Ghostbusters Director Calls Out "Assholes in Geek Culture"

[Jandau]

So, as a person who isn't particularly invested in Ghostbusters in any way (I think it was a good film with an alright sequel) and isn't a part of any fandom related to it...

...I watched the trailer for the new one. I didn't laugh once. I was made mildly uncomfortable by the "sassy black woman" stereotype being apparently taken to (an arguably racist) extreme. I decided that based on the trailer I have no reason to want to see the film.

Does that make me an asshole? Sexist? Both? Do I have to watch and enjoy that film to prove I'm neither of those things? I mean, that would be like saying you have to like Adam Sandler films to prove you aren't biased against mentally challenged individuals...

 

[Odbarc]

If we're such big assholes, stop trying to take our money and telling us our opinion doesn't matter.

People who take risks don't want to take the blame when their projects fail on them. It's rarely the audiences fault for not accepting something bad. And isn't the purpose of trailers to showcase what the content has? And when you see the previews and say to yourself "This isn't good." and then go to the internet and ask for their opinions and suddenly your thrown from the sheep who told you only what you wanted to the wolves to hear only the truth.

If you took Star Wars and replaced the entire cast and took out all the heart and soul out of the movie and called it a reboot or sequel or whatever, it's again not going to be the fault of the audience for getting something they never asked for presented in a box no one would accept or even pay for the garbage; That's not anyone's fault for saying 'no' except to the people who greenlight the mistake.


My personal opinions on the trailer are that it didn't seem spectacular. I was a pretty big fan of the movie as a kid but never really inherited it as some genre/movie defining influence on my life. It was good, I liked that. This new one just seems like a rehash than a reboot.
What probably kills it for me is that scene where they tell each other (and indirectly, the audience) what and who they are and why they should be doing this thing. "You are the smartest _____, and she is the best _____."
Do women actually talk to each other that way in real life when men aren't around or something?

I won't be seeing it in theaters unless I hear the best reviews from people I trust.

 

[Tharaxis]

Here's my take on the whole Ghostbusters reboot thing, please note that these are only from my perspective and I can't speak for the greater "geek collective", but I have a feeling that a lot of my sentiment is shared with those out there:

1) There is absolutely a subset of geek culture which intercepts with outrage culture. This is the acidic/cancerous subset which seeks to shit on everything that doesn't absolutely meet their narrow definition of what the movies, books and so on are about. These are also the individuals that like to believe they are the most enlightened amongst geekdom, in spite of the fact that they are generally the most narrowly learn?d of the lot. Unfortunately they're the most vocal, but they're also the least useful in the greater cultural space.

2) In spite of the response from certain geeks out there, the reality is however that the trailer itself is just not that good a trailer, _especially_ given the material in question. Tonally the film seems to (and this is based on the trailer itself) sway more towards slapstick humour, compared to the prior movies in which there was far more balance between humour and horror. This is not so much a commentary on the humour at play in Ghostbusters, but instead the simplification of humour of film in general over the many years. The humour in the original films was far more situational and far more subtle and did not stoop itself so low as to essentially overly play on stereotypes and "potty humour". I of course say "overly play" since there are certainly aspects in the films that do still play to that, but it's limited. Somewhere along the line someone said that people don't want to watch funny and fun films where the humour does not immediately pay off, or requires a viewer to pay attention and it arguably shows in the trailer.

3) Instead of casting a geeky male in the role of "Kevin" who I am _assuming_ plays the equivalent role of Janine in the original films (who was geeky) we instead have Chris Hemsworth. Given the quality of the decision making on display within the trailer he could only end up playing one of two roles: Either (a) he's going to be the hot guy that all the women (including the Ghostbusters) flirt with or find hot and that's going to be his character, or (b) He's going to end up being the romantic interest for one of the women on the team. In either case that's awful writing and characterization and I can only hope that that doesn't happen, but given the current writing on display it seems almost inevitable.

4) Visually the movie seems like a great departure from the original films in which the ghosts in question seem more colourful and cartoony than based in some form of real world. The original films mixed levity with horror, and the ghosts in question were often horrific and scary in design. I don't get any of that from the trailers.

5) The fact that there's some device or macguffin that will "destroy the world" referred to in the trailer that I _assume_ the Ghostbusters have to destroy speaks again to awful storytelling. No more is the film about the ghosts being mystical in nature. No, now they're a direct product of man (most likely a human villain, and probably a scientist). It just seems so typically dumb.

Now, let me point out that all these criticisms stem from the trailer. It is possible that the film itself will _still_ be very good and highly entertaining and if that ends up being the case then the trailer was even WORSE than we're talking about right now because it very poorly represents the film then. The fact is right now that the trailer is very poor.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I read the article and I can't tell if he's being attacked by pro-women geeks or anti-women geeks.


To be fair, these stories kind of write themselves these days. "Person involved in the creation of popular culture creates controversy through depiction of character or statement of opinion."

Generic headline made me laugh. Could be a template handed out to new staff at a number of websites.

 

[runic knight]

Pretending people have a problem with Ghostbusters because of the trailer is just that; a pretense. People had a problem with it because it was an all-female cast. Attempting to pretend it's because of the trailer is just historical revisionism. It's a scapegoat.

Care to back that rather sweeping generalization there up with, well, anything of value or merit and not just your own assertion it is true? I mean, don't get me wrong, I am sure there are some who thought redoing the whole beloved franchise with an all-female lead cast advertised like it was a sideshow attraction were probably uncertain with the idea (see umbra's well written post above for an example there). But to make this sort of overarching accusation, dismissiveness and generalization towards why the trailer got shit on, especial after many people have been explaining a plethora of reasons why they and others didn't like it, or didn't like the idea of the reboot itself... that is just not intellectually honest.

You put a lot of stock in it being because of the all-female cast, but from what I have seen, most people don't give a damn either way about the gender of the cast beyond their disgust at the people who keep trying to point to the all-female cast like it is some factor of importance as to why people don't like the look of the movie. Hell, I've seen more than a couple call up the awesomeness of the animated ghostbusters show, complete with female lead and even handicapped lead too. Reducing the reasons and arguments people have presented into a "they are sexist" argument is not doing any good.

The movie screamed "cashgrab" in concept, the reboot idea removed the connection to the beloved characters, the rehash concept sounded terrible, the thing has had warning signs all along production, the trailer confirmed a lot of people's fears, and thus far, the largest, indeed nearly the sole defense I hear anywhere online about this movie stems entirely from people offering no defense of the movie itself, but rather, an unapologetic attack on those who criticize it, hell attack the very culture of those criticizing it are associated with, largely under the veiled accusation of sexism. And it is funny that those are also the ones who seem the most concerned about it being a female cast in the first place.

The only other defense I have heard is that a trailer is not always accurate and judgements should be reserved til the films release, a sensible if optimistic defense, though oddly enough never comes from the previous group of people who seem overly concerned with the female cast but rather those who don't seem to care one way or another about it.

 

[Worgen]

"Look at that nest of angry hornets, what would happen if I started bugging the hornets? Why are the hornets stinging me now? It must just be the asshole hornets."

Thanks for the laugh

OT:

He claims that the all-female cast is a mere co-incidence: the funniest people he knows just happen to be women, which is why he has cast them in the movie.

Please don't insult our intelligence, Mr. Director Man. Bad enough you're making a shitty movie.

To be fair we don't know its a shitty movie, we just know it has a shitty trailer.

The black Ghost Buster says "I know the streets" as to why she should be on the team in this movie. It's going to suck.

We don't even know if that will be in the movie. Trailers include footage that isn't in the movie a lot.

 

[jklinders]

"He claims that the all-female cast is a mere co-incidence: the funniest people he knows just happen to be women, which is why he has cast them in the movie."

I'm going to quote the great Urdnot Wrex and reply with "Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining." They were proudly pushing a "girl power" angle right from the start. I have absolutely no problem with that and up until I saw this blatant lie I was merely no going to bother watching it. I didn't necessarily think it was going to be terrible but I'm not a fan of reboots and less so a fan of gender flipped "just 'cause" reboots. Using gender as the starting point of making a character usually ends in shitty characters. The trailer showcased that quite nicely.

So here we have a gender flipped reboot, they are proudly pushing the girl power thing, it gets received really poorly and now over a year in it's "it's only a coincidence they are all women"? Grow some 'nads pal. Own your decisions and be honest. It's literally the only way anyone is going to buy what you are selling at thins point.

 

[Blazing Hero]

And you know what the scary part is?

He's right. Geek culture is terrible and needs to be ended,

Nah, Geek culture is fairly good as a whole. It's pretty fun bro.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Not really inclined to comment on Feig or his assertions, as I don't care for the guy, nor am I a fan of any of his work.

But-

What I will never understand is why they chose this route since they could have made a sequel based around the Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon from the 90's/2000's.

Nice ethnic cross section of modern New York, retained a connection to the old crew since Egon and Janine ran the show - though that would need to be changed now due to the passing of Harold Ramis - but taking the concept into some newer (definitely more horrorshow) directions while never stopping being about Ghostbusting. Seems a missed opportunity to me.

Agreed.

I liked the show as a kid and genuinely thought they would go the "passing the torch" direction in a new film, rather than this...thing we've been saddled with.

Plus, that intro song-


-was a much better rendition of the original theme than the current movie's trailer offered.

Though, considering the current climate and the fact that a studio couldn't resist playing up the BK Kid's Club aspect of casting/direction, there'd likely still be some sorta backlash. It'd doubtlessly be on a much smaller scale than what we're seeing, given the differences in approach/source material, but there would be some negativity, as there always is for everything.

Edit: Hell, this seems like it would have been the go to move for a progressive-minded director like Feig.

 

[Naldan]

Sorry if this will be inappropriate, but I don't have enough willpower and lack rhetoric and the style to make the points more comprehensible in further posts. It's getting a bit too confusing to me why even the context from post to post in this very thread fails to be described as clear as possible.

Gonna need a source on that one.

(note: These are just articles that have this message more precise than others)

http://jezebel.com/new-all-feminist-ghostbusters-is-a-punch-in-the-dick-to-1682292125
http://www.the-broad-side.com/10-reasons-we-need-feminist-ghostbusters
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/may/01/who-ya-gonna-call-why-ghostbusters-is-leading-the-charge-for-female-buddy-movies
http://hellogiggles.com/melissa-mccarthys-ghostbusters/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/caseyrackham/the-ghostbusters-trailer-is-here?utm_term=.lu0v4z4gAR#.fdyZN6Nyb7
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/08/04/yes-a-girl-powered-ghostbusters-does-matter/#94a59141d23a

Pretending people have a problem with Ghostbusters because of the trailer is just that; a pretense. People had a problem with it because it was an all-female cast. Attempting to pretend it's because of the trailer is just historical revisionism. It's a scapegoat.

If you think so.

First off main protagonists aren't a problem. There are countless main protagonists that are female and very little people take offense. They only seem to take offense when it's all female. Why? Ask them.

ALL of Ghostbusters will be female? That's news to me. But good to know.

You say I "lump up everyone in two categories" but honestly I have no idea what those are. In fact in the post you quoted I only listed one and pointed out that I'm included in it, so you seem to be making things up here.

Yes, if you ignore everything from before that and half of previous posts, leave questions unanswered etc. you can come to this conclusion.

Honestly this doesn't actually make sense in reponse to what you quoted.

Sorry. With this I meant to say that I highly disagree and have had to endure a lot of shit that came exactly out of that philosophy you wrote. I hope I have written this out more clearly-- again, I'm sorry. I've neither been to any English-speaking country nor have talked in person to anyone speaking English natively except on business levels and of course in schools, which could explain why I had less trouble with having people following my thoughts back then, but that isn't of any interest I presume.

Please understand that I can not respond frequently and might even forget to do so. But it gets a bit irritating on a minor level regarding this dialogue in particular, so please don't take offense because of me forgetting to respond in the next few days. I don't mean to be rude.

To be clear as day: It is me who's lacking skills in rhetoric and willpower to make himself as understandable as possible.

 

[minkus_draconus]

Gilmore Girls was also the last time I found her funny. My question is how she became so popular. Nobody seems to really like these movies she's done.

My wife and I like Spy a lot. I would not say it is flawless but all I wanted was a fun film and I got that.

 

[minkus_draconus]

Not really inclined to comment on Feig or his assertions, as I don't care for the guy, nor am I a fan of any of his work.

But-

What I will never understand is why they chose this route since they could have made a sequel based around the Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon from the 90's/2000's.

Nice ethnic cross section of modern New York, retained a connection to the old crew since Egon and Janine ran the show - though that would need to be changed now due to the passing of Harold Ramis - but taking the concept into some newer (definitely more horrorshow) directions while never stopping being about Ghostbusting. Seems a missed opportunity to me.

Agreed.

I liked the show as a kid and genuinely thought they would go the "passing the torch" direction in a new film, rather than this...thing we've been saddled with.

Plus, that intro song-


-was a much better rendition of the original theme than the current movie's trailer offered.

Though, considering the current climate and the fact that a studio couldn't resist playing up the BK Kid's Club aspect of casting/direction, there'd likely still be some sorta backlash. It'd doubtlessly be on a much smaller scale than what we're seeing, given the differences in approach/source material, but there would be some negativity, as there always is for everything.

Edit: Hell, this seems like it would have been the go to move for a progressive-minded director like Feig.

I think there would be a HUGE (Trump sized maybe) outcry and rage fest over a team like that being the product of the SJW conspiracy.

 

[Lightknight]

He claims that it's pure coincidence that it's an all-female cast? I thought it was announced to be an all-female cast before casting even happened. I didn't follow it that closely and maybe they just announced it before they announced the cast members but after they'd cast them.

If he really thinks he did this coincidentally then he's just lying to himself or ignoring a personal bias he has inside him that favors women over men (just as so many directors favor men over women for whatever reasons). If you're going to be sexist and intentionally make a movie all one gender then just nut up and own it. It's his prerogative to do that. But let's not lie to ourselves and everyone else, shall we? This is as cringe-worthy as someone saying they don't see race and they totally have a black friend.

As for bitching about geek culture. He made a mistake in assuming all the detractors are geeks. That's an assumption he made and he admits the mistake later. Sure, nothing he ever does has any reason to be disliked. It's all a bunch of other people's "fault" and not his own personal failure to capture the correct tone of Ghostbusters in his trailer. He says he lives or dies on what people find funny, well this is currently falling into the latter category. Hopefully the trailer was misrepresentative and he didn't make the black character a stereotypical "Lordy, Lordy" character or make the film instead ridiculously silly. The original Ghostbusters was tongue in cheek and situational funniness. Silliness was to be had but there was a balance that the trailer doesn't seem to understand.

If Feig has a problem with Geek culture, he shouldn't be handling an IP beloved and adopted by said culture. This bullshit comment would be like Nike complaining about athlete culture being a real meanie pants sometimes. Probably why he recanted it later.

EDIT: Oh... I just looked at his IMDb history... Aside from some TV work he's done (some I loved) I really don't enjoy his film work. That's disappointing. But holy hell is he fantastic at turning low budget films into blockbusters. I just don't think he should have been put in charge of a large budget film like this with such strong expectations and lore. Big mistake in my opinion. But if a ton of people end up flocking to it and liking it, more than had he maintained the IP's integrity, then so be it. At least more people will have gotten joy out of a different iteration of the title. But if it alienates existing fans and only gets average amusement due to its name sake then that'll be a shame.

EDIT: EDIT: Looking at Feig's backpeddling, it looks like he just wasn't aware of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (gift). Yes, anonymous people are dicks. That's because they don't have to abide by normal social conventions because in anonymity you exist outside of society (consequence-wise) while still being allowed to interact with it.

 

[Lightknight]

Update: Paul Feig lied. In those leaked Sony emails he described the cast as an all female cast before casting had begun:

http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/paul-feig-has-a-vision-for-his-ghostbusters.html#

There was no coincidence. Paul must accept that he decided to make a gender-specific movie. Again, this is his prerogative to do, it's just stupid to lie about it when it's easy to back track. Hell, the 5 females who agreed to sign onto the movie aren't even the same four that ended up leading with the sole exception of McCarthy.

I do wonder why he felt the need to backtrack on this. Does he feel guilty for making an overtly sexist decision in casting that's no better than all the times it happens on the other side of the fence?

 

[Amir Kondori]

"pundits started a campaign to downvote the new movie's trailer" says who? I remember when the trailer was uploaded, it was getting heavily downvoted from day one, hour one, minute one.

 

[immortalfrieza]

2. To those wondering why people get upset at these reboots despite the old movies/whatever still existing and being good, let me put it this way.

Imagine you have a neighborhood cat/dog/etc. You enjoy spending time with this animal and enjoy spending time with other people with this animal. One day, the animal dies. It's sad, but you all still had a lot of good memories with it.

One day, someone calls you over to see something. It's the dead animal in a weird outfit and being danced around like a puppet.

Are the memories and enjoyment of the animal gone? No.

Does that make it any less awful to see the animal's corpse paraded around in a shallow mockery of its former self? Also no.

While not exactly the same (cause, you know, animal lives versus media and all that), that's the general idea.

To add to this, it's as if watching your dead animal being dressed up in a weird outfit and danced around traumatized you, or at least persistently stuck in your head to such a degree that every time you ever thought of the animal again it reminds you of and makes you relive watching it's corpse in such a state. You would never be able to even think of the GOOD memories without experiencing the pain of witnessing that event. Hell, you could even have difficulty getting and raising another animal because this event has colored your perception of how those animals should be treated.

Here's another example. Say that you watched Star Wars A New Hope, viewed Luke and Co's struggles to beat the evil Empire, cheered when they blew up the Death Star, only for the sequel to reveal that the Empire had ANOTHER Death Star as backup that showed up and blew up Yavin 4 and killed Luke and everybody else, destroyed the Rebellion, and made everything that the good guys did in ANH entirely pointless and ensured that all the sequels from then on made the events of ANH have no effect on anything whatsoever. It would take a heart of stone to be able to go back and watch or even think of A New Hope again without the experience being forever tainted by the knowledge that nothing that happens matters at all, you might even be so sickened that you wouldn't want to watch ANH ever again.

The point is, for all the times that people have incredibly petty reasons to scream "RUINED FOREVER" the fact is that such a thing can and does happen, and it is often enough due to perfectly valid reasons. Current experience can and does ruin good memories and/or change your perception of entertainment or anything else you used to enjoy to the point that if you were to see it again now it wouldn't be as good to you anymore, it happens to every human being across the planet with the capacity to remember. The reverse is also possible, one can remember bad or even good memories in the past and think better of them because of experiences in the present, such as say hating your parents for doing something, then having kids and seeing why they did that and understanding or even being grateful for it. However, when it comes to entertainment the latter rarely ever occurs and when it does we likely aren't going to hear about it.

 

[Naldan]

(note: These are just articles that have this message more precise than others)

-Snip-

So literally nothing from marketing, the studio or the director? You say it got hyped because it was all women, but couldn't find one source of anyone who was actually making the movie hyping it that way?

Hey,

Please tell me where I said it was the marketing (aside from the trailer) that hyped it that way. If you think that the trailer alone didn't: A lot of publications disagree. Of course you need sources, so please read my last post and click on some links.

That makes about as much sense as hating the Civil War movie because it's hyped up that there's black people in it, but then not presenting any sources from the people who are actually making or marketing the movie as hyping it up that way.

Well, maybe it would help to agree on a definition of "hype", since all of language is nothing but an agreement on what means what. I use this: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hype

a situation in which something is advertised and discussed in newspapers, on television, etc. a lot in order to attract everyone's interest

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hype

verb (used with object), hyped, hyping.
1.
to stimulate, excite, or agitate (usually followed by up):
She was hyped up at the thought of owning her own car.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hype

TOP DEFINITION
hype
when someone gets excited about something
Damn..you hype calm down homey.

Of course, one could say that it must be initiated by those responsible for the product. I wonder how sellers/those responsible for stuff they didn't want to hype feel about this, though.

I think we have a different definition of "hype", that's why I provided the content above. Otherwise, I can't make much sense of your comparison-- it seems to me to be too outlandish and far from the subject, or, maybe, you take every paragraph I write as if it had only context on its own.

But honestly, thank you for your time.

 

[Redvenge]

So literally nothing from marketing, the studio or the director? You say it got hyped because it was all women, but couldn't find one source of anyone who was actually making the movie hyping it that way?

I can't help but feel you are being deliberately disingenuous.

Paul Feig signed on to be the director in August 2014. During this same period of time, Sony had told Variety that the new ghostbusters was going to be an all-female cast. So rumors of the casting was going around BEFORE there was a director or even a script.

Two months later, Paul Feig Tweeted "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." A couple of days later, he had an interview with Entertainment Weekly promoting the new movie and his casting choices http://www.ew.com/article/2014/10/08/paul-feig-ghostbusters-female

This is the very first promotion of the movie. One of the weirdest events around this movie is just how little promotion this movie is receiving. Nothing from the cast members. Just the director and the two trailers.

 

[Redvenge]

Bullshit. The August Variety article named Feig as director and name dropped McCarthy. The December Sony leak showed that Feig was behind the ENTIRE push. It's true there wasn't a full script in August. But the outline had already been decreed by Feig, and he had most of his cast in mind.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Pluvia stated there was no promotion of the film being an "all female cast" from "marketing, the studio or the director". The Sony leak was not part of any marketing or promotion. My post was to show that there were official statements from Sony regarding the gender preference of the new ghostbusters BEFORE there was even a director or script "officially" chosen.

All the "hype" came from the fact that Sony released 3 pieces of information:

1) There was going to be a Ghostbusters movie
2) The movie is going to be a reboot/reimagining (not a sequel)
3) The lead roles were all going to be female

Sony did not have any other information to release to Variety because there wasn't any. Later, Paul Feig made a Twitter post and then went on EW to promote Ghostbusters. At that time, the script was not finished so, again, they hyped the "all female" angle because there was no other information available.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I think there would be a HUGE (Trump sized maybe) outcry and rage fest over a team like that being the product of the SJW conspiracy.

The fun part is that such a thing would have been met with, at most, a roll of the eyes and maybe a PC comment not even...what, five years ago?

It's the well, man. Thing's more poison than water at this point and it's sad.