while I agree that it's impossible not to talk about sexism more than ghostbusters at this point (largely thanks to sony and their bought for SJW articles)....
I disagree that it's all about the brand at this point, or ever in this case.
From the very start, it's been sony pushing 'women, women, women.' as if we wouldn't notice.
THEN when the complaints really became non stop, they started the sexism angle to go with it. I think at first it was just to counter the negative reviews in some odd way to try and gain sympathy. but then when they saw all these articles pop up on their own, that became the free publicity machine for the last year. and if you believe that sony pictures is on it's last legs, and this film has no marketing budget, (hence why their marketing department is getting laid off), it became a blessing in disguise.
it's the only thing that makes sense.
Well, first, I don't believe Sony Pictures is anywhere close to on its last legs. I think some of their franchise choices didn't pan out (e.g. Spider-Man) and their attempt to revive an old one anew has been met with mixed reactions (e.g. Ghostbusters), but generally I think Sony's doing fine. They're not about to just disappear as a studio any time soon.
And as for the whole "women, women, women" thing, I think Feig led with that because that's just what Feig does, but I also think that it was always -- at its core -- about branding. Feig and his style of comedy is a brand the same way Judd Apatow is a brand and the same way the Farrely bros. are a brand. Ghostbusters is a brand. I think Amy Pascal figured "GB brand + Feig brand = box office success." Period. Feig promoting the women/feminist angle of the film is just him doing his thing. It's not "pushing" anything. That's just what he does. It's the kind of films he makes. It's a known quantity.
Amy Pascal wanted Feig to attach his brand to hers, and managed to accomplish that by giving Feig what he wanted: the ability to basically remake the original film, but with women instead. That was the only way Feig was going to be interested, and the only way she'd get Feig's brand associated with Ghostbusters, and she was fine with that.
The bottom line is pretty simple: branding sells movies these days. Remakes, reboots, reimaginings, sequels, franchise films, etc., it's all about audience familiarity with the material on an unconscious level, a.k.a. branding.
If this film was, say, about four women who fight ghosts in 1980s Chicago, using elaborate rube-goldberg-style devices, it'd just be some crappy Ghostbusters knockoff and nobody would go see it. But you slap the logo and the proton packs on top of that project, while leaving all the humor otherwise the same, and suddenly audiences say "Oh cool. I'll go see that." Why? Branding. Studios know this works, and that's why they do it.
Audiences won't take a chance on something "original." They want something familiar. That's the attitude in Hollywood, so that's what they keep making.
to me, this round of things under the GB's name has NEVER been about ghostbusters. it's always been about the cause thanks to the two people running it.
and if that IS the case, I wonder if Dan Aykroyd has cause to sue sony for ruining of a brand, intentionally. somehow i doubt amy pascal ever had good intentions with this thing...considering before this, she wanted to produce a female super hero movie called 'glass ceiling'. ghostbusters came along at the right time for her...and so did the death of harold ramis. one less rights holder makes it easier to push the agenda, i guess. maybe in the settlement, they could finally wrestle gb's away from sony and give it to a company that will actually do it justice. I dream for the marvel writers to tackle it one day. I think their sense of style would do GB proud for a new generation.
Um....
No.
Dan Akroyd will not sue Sony. Why would he? He doesn't care, man. He gets his check either way. Also, I think you are imputing a sense of protective ownership of the franchise to Akroyd that he, quite frankly, just doesn't have. If Dan was as protective of the franchise as you think he was...this film never would've been made in the first place. Dan could've stopped it. Bill could've stopped it. Bob could've stopped it. Assuming, of course, that they had the rights to do so. They didn't. That's because they didn't care. They aren't as attached to these films as you are. Or to the extent they are, it's much more of a commercial product to them than this thing they love so dearly.
And even if he wanted to, there's no grounds to sue. Sony is the exclusive studio that can make these films. I'm not even sure that Akroyd, Murray, and Zemeckis "own" Ghostbusters, or at least own it in a way that they could claim Sony acted against their interests. That's not how this stuff works, really. That'd be like James Cameron suing the studio for Terminator 3 (or, really, any subsequent Terminator film). He doesn't have the right to, nor does he have the legal grounds on which to base a claim.