Ghostbusters Director Calls Out "Assholes in Geek Culture"

[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.

 

[NoeL]

pre-emptively judging a movie based on that alone does make you an asshole.

Even if it turns out they were right?

Yes. Being lucky doesn't make you not an asshole. By all means predict that the movie will be crap based on precedent, but hating on it outright with a closed mind doesn't reflect well on you. Give it a chance, even if the odds seem stacked against it. For all we know the movie will be ok but just has an awful, awful trailer.

I personally believe this was doomed from the beginning, it has "bad" written all over it.
It's a reboot variant on a classic (another one...) and it has a full cast of women as the protagonists in a time where this is "controversial" and can almost exclusively be seen as forced.

Why is that "bad"? Even if you consider it "a trope or token political correctness", why is that inherently bad? Why is the response "HOW DARE FEMINAZIS TAKE MAH MANZ!!!" rather than "Ghostbuster chicks? Sure, let's see how it goes."? Does it really matter why they're being "progressive"? You claim it leads to "flat and uninteresting characters" but I can't say I've noticed that myself. Besides, flat and uninteresting characters are typically the mark of bad writers, not soc-jus insertions. A good writer can force in a black transgender lesbian eskimo and still make it work.

Not sure what your beef is with Star Wars though. Are you claiming Rey and Fin would've been more interesting characters if they were white dudes?

I get where you're coming from, but it's also hard to see your own opinion as anything else but another kind of prejudice. People don't just go "it's ruined because women are leading this", they just shorthand what I just explained or they rage because they believe what they like or love is being shit on. You can disagree and call it what you want, sure, but don't just chalk people up as being assholes because of it.

I think it's fair to call people doing assholey things "assholes" regardless of their intentions, but yes I'll agree it's not likely to win me any friends and is largely counterproductive to do so. And that's just, like, my opinion, man - people are free to disagree and we can discuss whether or not they actually ARE doing assholey things.

See, people don't particularly like it when you change their favourite characters and then have them outright shame you with political rhetoric, or when existing characters like Wonder Woman uses the word "mansplaining". Even if some get a chuckle out of it, how can it be seen as anything but antagonizing and childish? In what fucking universe is this a good thing?

In this universe - a universe where the cultural status quo needs to be shifted a bit. You can directly compare it to pre- and post- 9/11 America. "Typical" Americans used to be patriotic to the point of absurdity, as their country's prosperity had given them a sense of invincibility. They believed America was the greatest place on Earth and no one could ever touch them in their ivory tower, and it made them a laughing stock to every other country. 9/11 was a massive wake-up call for them, and American media shifted to be more humble, even parodying those previous attitudes with things like Team America: World Police and the like. And I would argue Americans are better off (or at least much more tolerable) because of this shift. No doubt there were (and are) die-hard nationalists that don't like being "shamed" for their out-dated beliefs, but that's what happens if you maintain shameful beliefs. Same with comic books - if you don't like being shamed for holding politically incorrect beliefs, change those beliefs. At the very least question WHY you're being shamed rather than simply retaliating because the writer hurt your fee-fees.

Feig is just another accuser in a long line of content makers/directors/developers and journalists that treat us like scum.

By rebooting Ghostbusters with a female cast? Cry me a river! Look, I get the frustration with content makers/directors/developers that have no passion for the source material and are only chasing a paycheck. You usually get a sub-par product and it can be a huge let down. But really, who are they harming? It doesn't destroy the source material - you still have that to love - and if it's a crap adaptation it'll usually bomb. Even if it doesn't, why does it matter to you that the "mainstream" likes a version of something you're a fan of, even if you despise it? I guess I can see the argument for serialised media like comics where the mainstream success can influence future issues, but when it's a reboot of an 80's movie... who gives a shit? I love Ghostbusters, I think it's a great movie, and Feig getting his Melissa McCarthy all over it isn't going to change that. So I feel no impetus to rage about it and don't understand why anyone else would.

It's practically expected, so we might as well hit them fast and hard when we see things we don't like.
If anything is to change, it'll have to be the way they treat us. Sure, you can rely on the mainstream for the bulk of the cash, but it's the geek community that will always initially back and support original and awesome content, it's practically what we live for.

Could you elaborate on how they "treat [you] like scum", please?

I am a massive anti-feminist

Don't be. Feminism is a worthwhile philosophy despite the loonies it can attract, and really deserves consideration. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I have no interest in Ghostbusters because its special effects look terrible, it can't seem to decide whether or not it's a sequel or a reboot, and the jokes used in the trailer are mostly juvenile and lacking in any actual humor. I honestly couldn't give less of a shit about who the cast is.

If they'd perfected the fine art of necromancy and resurrected Harold Ramis, brought Rick Moranis out of acting retirement, and signed on the rest of the original cast to reprise their roles... this movie would still look like a low-effort cash grab to me.

But apparently I'm a sexist asshole. /facepalm.

 

[Dollabillyall]

Apparently the comment is a year and a half old and taken out of context.

That said I'm not excited about the new ghostbusters. I just don't see why "replace dicks with chicks in existing IP" is an acceptable movie pitch while the myriad of original material floating around does not get a fair swing.

I'm just done with the lack of creativity.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Yeah sure.

It's never your fault.

It's always the "other guys".

Bloody hell. They should've stopped at "We're considering remaking the Ghostbusters". But not, not only did they proceed with this really bad idea, but they then decided that what it needed was bad Visual Effects, and even worse "comedic" actors.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Your movie looks bland and unfunny. Go ahead though, blame the internet.

The fact that Mccarthy is in it just gives me one more reason to stay away. I got my fill of her from Bridesmaids and she's been playing the same character ever since.