Ghostbusters Director Calls Out "Assholes in Geek Culture"

[J Tyran]

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.

Sorry, I'm calling total BS on this right here.

It is total BS the Sony hack/leak revealed E-mails between Amy Pascal (A Sony executive) and Paul Feig where she was fixated on all female cast and brought Feig in due to his preferences in movie making, the production of this movie has been incredibly troubled. Tantrums on set and social media from the cast from the people involved in the production , anger about a "lame duck of a script".

 

[SweetShark]

He's not wrong. We are indeed assholes. But, that doesn't mean we are wrong about how bad this movie will appear to be.

If you want to call yourself like that, you are free to do that. But I am not one of them.
The director have an unprofessional behaviour to call ALL "Geeks" assh*les without realising he include the general idea of a geek person who like something strongly, not only movies, but comics, videogames, books, sports, music, EVERYTHING!!!
I am very disappointed by him. He should at least said he doesn't appreciate the nagative reaction he receive because of the trailer or cause of the female cast. Yes, I would accept that.

 

[Level 7 Dragon]

And you know what the scary part is?

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

Pardon for ad homiem, but whenever I see your posts, you keep criticizing the general culture. First of all, there is no geek culture, more of a sphere of niche interests that intersect at certain points in time and in certain contexts.

Waving a straw at an uncountable and diverse demographic is immature at best and a fire hazard at worst.

 

[Bombiz]

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.

I don't think it's gonna fail Because of it's for female leads rather people wont see it because, judging by the trailers, it seems to look horrible. Though I gotta say that the amount of back lash/bitching could be because of the four female non sexualized leads.

 

[Batou667]

Really, dude? Just how mean can you get? Did the new Ghostbusters' director steal your wife or what?

I'd say that was about 20% of my maximum meanness.

Don't worry, I'm just a misanthrope.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

He's not wrong. We are indeed assholes. But, that doesn't mean we are wrong about how bad this movie will appear to be.

If you want to call yourself like that, you are free to do that. But I am not one of them.
The director have an unprofessional behaviour to call ALL "Geeks" assh*les without realising he include the general idea of a geek person who like something strongly, not only movies, but comics, videogames, books, sports, music, EVERYTHING!!!
I am very disappointed by him. He should at least said he doesn't appreciate the nagative reaction he receive because of the trailer or cause of the female cast. Yes, I would accept that.

No offense, but this one post pretty much encompasses every problem I have with this thread. At no point did he call all geeks "arseholes", nor did he call most, or many. He didn't imply the average geek is worse than anyone else, nor did he imply there's a higher than average number of arseholes in "geek culture". All his statement implies is that some of the biggest arseholes he's ever met happen to be geeks. That's all. That doesn't say anything about you, it doesn't say anything about me, it doesn't say anything about the people on this site, it merely means exactly verbatim what he said; that some of the biggest arseholes he's ever met happen to be within "geek culture".

Also, it should be noted that these quotes that have got everyone horribly upset were made back in 2015, before the trailer was even released, so it's not possible for them to be a bitter response to negative reactions to the trailer despite pretty much everyone assuming that. I can't really blame people for not knowing that though, since it's only mentioned in the linked article, not the Escapist article, and seems to have been added after the fact. I guess this just proves the damage that can be done when journalists decide to form a human-centipede and simply pass on news from one to another without a single thought; you get giant controversies in response to ... absolutely nothing, other than misinformation and out of context quotes.
Still, it would be nice if the Escapist's article could be updated to contain this vital disclaimer, rather than continuing to push this same false narrative that has got everyone upset for nearly 10 pages.

 

[Kingsman]

Fieg, look over your trailer again, and count the number of times the "funniest people you know" literally and directly explain the joke.

There's a reason Comedy is dying in Hollywood. No one there knows how to set up a joke or let it breathe anymore.

 

[SweetShark]

He's not wrong. We are indeed assholes. But, that doesn't mean we are wrong about how bad this movie will appear to be.

If you want to call yourself like that, you are free to do that. But I am not one of them.
The director have an unprofessional behaviour to call ALL "Geeks" assh*les without realising he include the general idea of a geek person who like something strongly, not only movies, but comics, videogames, books, sports, music, EVERYTHING!!!
I am very disappointed by him. He should at least said he doesn't appreciate the nagative reaction he receive because of the trailer or cause of the female cast. Yes, I would accept that.

No offense, but this one post pretty much encompasses every problem I have with this thread. At no point did he call all geeks "arseholes", nor did he call most, or many. He didn't imply the average geek is worse than anyone else, nor did he imply there's a higher than average number of arseholes in "geek culture". All his statement implies is that some of the biggest arseholes he's ever met happen to be geeks. That's all. That doesn't say anything about you, it doesn't say anything about me, it doesn't say anything about the people on this site, it merely means exactly verbatim what he said; that some of the biggest arseholes he's ever met happen to be within "geek culture".

Also, it should be noted that these quotes that have got everyone horribly upset were made back in 2015, before the trailer was even released, so it's not possible for them to be a bitter response to negative reactions to the trailer despite pretty much everyone assuming that. I can't really blame people for not knowing that though, since it's only mentioned in the linked article, not the Escapist article, and seems to have been added after the fact. I guess this just proves the damage that can be done when journalists decide to form a human-centipede and simply pass on news from one to another without a single thought; you get giant controversies in response to ... absolutely nothing, other than misinformation and out of context quotes.
Still, it would be nice if the Escapist's article could be updated to contain this vital disclaimer, rather than continuing to push this same false narrative that has got everyone upset for nearly 10 pages.

If this is true about the article, then i must say a big sorry.
I guess I didn't read it with a lot of attention to fully understand it.
However with that said, he really should had said he have problem with the movie geeks, not all of them.

 

[Fallow]

Still, it would be nice if the Escapist's article could be updated to contain this vital disclaimer, rather than continuing to push this same false narrative that has got everyone upset for nearly 10 pages.

Editorial oversight? At The Escapist? Preposterous. 23 skidoo!

Not, but for real. Guys like Andy Chalk have pretty much proven that journalistic excellence isn't exactly the highest priority.

Oh now that... that right there is a side splitter. It implies, among other things, that there is some cadre out there for whom journalistic integrity mans a damn thing. There ain't. Instead it's lone wolf individuals scattered here and there like diamonds drowning in pig shit.

Have you heard about the Society of Professional Journalists [https://www.spj.org/]?

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Ed The Sock generally has the right idea here.

Really, dude? Just how mean can you get? Did the new Ghostbusters' director steal your wife or what?

Isn't said director gay?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I think it's self-evident that "we don't wont female comedians especially when they aren't even sexualized" might play a big part here.

You think it's "self evident" that it "might" be the case that...

You can assume the worst in people if you like. Hell, you might even have liked the trailer and subsequently just don't get where people are coming from here.

I've shown the trailer to a number of people who don't spend a pathetic amount of time on internet forums (like we do) and who don't have much of a clue of the kind of warfare that goes on online over "gender issues"(wouldn't know what an MRA or an SJW or what the return of feckin' kings was) and I gotta tell you that not a single person I know has been impressed by it. The best I've seen is a confused face and zero laughter. Most people cringe at it and ask questions like "what did they do?" and "why did they do it?".

It looks bad. The jokes weren't funny... This is the common consensus. You don't need conspiracy theory to explain the number of down-votes and the general disapproval.

We can only hope that it's not as lame as the trailers made it look.

Meanwhile the new CoD trailer sits at 2.2 million down votes to GB's 785k, despite GB's having had an extra 2 months to accrue disgust.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

[

I've shown the trailer to a number of people who don't spend a pathetic amount of time on internet forums (like we do) and who don't have much of a clue of the kind of warfare that goes on online over "gender issues"(wouldn't know what an MRA or an SJW or what the return of feckin' kings was) and I gotta tell you that not a single person I know has been impressed by it. The best I've seen is a confused face and zero laughter. Most people cringe at it and ask questions like "what did they do?" and "why did they do it?".

All I saw was the exact same type of jokes of the original movies.

Except this time it was women cracking them.

Oh, wow. Yes, I remember the part in the original where Winston slapped the shit out of Ray screaming "THE POWER OF PAIN COMPELS YOU!!!"


Note how natural the acting is, how serious the tone is, and that the joke is actually clever.

I don't agree at all. Trademark Bill Murray smart-assery is worlds apart from the kind of shlock I'd say this was. This looks sub-Sandler (since some of his older films actually had a bit of funny in them). This is almost like one of those disaster-movie Meet the Spartans abominations with a Ghostbusters skin, going by what they've shown us.

If Meet the Ghostbusters looks like fun to you, that's you. I'm going to stand over here with all the people who don't believe that the humour or the tone resembles the original film at all.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

You do understand that what you are describing here is not a problem with the new Ghostbusters, but a problem with modern Hollywood acting.

Don't agree. Plenty of great performances every-year. Outside of hokey low-rent comedies things actually feel as natural as they ever have. If anything it can be jarring to look back at older stuff. A good amount of it feels utterly corny.

If you want to assign blame for the new Ghostbusters, I'd start with the script... The material that those actresses were given to work with. Unless they were holding back the good material from the trailers (which is completely opposite land to how things are usually done) then it was a dud.

All those super hero movies that make millions and are loved by everyone? They are VERY POORLY ACTED.

Still don't agree. I'd say it varies just like everything else.

And that's not to mention again the Robocop remake, Total Recall remake, etc. All of them have bad acting and poor script, yet none of them got so much hate.

Those franchises are not as big, to start with. They're films with cult followings, they're not the mainstream money printing mega-hit that Ghostbusters was. Check the box-office numbers if you want to fully understand the difference. They're also not bad (they're not what I wanted), they're just average action movies(at worst). Nothing is more off-putting than lousy comedy, especially when it's riffing on beloved material.

This is a bit of a tangential distraction anyway. The core is that you want us to believe that people don't like it because-vagina, rather than based on it's dubious merits. Whilst I do understand that there are indeed people out there for whom hating-the-opposite-sex is a massive pre-occupation, the existence of such people isn't evidence in-and-of-itself that that's why it's so heavily downvoted.

We're talking about the same "geek-culture" (whatever that means) that's kept a female-lead and utterly wank Resident Evil film series alive for 15 years, right?

Frankly the onus is on you to demonstrate your theory, if you're so invested in it and want it to gain traction (kinda looks like you saying things you wish were true so far). Alternatively you could just listen to everyone telling you that it looks shit.

I'm going with Occam on this one.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'll make it quick:

1) you can't honestly tell me you think Ghostbusters is more popular than Robocop.

It's both "self evident" and "might" be the case.

Yes...

A fair larger box office taking, a hit song, a hit cartoon and a hit toy range say it's more beloved and relevant.

2) Yeah if it looks like s**t so much, I ask again, why is it that other movies that everyone agreed were s**t did NOT get this amount of backlash? Because those movies sucked, but didn't have four female leads daring to be funny instead of sexy.

4 female leads failing to be funny, you mean.

You don't have to be very old to remember Ghostbusters fondly from your childhood, whereas if you were old enough to see Robocop upon it's release you're pushing on for 60 (at least) and likely don't give a fuck about petty internet gender-political bollocks.

I'm not even going on how I insist those superhero blockbusters are poorly acted. Can't convince you out of that, if you think they're well acted.
But I might reccomend some movies with very good acting. The Fly, for example. The Shining. The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.

Is this the part where I name old films with shitty acting and modern films with good acting? I'm not going to play the cherry-picking game with you. This is an inane line of reasoning.

Or maybe, just maybe, when I called the Robocop remake utter shit, I wasn't met with a god damned WAVE of, "You're just a fucking misogynist!"

Robot identity politics are coming to a future near you. Thefugitoid.com will rain hell down upon the robophobes that don't like 2060's Robocop reboot.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Ghostbusters: 1984.

Robocop: 1987.

What are you even talking about?

Heh... Ok

They are age rated, you know? PG vs 18 on the land-mass I call home.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Yeah, age rating sure has always stopped kids from watching or playing the stuff.

This is silly. Classic film with with hit song, hit cartoon and hit toy range was more relevant to the kiddies of the 80's than a cult-classic at a time where you couldn't download or easily get hold of any film at any time.

You know, guys? I'll make it simple.

I am of the idea the amount of hate this movie is getting is because of the female leads.

We're aware of your speculation.

Even if that wasn't the case, I still want to defend the movie.... because of the female leads.
Call me sexist, but for me, a movie with four female protagonists that aren't about sexualization is something I see so very, very rarely that I want to watch that movie just because of that.

Ah, so the truth comes out.

I'm not going to call you a sexist. I'm not the type to get off on doing such things. What I will do is maintain that I think it looks like a shitty film with lame gags, and that has zero to do with the genital constitution of the main cast.

Now that we've established that it is in fact you that has the gender-political agenda, there's really not much left to say. You could do others the favour of not projecting that mindset onto them.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'm not going to call you a sexist. I'm not the type to get off on doing such things. What I will do is maintain that I think it looks like a shitty film with lame gags, and that has zero to do with the genital constitution of the main cast.

Now that we've established that it is in fact you that has the gender-political agenda, there's really not much left to say. You could do others the favour of not projecting that mindset onto them.

Is that a gender political agenda?

Or is that "this is the only movie released with female comedians since FOREVER, that alone is awesome"?

I really don't see why it can't be both. You can spin it however you like in your own head. You admitted you had an agenda, and you explained the nature of it.

That's not even a problem. You can feel that way and you can advocate for more female lead films(you be you), though I'd pick a better example to rally behind. The point where you're rustling-jimmies is the point where you start assigning other people their motives, which seem to be a projection of your own points-of-emphasis but from an oppositional standpoint. Personally, I'm primarily concerned with quality. It looks shit, so I say it looks shit. No hang-ups about gender.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Well, to return back on topic, I also think the trailer was ok.

Agree to disagree, and I think you might be in the minority there.

It was nothing original (how could it be? It's a reboot of an already existing franchise), but I didn't find it bad.

The lack of originality is never a very good thing, but it's really mostly about it looking profoundly unfunny.

I'm not going to call you a sexist. I'm not the type to get off on doing such things. What I will do is maintain that I think it looks like a shitty film with lame gags, and that has zero to do with the genital constitution of the main cast.

Now that we've established that it is in fact you that has the gender-political agenda, there's really not much left to say. You could do others the favour of not projecting that mindset onto them.

Is that a gender political agenda?

Or is that "this is the only movie released with female comedians since FOREVER, that alone is awesome"?

Sisters, Trainwreck, Pitch Perfect 2, Spy, all female lead comedies that came out last year alone.
Your argument is invalid. So, yes. It is a gendered political agenda.

You really want to play the list game?

Wyvern. When you're saying that you're defending it because of your views on representation, sexualisation and a need to just-because-they're-women you are indeed taking it to a political place. I think you'll find most people are fine with this so long as you don't start assigning them motivation for feeling how they feel about the stupid trailer. You don't seem to have evidence. You seem to have a gut feeling based on a bunch of wishy-washy internet bullshit.

There's nothing more to really say. I hope you enjoy the movie. Someone should, it'd be a shame if it were a completely wasted effort.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Yes, I'm absolutely going to be the only person to enjoy this movie.

Wow, super literal.

I'm going to sit in an empty cinema.

You and the other people excited by "that's gonna leave a mark" and the daring new ground being broken by riffing on the exorcist.

The revenue the movie will make is one ticket: mine.

Tautology is not your friend.

Besides, there's NO WAY someone could like this movie. Right? The only reason one could enjoy that movie is that they have a political agenda. Because while you'd expect a person that loves dinosaurs to enjoy a movie about dinosaurs, you can't expect a person who likes female protagonists to enjoy a movie with female protagonists. THAT'S A POLITICAL AGENDA.

I apologise that I thought you talking about media representation in regards to gender and sexualisation had anything to do with gender-politics.

That's my bad.

I have a political agenda also about movies with birds. I love birds.

Wow. Ghostbusters and Angry birds... Shaping up to be quite a summer for you.