Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

[Westies14]

:facepalm

That's NOT what he said. He said that the WAY this was done is pandering. It's simply a gender bent Ghostbusters. Same basic roles, same ethnicity, just take the characters and make them female. No originality to it.

He even gave two examples of how these women could still be the inheritors of the franchise and it be alright. Once again, taking a single line out of context to play to your agenda.

That's all that's been going on through this entire thread. Jeyl, Jlee and others snowplow any negative, adult discussion of this film's development as it unfolds by taking it out of context, reframing it as something it's not, or just answering with irrelevant nonsense until the conversation isn't worth having. God forbid fans hash out the good and the bad of a geek-pedigree film series in the entertainment section of a movie prop site...

 

[Westies14]

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I WOULD THINK IF ABOUT THAT?! I wouldn't care. I would still have my ALIEN and ALIENS movies which will always have Ripley in them and they will always be classics. Just as I'll always have Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters 2 and The Real Ghostbusters. Arguing about this movie 'changing things' is just not the type of thing to get overly dramatic over since it doesn't affect the original films in any way. However, films like Prometheus that fundamentally change elements within the context of the originals IS something that gets on my nerves. For me, that film took the unknown terrors of a dark universe and said "It was us the whole time! Aren't we clever?". It's like if I made a prequel to Ghostbusters and said that the entities weren't ghosts at all, but energy based aliens who sometimes take on human forms.

Don't even give Jeyl the setups to discuss this gender stuff anymore. That's not what we were complaining about, and his reframing our complaints as such doesn't mean we have to play along.

Jeyl, it's great that crappy entries in series that you like don't detract from your enjoyment of the originals at all. Congratulations on recognizing that they'll always exist no matter what else comes down the road. You're the man. Some of us are just such small, fragile people that we care what they do with these stories. We just can't help ourselves. We're sorry our weakness offends your sensibilities. Please go back to your land of rainbows and sunshine where everything exists in total isolation and everything is wonderful and everyone loves everything and leave us to it.

 

[Krull]

"Stupidity is genderless"

Now back to some more facepalming. The new and (pure crap) Ecto-1, how do you like them apples???

I'm actually about 99% okay with the new take on it,the one percent is that stupid ginormous light dome,why's it orange? oh right this is supposed to be a new take on Ghostbusters.

Change it to something blue and smaller and I could be cool with it.

 

[Riceball]

When is gender bending in and of itself a bad thing? While the characters may share some similarities in terms of looks, I doubt the characterizations will be word for word what the original Ghostbusters team were like. And for that matter, why is 'originality' held in such high standards that anything that doesn't remotely resemble an original thought is instantly chastised at face value? Being original is not some packaged deal that comes with great performances and a solid execution. An original film is just as susceptible to being the worst movie ever made as a remake/reboot/re-imagining. If this new Ghostbusters movie is well acted, funny, entertaining and brings back even the slightest sense of Ghostbusters fun, shouldn't that be enough?

Because it's pointless, as I recall, you (I think it was you) were hell bent against the Gender Bending Star Trek comic and were railing against as simply gender bending the OT cast. Nothing different here, as has been said before, how is this helpful or supporting of women in movies? All this movies does is take the same basic movie as the original GB and simply change the cast to women, all of the props and costumes are very similar to the original, the setting is the exact same, and while we don't know what the characters are like and what the plot is like but at the way things are shaping up they'll all be likely be pretty much the same as the original.

Gender bending does nothing to advance the issue of women in movies as more than just the damsel in distress. It says that we have no confidence in a strong leading lady or ladies but we want to look like we're doing something so we'll put them in project that originally featured men in the leading roles and put women in their place instead. Then what happens if it does only so so at best the studio execs will use that point out that audiences don't want women in men's roles and not want to do any more movies with a strong leading lady, original, or otherwise.

No one here is saying that a woman or women can't do well in a movie of their own, just that it needs to be something original and not something gender bent or where they're just shoe-horned in to appease/appeal to feminists. Two great examples of movies that featured strong women in the leading roles were Thelma & Louise and A League of their Own, two original movies which featured women in the leading role(s) and were not taking an existing IP and putting women in the place of men. If you want more women in prominent roles in movies then you should be cheerleading for the Thelma & Louises of today and not something where they simply slapped women into the roles previously done by men.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I WOULD THINK IF ABOUT THAT?! I wouldn't care.

BULL S***

You get your knickers in a twist if a male character so much as looks at a female wrong.

Anyhow, I'm done. I've called you out, you've ignored and denied it. Whatever.

---

For the record though, my issue is with Jeyl. Jlee hasn't been needlessly derailing the thread with sexism accusations in my opinion. There have indeed been sexist comments made here that honestly undermine the very valid arguments made by detractors which is why we're even talking about it (aside from one person making mountains out of molehills every time women are even mentioned). The fact that these characters are women means less than nothing to me. It's the blatant pandering and unoriginality that is this remake that bugs the hell out of me.

And to be clear, sequel doesn't mean it would be a better film. I NEVER said that. It WOULD however keep everything in the same universe and not try to just rehash what already exists. There is room in one Ghostbusters universe for many teams.

 

[Westies14]

Ghostbusters was wreaking havoc on my shoot this week. We had crew and talent pulled away on GB business, and Indie Revolver posting from our set, angering Sony by reporting Aykroyd's cameo role/dialogue.

They filmed the ghost T-Rex scene on Monday night. That's the replacement for the Marshmallow Man.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Don't even give Jeyl the setups to discuss this gender stuff anymore.

Ya, sorry. I'm done feeding the troll.

 

[Westies14]

For the record though, my issue is with Jeyl. Jlee hasn't been needlessly derailing the thread with sexism accusations in my opinion.

No, he hasn't been defaulting to sexism. I had to block him for deliberately reframing my arguments on my behalf in his responses, or just issuing completely irrelevant arguments until the conversation is worthless. I come here to have the conversation. I enjoy the conversation. I don't care if it's being derailed for "sexism" or just because someone just can't allow others to not want this thing made. Both paths are obnoxious and defeat the purpose of the forum itself.

 

[KrangPrime]

I'm actually about 99% okay with the new take on it,the one percent is that stupid ginormous light dome,why's it orange? oh right this is supposed to be a new take on Ghostbusters.

Change it to something blue and smaller and I could be cool with it.

actually, the light seems to have been part of the ORIGINAL car. just like that stupid molding that goes THROUGH the ghostbusters logo. They didn't even paint the logo over the molding, they just stopped around the molding.

In other news, they are rebooting the last starfighter. WHY hollywood, WHY? the original movie was a classic of it's time. If you turn them into space cops, might as well do a whole new series!! oh, that's right. the idea might not stand out enough without brand recognition. so, just ruin the last star fighter.....

- - - Updated - - -

They filmed the ghost T-Rex scene on Monday night. That's the replacement for the Marshmallow Man.

it's an interesting question...how come we don't see reports of Animal ghosts as much as human ghosts? but a ghost T Rex won't be near as iconic as the marshmellow man. it just sounds like someone said 'Hey, Jurrasic World will be popular when this comes out..why don't we...'

 

[jcoffman99]

Hey did you guys hear Starbuck is a girl now? .

Man, woman, who cares? Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a bad idea is just a bad idea. This movie is just a bad idea. Man, woman, or monkey, it's just a bad idea.

 

[jlee562]

That's all that's been going on through this entire thread. Jeyl, Jlee and others snowplow any negative, adult discussion of this film's development as it unfolds by taking it out of context, reframing it as something it's not, or just answering with irrelevant nonsense until the conversation isn't worth having. God forbid fans hash out the good and the bad of a geek-pedigree film series in the entertainment section of a movie prop site...

Let me phrase this is a less confrontational way.

If you believe I have intentionally taken something out of context, please show me what relevant block of text you are referring to. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

I can say that during our original disagreement in which you blocked me, it was in fact YOU who took my arguments out of context.

Case in point:

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the way in which you're trying to delineate Ghostbusters from other franchises makes no objective sense. I would further suggest that if the process behind this GB film is so shocking to you, that you not do any further research into how movies get made. Your poor heart may get broken.

Acknowledging that Sony has announced that this movie is pointedly separate from the others is not my trying to "delineate it" from the original films. You're still playing semantics instead of having an honest discussion about the topic. Again, troll.

This is you calling me a troll because you misread or misunderstood my argument.

As far as re-framing, yes, I think that's entirely valid in many instances in this thread. Particularly as it relates to your posts specifically. Folks are injecting a lot of subjective points of view and pretending that they're objective facts.

Like I said, where is the email that says Feig "doesn't care" or "has no love" for the Ghostbusters franchise?

That's a projection from this detractors because y'all don't like what he's doing. Most directors like to have a certain amount of creative freedom, but when Paul Feig wants to make sure that he's actually going to be able to direct the movie he wrote, suddenly he's the most vile director in Hollywood. Give me a break.

 

[Krull]

actually, the light seems to have been part of the ORIGINAL car. just like that stupid molding that goes THROUGH the ghostbusters logo. They didn't even paint the logo over the molding, they just stopped around the molding.

In other news, they are rebooting the last starfighter. WHY hollywood, WHY? the original movie was a classic of it's time. If you turn them into space cops, might as well do a whole new series!! oh, that's right. the idea might not stand out enough without brand recognition. so, just ruin the last star fighter.....

- - - Updated - - -



it's an interesting question...how come we don't see reports of Animal ghosts as much as human ghosts? but a ghost T Rex won't be near as iconic as the marshmellow man. it just sounds like someone said 'Hey, Jurrasic World will be popular when this comes out..why don't we...'

Hrm yea I guess,is that a hearse or an ambulance? I don't recall a hearse with a light it does look like a 60's ambulance though.

And...a...ghost...Trex? seriously?? I dunno why but that strikes me as incredibly cheap.

 

[JoMamma_Smurf]

This is spot on and I have to say this is how I feel about the matter.

NSFW *LANGUAGE*

 

[Westies14]

Let me phrase this is a less confrontational way.

If you believe I have intentionally taken something out of context, please show me what relevant block of text you are referring to. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

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. 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.

My own response which you quoted above? I have no idea what you're trying to point out with that. I really don't. As for how movies get made - I work in production and dabble in entertainment reporting. I wrote the article leaking the Feig Ghostbusters plot and was on hand as Aykroyd's role was revealed yesterday. My poor heart is fine, thanks. This film's concept & development still suck. Pascal's capitulation to Feig's demands (not Feig's demands themselves, he shouldn't do a job he doesn't want and likely expected to be refused) is insane.

Like I said, where is the email that says Feig "doesn't care" or "has no love" for the Ghostbusters franchise?

That's a projection from this detractors because y'all don't like what he's doing. Most directors like to have a certain amount of creative freedom, but when Paul Feig wants to make sure that he's actually going to be able to direct the movie he wrote, suddenly he's the most vile director in Hollywood. Give me a break.

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.

 

[KrangPrime]

Apparently some website called Indie Revolver got a look at either the script, or a run down of the script. here are some of the 'cute nods' to the original that we can look forward to seeing. as if the original isn't on DVD and we all havn't seen it a thousand times already. rather than this thing standing on it's own, we have to see this too..

>>>
the media gives them the "Ghostbusters" name, apparently calling it 'goofy'.
They are shown an old firehouse by a realtor but they pass on it.
They look like cosplayers at a comic con in their Ghostbusters gear. (direct knock at fans? or just commenting on what fans are saying?)
Now the old slogan is brought up and mocked.>>>>>

just as bad as 'they're teenagers....and they're ninjas....so that makes them teenage mutant ninja turtles'
'well, when you say it that way, it sounds kind of goofy..'

 

[Solo4114]

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. 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.

My own response which you quoted above? I have no idea what you're trying to point out with that. I really don't. As for how movies get made - I work in production and dabble in entertainment reporting. I wrote the article leaking the Feig Ghostbusters plot and was on hand as Aykroyd's role was revealed yesterday. My poor heart is fine, thanks. This film's concept & development still suck. Pascal's capitulation to Feig's demands (not Feig's demands themselves, he shouldn't do a job he doesn't want and likely expected to be refused) is insane.



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.

Even aside from the wikileaks stuff in the emails, it's been pretty well documented that Feig: (1) was approached multiple times to direct (implying he turned it down multiple times); (2) couldn't figure out what to do with the property as a sequel; (3) finally hit on the idea of a reboot with all women, and realized he knew how to make that movie. Fire off a quick google search on "Feig turned down ghostbusters multiple times" and see what comes up.


When I read his comments, especially in light of things like the prop design, the rough outlines we've seen about the origin story, and the rumors about winks/nods to the original...it all just sounds to me like a profoundly uninspired rehash that is entirely about marketing and capitalizing on brands and demographics.

This film may do well. This film may end up being hysterical and both a fitting tribute to the original and a work that stands on its own two feet.

But it also wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't do well at the box office and gets slammed by critics who find it to be an uninspired, by-the-numbers, unnecessary rehash of a modern classic.


Personally, I expect the outcome to be....that critics give it a "meh." I expect to see quotes like "a capable cast, but an uninspired story. Still, McCarthy and Wiig are entertaining at moments, and the f/x are decent. 2.5/5 stars." And in another 3 years, Sony reboots the franchise again because Sony appears to be "The Studio That Couldn't Produce Straight."

 

[Jeyl]

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.

Good. With fans like these I wonder if an all-female Ghostbusters team would ever happen in any circumstance if someone didn't make it a priority. Believe it or not, it's a lot harder to get women in leading roles than it is men, and the fact that this was made under such circumstances is a positive in my book.

Also, I don't think Ghostbusters are REAL.

 

[Riceball]

Good. With fans like these I wonder if an all-female Ghostbusters team would ever happen in any circumstance if someone didn't make it a priority. Believe it or not, it's a lot harder to get women in leading roles than it is men, and the fact that this was made under such circumstances is a positive in my book.

Also, I don't think Ghostbusters are REAL.

What's so important about there being female Ghostbusters? Is there something inherent in the IP that lends itself to having women in the role or something? Is there something intrinsically female about Ghostbusters that making them all women is such a natural and wonderful idea that somebody should have thought about it earlier? What's so special about the IP that gender bending the cast that's going to make this movie monumental or pivotal for more women in leading roles? This is the worst thing you could do for that cause, it just says that the studios don't think that women can do well in an original IP, so they have to take an existing IP and just put women in the place of the men. Oh yeah, that says so much about women in leading roles, they're no good unless they're replacing, and otherwise acting like, men.

 

[Westies14]

Good. With fans like these I wonder if an all-female Ghostbusters team would ever happen in any circumstance if someone didn't make it a priority. Believe it or not, it's a lot harder to get women in leading roles than it is men, and the fact that this was made under such circumstances is a positive in my book.

Also, I don't think Ghostbusters are REAL.

My apologies to Jlee. You're way worse. No one here thinks Ghostbusters are real. This is exactly the "twist everything out of context" nonsense that makes conversations not worth having to begin with. I wish to god it was a bannable offense.

 

[KrangPrime]

Personally, I expect the outcome to be....that critics give it a "meh." I expect to see quotes like "a capable cast, but an uninspired story. Still, McCarthy and Wiig are entertaining at moments, and the f/x are decent. 2.5/5 stars." And in another 3 years, Sony reboots the franchise again because Sony appears to be "The Studio That Couldn't Produce Straight."

Or get sequels right. I actually liked the first andrew garfield spiderman. everything I've heard about the second caused me to skip it entirely. and I won't be seeing the third reboot with this kid who looks like he belongs more on sesame street learning numbers and letters than being a super hero.

I'm sad to say, that I think this thing, just like Bay Turtles after all the fans of the franchise bashing it to bits, will be a huge hit. I don't think it'll make anywhere near what Turtles did. But I wouldn't be surprised with at least a $25 million opening weekend. being number one for at least a week. maybe a strong second weekend, and dropping off into obscurity right there. that alone will probably convince sony that a sequel will get greenlit,

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...