That's not what you said. Even if it was, it doesn't apply here because the story was written yet when Paul decided this is what he wanted to see. When you write a story, you've got to start with ideas. Paul Feig's idea of having an all female team for his reboot of Ghostbusters was one of those ideas. A lot of writers will actually imagine specific actors playing certain roles for their stories WHILE they're still being written. Your argument doesn't work because stories, especially in Hollywood tend to be written with specific things in mind.
I'm trying to be patient because I recognize that you don't even realize you're twisting my meaning or taking it out of context, but this is becoming really frustrating. The problem is that we're starting from different places. My argument happens at a point when Sony can shepherd the project in any direction and have not yet hired Paul Feig, and people keep insisting that my approach wouldn't let Paul Feig be true to his creative vision. Why would it?
Again, Paul Feig is not wrong to say that women are as funny as men or that a story can be made with a primarily female cast. I would never argue against that. I simply wish that the shepherds of the franchise would have been thinking about the franchise at all when making decisions for it.
If you've inherited a property like Ghostbusters and you're meeting with directors, your interests should be in the long-term health of the franchise/story and the long-term investment of your shareholders (should you argue that Hollywood is only a business - I'd argue that making great films is a great long-term strategy). Your first question when you sit down should be "What would you do with GHOSTBUSTERS?" or perhaps to bounce off of them the directions that the creators/producers have been considering for it. Their answer should tell you if they might be right for your property. In this case, Amy Pascal had this interaction with Paul Feig and was told "I don't want to do Ghostbusters." By her account, he refused her three times. If you're the keeper of Ghostbusters and you've got any consideration at all for what you're building, at what point do you walk away? But gosh darnit, Paul Feig kept sitting atop the box office with his comedies and, well, Ghostbusters was a comedy. They decided they MUST have him. Ask again. Feig likes what he's doing, and tells them he'll do it if he can keep doing that thing under the Ghostbusters name - and insists that the previous iterations be thrown out with it. He MUST start from scratch. I don't care if that condition is an all-female ghostbusting crew, that it be claymation, or that they only hire European crew for the production - at that point, Amy Pascal should have said "we'd like to consider the story first, and probably keep continuity with the old films unless there's a great reason not to as we explore the story." They didn't.
Paul Feig's premise was a social commentary, not a plot idea. The fact that he's RIGHT doesn't mean that the people in charge of Ghostbusters should put that conceit ahead of the franchise. They were very concerned with what would appeal to Paul Feig, with virtually no consideration for what would be best for the franchise. Read the interviews, read the Sony emails, read the trades before you argue against that, please. It barely tok Sony any time at all to wish they could backpedal on the Feig arrangement. Really inspiring.
EDIT: Really, it's less than that. Feig wasn't fighting for feminism or anything. He kept saying no because he wanted to keep doing what he was doing. He liked his job. That wasn't just about female casts, that was about original stories. He was in the middle of something, wasn't done with that sandbox, and Sony kept
bugging him to "come on Paul, just make us a quick Ghostbusters!" I want to be careful not to give Sony any feminist street cred through this project.
How about this? I believe women and men are of entirely equal comedic and artistic ability. Please, to anyone who would insinuate otherwise, you are presuming incorrectly and I've set the record straight. Do not continue to misconstrue my words, because if you find that meaning in them that's all you're doing. Keep turning it over until you can see past your projections, please.
You are not leaving much room for any other interpretation. The thing that made Paul Feig the wrong guy for you was "women are just as funny as men, let's start there". You even use the phrases "begins with" and "let's start there" as though the whole movie is Dead on Arrival for merely starting with the idea of having women as the leads. Great story? Great characters? Great fun? All Irrelevant if the director started out with women for their leads.
"Begins with, "Let's start there" both referred to studio negotiations looking for a director for Ghostbusters. Not Feig's resulting story/movie. Again, you can find sexism in anything if you'll try hard enough...
