Ghostbusters Director Calls Out "Assholes in Geek Culture"

[the December King]

I'll say it again: this movie is gonna fail just because it has four female comedians, and that means it'll be at least 20 years before we get another comedy movie with female leads.

And before you say "nuuuh-uuuh it's not because they're women who dare to be funny instead of sexy".... why is it that there never was an uproar about the remake of Total Recall, the remake of Conan, or the remake of Robocop? And those movies REALLY SUCKED.

You know, I thought there had been some blowback for each of these movies, at least amongst the nerdfolk ( personally, I think Mamoa is pretty cool, and looked the part better than Arnold did, at least in terms of Conan's descriptions in the stories and the older runs of the comics, but in film Arnold IS Conan now, full stop) - but not to the same degree we're seeing for Ghostbusters.

As for me, I'm not sure the movie is going to fail. This all feels like a PR boost, actually. I like the original Ghostbusters, and I was initially put off by the idea of an all female cast as a reboot- I don't mind admitting it, but I also wasn't going to try and 'stop' it online, somehow. But honestly, there were some great choices to make in casting for the movie when I really thought about it (I still think Tina Fey would be an amazing choice, but honestly she's pretty much boss in anything she does), and before I saw the trailer I was warming up to some ideas I had come up with for the story myself (knowing full well that these were all in my head, mind you, but basically opening up to the possibility of it being a great idea).

I thought the trailer was bad, sure, but to be honest I also realize that the reboot is trying for new audiences, as well as a nod to the original franchise. The fact that it might be gunning for a younger audience as well is something I try to keep in mind when I see stuff like this.

So ultimately this is a film I will see: I will happily pay money to see, but I won't likely be there opening night, or anything.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

And before you say "nuuuh-uuuh it's not because they're women who dare to be funny instead of sexy".... why is it that there never was an uproar about the remake of Total Recall, the remake of Conan, or the remake of Robocop? And those movies REALLY SUCKED.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I bitched quite a bit about "Total Recall" and "Robocop."

"Red Dawn" too. Frankly, I think "Red Dawn" was the worst of the bunch so far when it comes to cash-grab reboots, but I'm probably biased since I have an absurd amount of love for the campy original. WOLVERINES!

 

[Zeras]

And before you say "nuuuh-uuuh it's not because they're women who dare to be funny instead of sexy".... why is it that there never was an uproar about the remake of Total Recall, the remake of Conan, or the remake of Robocop? And those movies REALLY SUCKED.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I bitched quite a bit about "Total Recall" and "Robocop."

"Red Dawn" too. Frankly, I think "Red Dawn" was the worst of the bunch so far when it comes to cash-grab reboots, but I'm probably biased since I have an absurd amount of love for the campy original. WOLVERINES!

Oh, that's fine, I bitched about those movies too.

The thing is, there was no huge outrage, protests, petitions and whatnot for those movies - and those movies looked far worse than this new Ghostbusters.

Which makes me 99% certain that if, for example, they made the Robocop remake with a female and non-sexualized protagonist, we would have seen the same amount of outrage and, protests, and petitions. And I would've gone see that movie for the same reason I'd watch the new Ghostbusters: because by changing the gender of the protagonist they put at least SOMETHING that makes the remake different from the original.

But remaking something generally means giving the same end result as the original; like when someone goes about restoring a car, they're taking original parts and putting it back to the way it was - it might have a newer, more efficient engine (like graphics, or effects) but the end result still looks like the original car. Yahtzee also echoed this - even though he's talking about video game remakes - in his recent article.

Also, I watched the Total Recall remake, and I found it more thought provoking than the original (though the originals' special effects were better) since the core idea/theme - of the short story, at least - is the idea and issues surrounding memory, how it can be altered at a whim by the person whose memory it is or by other people and what that might say about human consciousness. Phillip K. Dick was truly a visionary writer.

 

[happyninja42]

And before you say "nuuuh-uuuh it's not because they're women who dare to be funny instead of sexy".... why is it that there never was an uproar about the remake of Total Recall, the remake of Conan, or the remake of Robocop? And those movies REALLY SUCKED.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I bitched quite a bit about "Total Recall" and "Robocop."

"Red Dawn" too. Frankly, I think "Red Dawn" was the worst of the bunch so far when it comes to cash-grab reboots, but I'm probably biased since I have an absurd amount of love for the campy original. WOLVERINES!

I seem to recall several threads on this very site of people bitching about remaking those movies. Maybe that's not an "uproar" on par with the Ghostbusters thing, but the outcry was definitely made by the masses of indeterminate size.

 

[wulf3n]

and that means it'll be at least 20 years before we get another comedy movie with female leads.

except for the pitch perfect series, I'm sure they'll make at least another 15 of them in the next 20 years.

why is it that there never was an uproar about the remake of Total Recall, the remake of Conan, or the remake of Robocop? And those movies REALLY SUCKED.

There was. But without perceived sexist undertones the general media didn't give a crap that nerds were complaining about something, and so didn't report on it like they did with the Ghostbusters remakes

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Oh, and I think I have read the Philip Dick story that it's based upon.... and if so, trust me, you shouldn't give him much credit this time, since it's a pretty silly shory story. The movie was much deeper and more clever.

I.... what? The closest any movie adaptation has been to matching one of PKD's stories has been A Scanner Darkly, and even that, like everything else, has been diluted in some way. The original Total Recall may be the second worst PKD adaptation.

 

[azriel2422]

I don't agree completely with what the director said, but I don't blame him for feeling that way and I do believe that a small contingency of very loud geeks are ruining geek culture. The outrage for things that this small group of people disagree with is absolutely, unequivocally, unwarranted when it is heard BEFORE we even see a movie/play a game/etc. Ghostbusters is one of my all-time favorite movies, and the women in the movie are funny in their own right, so I'm giving this a pass until I've had a chance to see it. Taking the time to blast something and using simple, hateful language without utilizing any objectively justifiable argument in their defense is what is killing geek culture. Just my opinion. Flame on.

 

[Mechamorph]

Well the internet has always allowed the inner asshole to emerge from even the most temperate and polite people so I do not think it should surprise anyone that when a well-beloved franchise gets a reboot, good chances are that it is largely reviled by nostalgic viewers. It is never going to measure up to that shining, eternal icon in our minds that we constructed to keep precious memories safe from all the salt and jade of adult life. How many reboots do you know that are renowned as better than the original? I daresay that it is probably a pretty small number.

What is news to me though is that there is somehow a united geek culture. At best I thought Geekdom was like the Balkans. We do not really speak the same language, we are deeply fractured, we have strong opinions about our affiliations, different factions hate each other with a passion and we have trying to (metaphorically) murder the crap out of each other for as long as anyone can remember.

I think the take home message is that if people who are supposedly the target audience are breaking out the pitchforks and torches over a trailer, it is time to change your marketing team. Alternatively if this is "just as planned", congratulate them and hope there is enough of the actual target audience to make the movie profitable.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

To be absolutely fair to the director; there are a lot of assholes in geek culture. I'm not going to say that all of the hate the Ghostbusters movie gets is because of sexism, that trailer was god awful, but I'm pretty sure a great deal of it is. Hell, I'm more than positive people would still be upset if there was just one female lead.

 

[burnout02urza]

Well, the last laugh will be on Paul Fieg when Ghostbusters bombs.

Seriously, I've never seen a movie with less promise - Well, except for Fantastic Four. It's like pottery, the way history repeats itself; We all know it's going to be a giant stinker, and it WILL be a giant stinker when it comes out.

I can't wait. What's he going to blame it on? Sexism?

Didn't work for the Trank-man.

 

[Batou667]

Suggestion for alternative article title: "Director pulls out the Sexism Card in last ditch attempt at damage control as he senses his career circling the drain in a rapidly decaying orbit".

Still, there's some good news:

"I live or die on what things are funny and whether or not people will be entertained by them."

That's a novel way to announce his upcoming suicide. At least that means he won't be directing the sequel, eh?

 

[runic knight]

I'll say it again: this movie is gonna fail just because it has four female comedians, and that means it'll be at least 20 years before we get another comedy movie with female leads.

And before you say "nuuuh-uuuh it's not because they're women who dare to be funny instead of sexy".... why is it that there never was an uproar about the remake of Total Recall, the remake of Conan, or the remake of Robocop? And those movies REALLY SUCKED.

Worth noting that ghostbusters is arguable more beloved and popular a franchise, and one seen as more intact that some of the others made into remakes. Total recall is fun but it is goofy as well, so a remake has some potential to not suck. Robocop is great and satirical, but it was also very dated in presentation. Both were also action flics which have more leniency toward being mindless compared to a comedy which people have been sick to death of the genre's decline there in for a while. The trailers for both also weren't too bad. And, sometimes you even got a decent movie out of the reboot of action movies that didn't capture the source material right the first time, ala Dredd.

So when comparing the smaller fandoms of movies already considered flawed and capable of being done better, in a different genre, with better trailers, and in a genre where there has at least been some successes in reboots, it is a bit of a flawed analogy to just go "why didn't they get the same sort of outrage as ghostbusters are getting?" and then to answer your own question by ignoring all of that to go "it must be sexism" is a bit of a rushed conclusion to say the least.

Then there is the probability that the differences between the outrage the two got relates in part to the blowback all those movies received (and they did all get some) was never attempted to be countered with accusations that the people who were complaining were sexist, causing those pissed about it being a soluless reboot of a beloved classic to constantly have to defend themselves from dishonest accusations and assumptions of their motivations. Taking away the reaction that fuels further backlash (and backlash against the use of the dishonest accusations themselves) really does a lot to keep the complaints and bitching to a smaller area. When people start trying to push the movie as some second coming of women's rights and anyone who doesn't support it must be doing so because of hatred of a gender though, then you get people responding to those claims in more and more places. It feeds the outrage and turns complaints into uproar. Also putting the spotlight on the sort of complaints and outrage that all those movies get does make it look like it is occurring more than when the other movies largely ignored the outrage instead of fed it. And a movie that from the start marketed itself on its casting choice instead of story or humor, and had stories and even people attached to the film, keep dragging out that old chestnut of "you don't like it because it is women" to deflect any criticism of the film simply shows it probably has a lot of valid issues it is trying to sweep under the rug and dismiss by attacking those raising the criticisms instead of actually addressing them. Ad Hom and all that.

And all of that is before we even get into what a trainwreck this thing looks like it was from the start. Development hell, loss of a chain to the previous version and a beloved comedian early on in this developement, blatant "women are a sideshow" sort of pandering, unfunny, poor names attached to it, trailer that showed it lost the charm and humor that made the first a classic and the second a good solid sequel (if a bit weird), a director trying to blame everyone else that his movie looks like crap and the trailer sucks, and by and large the only defense the film getting from fans being in the form of attack on those criticizing it as being nothing more than sexism itself or a plea of "wait til it releases before judging".

The shambling corpse of a beloved classic going through all that, and you wonder why the reboot of an Arnie movie that was a bit of a cult classic in a so bad its good way that was a complete separation from the book it was based on didn't get the same amount of backlash? That is the argument why for it being because sexism? It looks like you just started with that conclusion and are now trying to justify it.

 

[NoeL]

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.

It's not luck though, it's an informed opinion that will likely and accurately predict an outcome

No, it's luck. Regardless of how favourably the odds are stacked on your side, declaring a movie to be bad and raging against its creators before you've even seen it is assholish.

Simply saying "you don't know" doesn't invalidate what people predict, think or say, everyone already knows this.
If the movie somehow miraculously ended up an absolute hit, I'm sure it'd be an absolute minority that wouldn't eat their words and admit they were wrong.

And my point was that the ones that would eat their words would still be assholes for spouting those words in the first place. To repeat myself, making predictions is fine and dandy, but don't claim to know something you don't, and don't RAGE about something you don't know - even if it's likely to be true! It's a simple concept.

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?

"Even if you consider it a trope", let me stop you right there, I do consider it a token replacement. No if's or but's about it. Any notion that I think it's just because of "minority representation" is false.

Don't stop right there, because you've missed my point. I've left it quoted so you can reread it.

Everything you say from there is an inaccurate representation of how I think, which is my beef with what you've said in the first place.

Everything I said from there was directly related to what you'd just said (with the exception of paraphrasing responses to female Ghostbusters).

You have to overcome just calling people assholes and chalk everything they say and think to unwavering sexism towards women.

Well now you're the one doing the misrepresenting. I never said they were assholes because they were sexist, they're assholes because they're entitled and closed-minded (more on this later).

As for why not in Ghostbusters, because reusing an established setting and story is a cheap way of doing it. If you change the formula too much, it is no longer marketed towards the fans, but a new mainstream. At that point, you should create original content, not rely on something people love but then not cater to them.

In response to each sentence:
* So what?
* So what?
* Why?

Using an established property is more likely to grab attention (and thus ticket sales) than an original property. Adapting the material to appeal more to a mainstream audience is (probably) going to get more ticket sales too. Blockbuster movies are an industry. They want/need to make money from their pictures. They don't owe you or the fans jack shit, and you're being an entitled cry-baby complaining that they're using properties you love to cater to someone that isn't you. Fanboys need to understand that just because you love something doesn't mean you own it. It would be great for everyone if all film makers were as good as Marvel at satisfying fans AND making bank, but stamping your feet and writing death threats when that doesn't happen, again, makes you an asshole.

I think Rey and Finn suffers from the same thoughts, but the difference here is that Disney admitted it was a choice made out of progressivism. Both are fairly flat characters, though Finn is a hell of a lot more human and relatable.

Again, do you believe those characters would be less flat if they were white men? The fact that the higher-ups said "Make one black and the other a girl." shouldn't have (in the hands of a capable writer) made a difference. Those characters sucked because the writing sucked, not because they were "forced". TFA, while it had its moments, was just a hollow vehicle for cashing in on nostalgia, and I don't believe white/dick-washing the cast would've helped that.

Bad writers are definitely a part of it, but you can't "force" any kind of character to be good. If it's forced at all, then it's by definition bad.

Bullshit - you just don't recognise when forced characters have worked. Again, good writers can make forced characters work. It's part of what makes them good writers. There are some cases where a forced character is so out of place no writer could make it work, but that's rarely the case - and definitely wasn't the case with Star Wars. Blacks and females do exist within that universe, and there was nothing out of place with having them fill the main roles. It wasn't the forcing of Rey and Finn that made them bad characters, though your aversion to forced progressivism (why?) probably made that movie more unbearable for you than it should've been.

I'll assume it's a bad choice of words and that you instead meant any character can be good, no matter what sex/race/sexuality they have, which I in theory agree with. Why not in practice? Because I haven't seen any good examples with such "ultra diverse" characters.

Again, because you're probably just not noticing all the times it works, or because you have an aversion to "ultra diverse" characters on the assumption they're forced and are unfairly critical of them. And no, it wasn't a bad choice of words - I meant what I said (even if I exaggerated a little).

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.

I agree on all counts apart from the first one. Intentions are key to understanding other people. When you cut those out, you're closing out perspective.

The Westboro Baptists are assholes regardless of their noble intentions. Again, that statement may be isolating and certainly won't help them "see the light", but it's true.

If perspective doesn't matter, then the argument that an all-female cast is a bad thing inherently, becomes valid, which neither of us believes.

Huh? No, not at all. What I'm saying is that it's the actions, not the intentions, that determine whether or not someone is being an asshole. That doesn't make "an all-female cast is a bad thing inherently" a valid statement at all.

Individuals are smart, groups (and countries) of people are stupid.

Thanks for that, K. I want to watch Men in Black again now.

National pride is stupid...

These next few paragraphs are irrelevant, since I'm not debating the usefulness of certain ideologies.

Forcing opinions on people never works, which is what I think these changes are. If there was no merit to the backlash against change for change's sake and these political messages, they wouldn't be nearly as common, especially in our community, because we're a hell of a lot smarter and intimate with accusations than nearly any other community out there.

I think the changes are more proactive efforts to be more inclusive rather than trying to force opinions, and I think the backlash is mainly because geeks (or perhaps it's common to all millenials) are an entitled bunch that demand their media cater to them and only them.

Any argument made where "if you don't like it, change your belief" can always be turned 180 degrees and be just as valid.

Absolutely. So? If my media tried to shame me for being an atheist or something then turning theist would allow me to continue enjoying that. I would at least look into why they're trying to shame me and see if I agree. Not saying that makes theism correct.

Not even the pretense of "it's for a good cause" can cover up or excuse the massively hypocritical politics that drive these changes.

I'm sorry, where's the hypocrisy? I don't see it, you haven't presented it, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

So in this case, I have already questioned the motives and changes and come to the conclusion that it is born out of ideology and an unsubstantiated claim for equality. My initial questioning is always directed towards myself.

But you still haven't pointed out why that's bad, other than that it shames the people that think otherwise (wouldn't those in favour of equality overlook the heavy-handedness and not feel shamed? Or are they feeling shamed for not being heavy-handed enough?). Did you feel shamed that Disney forced a woman and a black guy into lead roles? Why? I don't understand that line of thinking.

You have only admitted that you don't understand why other people react the way they do and chalk it up to some "ism".
The way I see it, you're a fan that is willing to see any compromise and is fine with it. Others are not, but your beef with them doesn't amount to much more than basic prejudice, based on the lack of your understanding.
Is this one example the one that defines everything? No, it's just another drop in the lake.

It's not that I don't understand - I feel fairly confident (strengthened by your last response) the issue is rooted in entitlement - but I'm open to hearing views that may uphold or overthrow that belief. And my beef isn't based on prejudice, it's based on their juvenile actions against something they don't like.

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

Sure, here are a couple:
The mass media perpetually blamed videogames for making the youth violent.

As they did with television and radio before it. It's nothing new, and nothing that won't automatically rectify itself when the older non-gaming generations die out. Not worth your energy fighting.

This happened again recently, when it claimed that videogames make people sexist, echoing the sentiments of Anita Sarkeesian.

I don't believe Sarkeesian, despite the claims to the contrary, ever said such a thing. I may be wrong (I haven't watched much of her work) but she seemed to believe cultural sexism and cultural media feed into and reinforce each other rather than one being responsible for the other. Cultural norms influence pop culture, and pop culture influences cultural norms. That's why efforts are being made to change pop culture ("forcing" as you'd call it) - to try and break the cycle. Make it so it's NOT weird and noticeable to have your leads be a chick and a black guy.

More followed, calling for the end of "gamers" and the death of the "geek community".

And I can't blame them given how "gamers" acted, frankly. Any merit that GamerGate had (and it had a lot) was crushed by the assholery of many of its proponents. If the geek community wasn't saturated with entitled whingers GG could have EASILY taken the high road. But nope, they decided to be an embarrassment instead.

When Bioware/EA decided to call its disgruntled fans entitled, with several sites echoing the thought, during the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle.

And Bioware/EA were 100% correct to do so. You didn't like the ME3 ending? Fine - feel free to criticise it, shout from the rooftops that the ending sucked balls and let you down both as a fan and consumer of the series. Start a petition demanding they redo it for you? Go fuck yourself, you entitled little shithead (to be clear that's not directed at you personally, just those in general that believe they were "owed" more than they got).

The main theme is that people who enjoy geek/nerd entertainment are perpetually seen as losers and autists incapable of seeing reason. We are basically the peasent scum that should worship any and all content that interests us.

It's because, unfortunately, geeks/nerds perpetually act like losers and autists. I know that's not true of the masses, but complaining about how the outside treats you isn't going to get you far when you look like that from the outside. If you don't want to be treated like scum then address the scum in your community that's making you look bad. Realise that yes, a huge chunk of "fans" ARE unreasonably possessive and entitled, and call them out on it. Realise that yes, a small chunk (mostly children) are racist, sexist assholes - call them out too. I'm part of the geek community too and am all too happy to chastise someone that's making us look bad.

You are acting in a similar manner, telling me to cry a river because of one movie, except it's not just one movie, it's all the reboots of all original content that becomes heavily mainstreamed.

You claimed that Feig was treating you like scum, presumably because he had the balls to reboot Ghostbusters in his own style (or maybe you were referring to him calling geeks "assholes" because they were acting like assholes). It doesn't matter how many reboots exist, a person rebooting a franchise is not treating fans like scum, and believing as much makes you entitled (there's that word again). They're taking a property, they're putting their own spin on it, they're targeting whatever market they like. Being catered to as a fan in this way is a privilege, not a right. You don't own the property, you have no say in what its owners decide to do with it, and the creators don't owe you a damn thing. That's not to say it's a wise move for property owners to isolate their fans, or that fans shouldn't voice their disapproval of the direction the owners are taking the property, but feeling betrayed or personally insulted is ridiculous.

Equal rights, equal opportunities, I agree, the rest is utterly pointless and self indulgent masturbation, exactly like the ideology/religion/nationalism I wrote about earlier.

I disagree. Equal rights/opportunities/respect is the goal - the "utterly pointless and self indulgent masturbation" is the means for how we as a society go about reaching that goal. It's easy to say "Oh yeah I'm all for equality." without being aware of all the subconscious, culturally ingrained norms you hold that run contrary to that statement. Feminism is raising that consciousness so people can ACTUALLY see the sexes as equals, rather than just think they do. But anyway, this isn't about feminism.