Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

[jlee562]

It's not clear from the emails that - as far as the reboot factor is concerned - that Sony ceded this point to Feig, rather than mutually agreeing to do so.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/48006

> On Sep 14, 2014, at 11:26 AM, "Pascal, Amy" wrote:
>
> Yes let's beat this down again
>
> Sent from my Sony Xperia Z2
>
>> On Sep 14, 2014, at 11:23 AM, "Belgrad, Doug" wrote:
>>
>> Got a mildly annoying call from Ivan this morning. He has been thinking since our conversation yesterday and says that he's realizing how important the mythology is to our property. Therefore, he thinks Paul's story should exist in a world where Ghostbuster events of the 80's are known. We talked about it for a while, but it just made me worry that now he and Danny think they have more creative control as protectors of the franchise than they even had before.
>> Anyway, I told him we really need to do a brand study to learn what people expect or care about from a movie and what they don't.
>> But there you go...
>>

It reads to me that the studio was tired of dealing with Reitman's vacillating back and forth. The studio didn't want to produce the script they had. Pascal wrote that they had "Nothing good enough to show" to Feig at Comicon.

 

[KrangPrime]

Feig's interest level is all right there to see. He wasn't interested in the sequel and couldn't conceive of how to do what the studio was suggesting. He hit on the idea of doing...basically the only kind of movie he's interested in (casting primarily funny women), and then he got excited about it. He did a reboot because he didn't want to be tied to the continuity of the old stuff, because he wanted to have his characters react to ghosts as a new phenomenon rather than as old hat.


We can debate the wisdom of Sony hiring Feig and agreeing to his desire to do what he wanted to do, but at this point, hopefully this puts to rest the discussions of what he was and wasn't interested in doing.

I can't help but wonder if feig has a man phobia. every time I read that, I wonder why would suddenly putting in four women make it exciting to him? other than the fact that this is his comfort zone? I wonder if he would have made it a sequel knowing all the hate the reboot idea would bring. I would have had tons more respect for him if he held his ground and just said NO. Amy Pascal must be one persistent person.

Hell, you could have done a story about people ripping off the ghostbusters brand, like in the first RGB toon ever aired. that would make total sense on why all this equipment doesn't look as good as the original. they had the know how, but not the engineering skills or technical plans of the original pack to make it look or work as good as the real ghostbusters...hence why everything looks like a bad knock off ... even that idea of competition between the two teams would have been interesting, and have shown the new company starting up and going out on their own. although I would have set it in chicago as a tribute to the blues brothers...

You could have had a giant city smashing ghost working it's way from the old team in NY, to the new team in Chicago, the two teams learning about each other, conflict along the way, and then finally learning how to work together as a franchise at the end to beat the big bad.

just shows how little vision feig has for stuff he's not into.

 

[Westies14]

It's not clear from the emails that - as far as the reboot factor is concerned - that Sony ceded this point to Feig, rather than mutually agreeing to do so.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/48006


It reads to me that the studio was tired of dealing with Reitman's vacillating back and forth. The studio didn't want to produce the script they had. Pascal wrote that they had "Nothing good enough to show" to Feig at Comicon.

That email is again after the point that they'd conceded Feig's reboot to him. He was hired, and had that version in development. Sony had never considered scrapping the old continuity until Feig asked them to, and Pascal wanted him badly enough to give it to him. Until about ten seconds later, when the Russo brothers and Channing Tatum materialized with an offer to make a proper GB film, and Pascal/Sony scrambled to see if it'd be possible to backburner Feig or draw him into the Tatum/Russo continuity, allowing that film to lead.

 

[KrangPrime]

That email is again after the point that they'd conceded Feig's reboot to him. He was hired, and had that version in development. Sony had never considered scrapping the old continuity until Feig asked them to, and Pascal wanted him badly enough to give it to him. Until about ten seconds later, when the Russo brothers and Channing Tatum materialized with an offer to make a proper GB film, and Pascal/Sony scrambled to see if it'd be possible to backburner Feig or draw him into the Tatum/Russo continuity, allowing that film to lead.

2 seconds later. probably not that fast, but funny ;o)...... It's just really, really sad to see how fast on a dime they wanted to turn just to get some new temporary 'it' director and team in there. I have no idea who the russo brothers are, so no idea if I would have liked what they do any better than feig.

 

[Solo4114]

It's not clear from the emails that - as far as the reboot factor is concerned - that Sony ceded this point to Feig, rather than mutually agreeing to do so.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/48006


It reads to me that the studio was tired of dealing with Reitman's vacillating back and forth. The studio didn't want to produce the script they had. Pascal wrote that they had "Nothing good enough to show" to Feig at Comicon.

That email is again after the point that they'd conceded Feig's reboot to him. He was hired, and had that version in development. Sony had never considered scrapping the old continuity until Feig asked them to, and Pascal wanted him badly enough to give it to him. Until about ten seconds later, when the Russo brothers and Channing Tatum materialized with an offer to make a proper GB film, and Pascal/Sony scrambled to see if it'd be possible to backburner Feig or draw him into the Tatum/Russo continuity, allowing that film to lead.

This really is the main evidence that they wanted a sequel. While it's true that they really wanted Feig, it also seems like they wanted a sequel, too. Sort of. It's not entirely clear why they wanted a sequel, though. Was it just to appease the rights holders (Akroyd and Reitman)? Was it because they already had some material that they could adapt to a sequel more easily, and wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel? Or was it because they genuinely wanted to do a sequel because they liked the story direction it could go?

My theory is that Amy Pascal didn't really give a rip about sequel vs. no sequel, once Reitman backed off and said "Yeah, sure, do whatever. Just make sure the check is in the mail." I think she was much more about....names. She wanted Feig, the Russo bros., and Channing Tatum and Chris Pratt all because she saw them as hot commodities whose names print money. If she could get them all under her roof, working on the one franchise she could really exploit, she wanted to figure out how to do it. But it's less about "We need a sequel" and more about "We need these people." The Russo/Tatum/Pratt project arrived unsolicited and proposed as a sequel, so she wanted to make them happy to get them to work with her. Then she needed to figure out how to keep the guy she'd already signed with happy, so he wouldn't jump ship. To me, none of this speaks to any real preference for one story direction over the other, and is much more about just having a stable of talent working on projects for her with the IP she owns.

I can't help but wonder if feig has a man phobia. every time I read that, I wonder why would suddenly putting in four women make it exciting to him? other than the fact that this is his comfort zone? I wonder if he would have made it a sequel knowing all the hate the reboot idea would bring. I would have had tons more respect for him if he held his ground and just said NO. Amy Pascal must be one persistent person.

I think you nailed it: it's his comfort zone. He says in the interview that it's pretty much all he's interested in doing. Maybe that'll change later in his career, but right now, he's really only interested in making comedies with funny women. We can hazard guesses as to the why of that, but it's not really all that important.

just shows how little vision feig has for stuff he's not into.

To be fair, if it ain't his thing, he's a hot enough commodity right now that he can say "Yeah, not really interested" and go make his own movies that'll make bank. Maybe audiences will tire of his style eventually (they got tired of the Farrelly bros, for example), but at least for the foreseeable future, Feig's hot and has no reason to shift gears if he's making money doing it his way.

 

[jlee562]

That email is again after the point that they'd conceded Feig's reboot to him. He was hired, and had that version in development. Sony had never considered scrapping the old continuity until Feig asked them to, and Pascal wanted him badly enough to give it to him. Until about ten seconds later, when the Russo brothers and Channing Tatum materialized with an offer to make a proper GB film, and Pascal/Sony scrambled to see if it'd be possible to backburner Feig or draw him into the Tatum/Russo continuity, allowing that film to lead.

I'm going off the emails linked from this page earlier:
http://www.gbfans.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=39324

As well as going to Wiki and searching by using Feig's email.

I would agree with Solo's wording on this. I don't think Amy Pascal cared too much about continuity (as evidenced by the "brand study" comment).

 

[Westies14]

Going off the emails? What does that mean? My comment was about the irrelevance of the particular email quoted, because it was used to support the idea that Sony may have been as eager as Feig to reboot. There's simply nothing out there demonstrating that. No one's ever argued that Sony wasn't dollars-driven without a care for story or character or legacy. That's been our issue this whole time.

 

[jlee562]

Going off the emails? What does that mean? My comment was about the irrelevance of the particular email quoted, because it was used to support the idea that Sony may have been as eager as Feig to reboot. There's simply nothing out there demonstrating that. No one's ever argued that Sony wasn't dollars-driven without a care for story or character or legacy. That's been our issue this whole time.

Dude, you don't have to get hot about it. Not everything is an argument.

And saying that it was "mutually [agreed]" upon isn't the same as saying Sony was "as eager as Feig to reboot." Especially in the context of saying that I agreed with Solo (relevant part: "...Amy Pascal didn't really give a rip about sequel vs. no sequel, once Reitman backed off...").

I mean, do I have to explain my entire train of thought now, so that you don't assume I'm on some mission to troll this thread?

 

[Westies14]

"Dude," I didnt memorize your exact wording and I'm not trying to argue semantics. You wondered if Sony might have been in the reboot camp along with Feig, and referenced an email to illustrate the point. I simply said that the email is from after the fact, and said that there's nothing out there to indicate that Sony was ever thinking reboot before Feig asked for it - rather, they looked into the feasibility of backpedaling really quickly. That's all. Not asking you to explain any more than you have. Please, don't.

 

[KrangPrime]

That's all. Not asking you to explain any more than you have. Please, don't.

"Hang on...this is going to be rough....."

swirly sound effect....

"we're going back in time!"

"If you had propelled the ball at exact..."

"THANK YOU MR.DATA"

10,000 awarded.

 

[Westies14]

You're right, Neil! I shouldn't have come back. I'll stay in the legit discussion thread and avoid the "irrelevant-replies-no-one's-having-the-same-conversation-move-the-goalposts-rather-than-appear-to-be-wrong" thread to others

Sorry for adding to the noise again, everyone.

 

[Josemne]

just shows how little vision feig has for stuff he's not into.

Man that's just a very insulting thing to say about a creative person. Specially since you probably know very little about him personally. For the record he has directed episodes of The Office, Arrested Development, Mad Men, Weeds, 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, Nurse Jackie, and even Other Space. He even wrote and directed an episode of Freaks and Geeks. None of those are "his usual thing" or all women casts. He is in a position to say "I want to do this" and people will say yes and back him up, that's what creative people want.

The fact that his in that position and the thrown together story you came up with (which no offense, i don't like any better) doesn't prove or point to he having no vision beyond what he likes to do. That's just unnecessarily rude, but I guess this is the internet.

 

[jlee562]

"Dude," I didnt memorize your exact wording and I'm not trying to argue semantics. You wondered if Sony might have been in the reboot camp along with Feig, and referenced an email to illustrate the point. I simply said that the email is from after the fact, and said that there's nothing out there to indicate that Sony was ever thinking reboot before Feig asked for it - rather, they looked into the feasibility of backpedaling really quickly. That's all. Not asking you to explain any more than you have. Please, don't.

See Westies, here's the thing. In the past, when I've re-phrased your arguments as part as my response, you've loudly complained about being taken out of context, or how I'm "deliberately twisting" your words.

Yet, when I point out that you've done the same, now you're on your high horse about semantics and moving the goal posts. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I did not "wonder if Sony might have been in the reboot camp along with Feig." Nowhere did I explicitly state or otherwise imply that Sony was thinking about doing a reboot prior to approaching Feig.

If the difference between what I wrote, and what you think I wrote, is lost on you, it's not my fault any more.

"At this point, I have to believe it's deliberate."

 

[Jeyl]

I've been playing a lot of RPGs lately and have discovered something that I think is a major misconception.

He just wasn't right with the job. When a discussion about what should come next for GHOSTBUSTERS begins with "well, women are just as funny as men, let's start there" you know you're talking to the wrong guy. That doesn't mean that women can't be as funny as men, it just means your focus is on the wrong things.

Now, when I play my RPGs, there's usually a process you have to start with called a character creator. I normally always go with a female avatar because that's my thing. But when the game begins, my focus now turns directly on her characterization. What kind of decisions will she make? Is she funny? Will she seek justice at the good guy's expense, or corrupt justice in order to ensure the good guys will win? To say that the focus is solely on the aspect that these characters are female I believe is disingenuous because that implies there will be nothing else to define their characters. They're female and... that's it. The ONLY time I've seen something Ghostbusters related where the focus was on the female gender are things like this.

Paul Feig's Ghostbusters?

Their looks certainly don't come off like they're trying to appeal horny male audience and they're not changing the design of the uniforms to appear more feminine. I can totally see guys wearing the same uniform and still come off as legitimate Ghostbusters without changing anything. In conclusion, the decision to make an all female ghostbusters team was just that. A decision that they made in the beginning and moved on to other important things like story and character. Just because it came first doesn't mean that's where all the focus is.