignore the movies that you don't like. For me it's Temple of Doom, Ghostbusters 2 (which I think I've only seen once).
if this movie fails, then you win, if this movie is actually good and adds to the franchise, then you win.
A very good argument. And at it´s core possibly the main reason for all the hubub: how does an all-female REBOOT add to the franchise? Why not continue it with an all female cast?! Why a REBOOT that does not include anything done previously in it´s "canon"?! A reimagining.Is the idea of an all female ghostbuster team so weak that they NEED to take an established franchise and REBOOT it? Why not use something completely original, or at least partially original? I thnk there´d be less whining if it was just a good old and simple rip-off.
Regarding franchises with lead female characters, what about Tomb Raider, Buffy, Undeworld, we are going to see a Wonder Woman movie, there have been several horror franchises e.g. Scream, Halloween, The Ring, Silent Hill, and there for sure is a ton more that all show strong and sometimes funny heroines.
I love to see a good movie with a strong female lead, I love reading comics with strong female lead characters.
As Brad´s already pointed out, we are not forced to watch the movie. We can watch GB I and II and probably whine about III after its release (or if enough info leaks, maybe months in advance). We have enough on our hands to pass time, do we really need a discussion about sexism? By the way, this topic is almost as complicated (or is it artificially flavored to feel like it is?) as politics, so a slippery slope.
The reasons for this is most likely money. Possibly it cost them more to license certain names, prior storylines, etc. Maybe they see a plan on merchandising this movie, unlike they did with the original. Maybe the directors cousins niece wanted to be in a Ghostbusters movie.
The point is that it doesn't matter why. The point IS that they are making this reboot (for whatever reason) and it is up to fans to decide to like it and accept it as part of Ghostbusters fandom,..or not. It's that simple. No one has raped your childhood or taken anything away from GB fans. We haven't even seen a trailer or heard anything about plot changes, so let's just take a breather.
First, please stop acting like a jerk. Second, your point on feminism misses the point on what feminism is all about. There is nothing about this new movie that says men cannot work as Ghostbusters or that the original movies don't work. On the contrary, Sony has been completely open about not only making sure that there will be more Ghostbuster movies, but that they'll be male focused as well. Paul Feig just wants to make a Ghostbusters movie where the team is comprised of women. As for your "we don't think that an all female (lead) cast would work for some sort of original idea", have you looked at Paul Feig's filmography? Bridesmaids and The Heat are two movies starring women that aren't sequels or based on any other existing franchise. I think Paul knows what he wants when he uses the Ghostbusters name for his new movie.
jlee562
Sr Member
Ermm, yes, I think we need a discussion of sexism so long as posts like this continue.
I also think that it should be pointed out that there's a distinct lack of female voices contributing to this thread.
Let's reverse the question, how does having an all female cast DETRACT from the franchise?
jlee562
Sr Member
Twilight is not a "female dominated franchise." Hence asking whether or not one is "Team Jacob" or...wait, what was the other guy's name? Look, it doesn't matter. The point is lots of folks here are scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and write off sexism. Having a strong female lead does not a "female dominated franchise" make.
Personally I don't have a problem with an all female cast. I can see the Ghostbusters as a chain of ghost busting offices all over the world, like fire fighters. Just because its an all female cast don't mean it's gonna be bad... they don't even have to be in NY either for that matter. I can see it taking place in Detriot, Chicago, or even the West Coast. I see a myrid of possibilities where each different location chain outlet has their own movies. Face it, this is much bigger then the original cast... and the original cast will never be available again since the death of Harold Ramus... but I'm sure that cameos will abound and they will always give a nod to the original "in" jokes. I can see a mixed cast of male and females, and even possibly more! There are so many different possibilities for this entire canon. Stop griping and sit back and wait for all the ghost busting goodness to flow!
Jeyl, I think the point folks on here are trying to make is that it's not misogynistic to object to Sony and Paul marketing on the gender of the cast. As always, turn it around. No hoopla was raised by the production team or studio about the original film featuring an all-male team. Our point (as I lump myself in with those folks) is that it should never have entered into the mind of anyone associated with this project at all that the gender of the main cast was at all relevant, except possibly for story reasons.
I was born in the '70s, after the ERA has died in congress, in the era of Free To Be You And Me, Sesame Street, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, and all manner of equality-affirming social messages, which I pretty much internalized. Looking around objectively, gender or sexual preference shouldn't matter except in the bedroom. I'm all in favor of eliminating the "sex" and "ethnicity" portions of applications and seeing employers and schools take people in based on unbiased raw merit. If, in the process of creating this film, they had done an open casting of all genders, skin colors, and body types, and had ended up with an all-female lead cast, awesome -- because they would have been (from the producers' point of view) the best exemplars of those characters, and arrived at organically. What Feig/Sony are doing is putting the cart before the horse, making a big press point about the fact that the main cast is all-female before a script had even gotten nailed down.
It's a fine point, but not that fine. I think I can sum it up best this way. Twitter is a tricky medium. You only have so many characters and if you want to avoid anything being misconstrued, save it for something that allows you to get into more nuance. Even if it's just spreading something across multiple Tweets. Paul's initial Tweet was "It's official. I'm making a new Ghostbusters & writing it with @katiedippold & yes, it will star hilarious women. That's who I'm gonna call." Right there he emphasized their gender. I try reading it as "it will star hilarious men" and just can't see someone Tweeting that. With that few characters remaining, he probably should have ended it "and wait till you see who I'm gonna call" or something like that. Then he could say he cast Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, and Melissa McCarthy because they're some of the funniest people he knows (whether we agree with him on that or not) and wants to see what they'll do with it. But in his early interviews, he kept making a point of "wanting to see what an all-female team would be like". Sorry, Paul -- that right there is what makes it a gimmick. And that's what we're ranting about in this thread, Jeyl. Contrived versus organic casting and storytelling.
--Jonah
I was born in the '70s, after the ERA has died in congress, in the era of Free To Be You And Me, Sesame Street, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, and all manner of equality-affirming social messages, which I pretty much internalized. Looking around objectively, gender or sexual preference shouldn't matter except in the bedroom. I'm all in favor of eliminating the "sex" and "ethnicity" portions of applications and seeing employers and schools take people in based on unbiased raw merit. If, in the process of creating this film, they had done an open casting of all genders, skin colors, and body types, and had ended up with an all-female lead cast, awesome -- because they would have been (from the producers' point of view) the best exemplars of those characters, and arrived at organically. What Feig/Sony are doing is putting the cart before the horse, making a big press point about the fact that the main cast is all-female before a script had even gotten nailed down.
It's a fine point, but not that fine. I think I can sum it up best this way. Twitter is a tricky medium. You only have so many characters and if you want to avoid anything being misconstrued, save it for something that allows you to get into more nuance. Even if it's just spreading something across multiple Tweets. Paul's initial Tweet was "It's official. I'm making a new Ghostbusters & writing it with @katiedippold & yes, it will star hilarious women. That's who I'm gonna call." Right there he emphasized their gender. I try reading it as "it will star hilarious men" and just can't see someone Tweeting that. With that few characters remaining, he probably should have ended it "and wait till you see who I'm gonna call" or something like that. Then he could say he cast Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, and Melissa McCarthy because they're some of the funniest people he knows (whether we agree with him on that or not) and wants to see what they'll do with it. But in his early interviews, he kept making a point of "wanting to see what an all-female team would be like". Sorry, Paul -- that right there is what makes it a gimmick. And that's what we're ranting about in this thread, Jeyl. Contrived versus organic casting and storytelling.
--Jonah
Last edited by a moderator:
jlee562
Sr Member
The problem with this argument is that Sony/Feig et al wouldn't have to make it a point to advertise an all female cast in a world without such rampant sexism.
Yes and no... "Be the change you wish to see in the world" and all that. If that hadn't been a "selling point" right from the get-go, and the general public was left to realize for itself that the main cast named were all women, without any fanfare from Sony or Feig, anyone who raised any objections would be objecting to the idea that a woman could be a Ghostbuster -- which this ain't. They had a chance to be timely and blew it.
--Jonah
monolith21
Sr Member
That's the biggest thing. The controversy comes off as COMPLETELY intentional on Feig's part. His first announcement was all about thumbing his nose. It screamed "This is how it is! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!" which of his own volition placed him at odds with the fans. That's why I say I can't believe he's being such a cry baby over the whole thing. He engineered this drama all on his own. He relied on the "no such thing as bad press" concept hoping that the controversy would give him notoriety and it has back fired.
If he had just cast the film with women and then quietly made his movie things wouldn't be blowing up in his face. Instead he made a big deal out of it. It's not like the fans dug all this up. He relies on social media and this is the dark side of that very public forum. His casting wasn't based on any kind of organic process. It was a contrived bit of "people are going to lose their minds over this"...and they did. If one steers their car toward a crowd on purpose, they shouldn't act surprised when they hit a few people and tick them off.
Either way, his self martyrdom just comes off equally as contrived as his casting. I have no sympathy for the guy on this front...which isn't a personal attack. I don't agree with his creative choices or how he has handled any of this.
That said, I stand by what I've said all along. I couldn't care less if the movie is made with all women in the lead roles. I just hate that it is a remake. That along is enough for me to hate it without ever seeing it. It doesn't matter if it is a well made movie. It doesn't matter if the performances are good! For some of us, the very fact that the movie is being remade after waiting for a sequel for so long makes this a failure before it ever gets off the ground.
I would never even dream of giving this movie a fair chance. I feel remakes are inferior in every way. Its like a musical artist that steals another artists recording, chops up that recording and writes new words over the top of it and claims it as their masterpiece. That's what cracks me up about what his wife said. If they wanted to make a franchise women can have for themselves then they should have come up with an original idea to that end...not ride the coattails of a great film but etch-a-sketch the whole thing and start over.
The whole idea is ridiculous to me. Ghostbusters wasn't something Men had "claimed" for themselves. Those of us in the Ghostbusters prop and costuming community are quite used to female Ghostbusters!
Last edited:
Similar threads
