The New Ghostbusters - Part 8

[Kyle]

The point is, why is it knocking any gender to simply have weaker males in the film? Why isn't it simply a different type of character? This is what makes no sense in your argument, as it isn't a promotion of even handedness. Like we couldn't have a guy who is proven wrong in his assessment of the women, because he would look sexist and thus would be a knock against men? You are viewing this entire thing from a male dominated perspective.

It would have been if all to most (80% +) of the guys were viewed that way.

It isn't now since there is more of a variety.

They guys haven't really been sexist to me in the marketing, outside of the boobs scene, rather presenting a world where men are useless without women.

That's why I say it's a tight rope to walk.

In the marketing they're going 2 for 2 out of all the guys they've shown. In the movie they're not and there is variety.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It would have been if all to most (80% +) of the guys were viewed that way.

It isn't now since there is more of a variety.

They guys haven't really been sexist to me in the marketing, outside of the boobs scene, rather presenting a world where men are useless without women.

That's why I say it's a tight rope to walk.

In the marketing they're going 2 for 2 out of all the guys they've shown. In the movie they're not and there is variety.

It never was. You made a bad assumption. One of course that assumed this movie was pandering to women.

 

[Kyle]

It never was. You made a bad assumption.

As said it's the only thing they've shown. Also, you do know what the strictest view of the most strictest feminists on men is right? Not saying all feminists, but the really die hard ones - view men as useless doofuses who would be lost without women to guide the way like Hemsworth's character is shown in the marketing and like the other guy is. If someone wanted to make a really heavy handed feminist commentary on men that goes to the extreme that some feminists hold - it would be that portrayal.

I should note that some women aren't the only ones guilty of thinking this way. We all know there's an equivalent of guys who think that way as well. I don't really like seeing either side of that promoted. If joking good-heartedly, fine let both joke and let neither jump the gun. But, overall see each other with respect and equally just as capable as the other. I want a world where there is no sexism/racism/homophobism/classism nor reverse sexism/racism/homophobism/classism and it's just equal across the board as all of us just being human. The state of collective whole that something like an alien invasion or Skynet would put us into, but those kinds of scenarios shouldn't be necessary to get there.

This film isn't, but through marketing alone and the way the marketing is painting the film that is a direction I saw it as possible to go in.

 

[chamber-music]

The new Ghostbusters toys are already on the clearance rack at stores and the movie isn't even out yet

I really hope Sony doesn't pull the plug on Elizabeth Banks' Charlie's Angels reboot if this fails. I want to see her take on it and who they cast as the three Angels.

I know Hollywood is sexist but the success or failure of this Ghostbusters film shouldn't have any effect on a Charlie's Angels reboot.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Its hard to say because it sounds like sony may have pushed for Hemsworth's character to have a bigger role after some of the negativity started so while i wouldn't say its pandering its likely more trying a little hard to show women can be just as good as men and feeling a need to show they can stand on their own.

Course making Hemsworth's character abit of a dumb hot blonde probably went abit far in order to gender reversal and giving slimer a GF also went abit far to say hey there is a male slimer so why can't there be a female slimer? what are you sexist?

There are likely to be more male characters involved but right now they are trying to make the ladies shine because they are the leads and alot of the audience haven't been totally won over yet

 

[Kyle]

With slimer it's s great big lack of originality that is rubbing a lot the wrong way about a female silmer. Why that and not an original ghost that's just as disgusting? They took the easy way out and it feels cheap because of that. Unless there are people who are mad about it for other reasons...

We also already know a lot more male characters are in it.

 

[Gabe99]

Harold Ramis

We are heartbroken at the recent passing of Filmmaker Harold Ramis who made us laugh for more than a generation. His iconic films are an enormous part of the American comic vocabulary- from Animal House to Ghostbusters and Vacation to Groundhog Day. Today’s podcast was recorded in 2005 at the 12th Austin Film Festival.

Movie Legends Revealed
Did the Ghostbusters Originally Travel Through Time, Dimensions?

Aykroyd’s originally saw Ghost Smashers as a vehicle for himself and his friend John Belushi, who would play Peter Venkman. Aykroyd worked on the script on and off throughout the early 1980s when he wasn’t busy with other projects. He was actually working on a line of dialogue for Belushi’s character in March 1982 when he learned his friend had passed away. A few months after Belushi’s passing, Aykroyd showed the script to Murray, a fellow Saturday Night Live veteran. Murray liked the idea and eventually led to the film getting made. The major hurdle, though, was Aykroyd’s rather epic vision.

In the script, the Ghost Smashers work for an interdimensional being known as Shandor. The basic driving force of the plot is that a being known as Zuul is accidentally trapped in this time and dimension by Shandor. Zuul’s owner, Gozer, wants his pet back, so he travels to our dimension to retrieve him and lay waste to those who would try to stop him. To get a sense of the scope of the original film, the famous Stay Puft Marshmallow Man scene was in Aykroyd’s original script, but it took place at the midpoint, and it was just one of a variety of manifestations of Gozer and not, like the final film, the ONLY manifestation.

The big ending was that Gozer would send the Ghost Smashers through different times and dimensions, and they would then work their way back to ours to stop Gozer.

20 Things You Might Not Know About Ghostbusters

2. GHOSTBUSTERS COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH DIFFERENT—AND MUCH BIGGER.

Aykroyd found comedic inspiration in films like Bob Hope's The Ghost Breakers, the horror-comedies of Abbott and Costello, and Bowery Boys fare like Spook Busters and Ghost Chasers. He went wild writing his original script, which took place in the future and had a much darker tone. The actors he had in mind for the three main protagonists were himself, John Belushi, and Eddie Murphy. His concept involved dozens of Ghostbuster groups fighting specters across time and different dimensions. The now-iconic Stay Puft Marshmallow Man—which is in the climax of the finished film—appeared much earlier (on page 20) and was one of 50 large-scale monsters that the Ghostbusters would do battle with. Eventual director Ivan Reitman estimated that the first script would have cost up to $300 million to produce—and that was in 1984.

Wiki: Ghost Smashers

Vanity Fair JUNE 4, 2014:
The Making of Ghostbusters: How Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and “The Murricane” Built “The Perfect Comedy”
From a potential lead who died of a drug overdose to a marshmallow man suit that went up in flames, Ghostbusters looked like anything but a slam-dunk when Columbia Pictures made it. How Dan Aykroyd’s big idea led to an all-time comedy classic.

By early August, a third and close-to-final draft of the script had been completed, and the team raced to begin three-dimensional casting as well. The character Dana Barrett—the sternly foxy love interest for Bill Murray’s character Dr. Venkman—caught the attention of Sigourney Weaver, who was ready to cut her teeth in comedy after her dramatic roles in Alien (1979) and The Year of Living Dangerously (1982).

Originally written up as a model in the script, Dana became a musician at Weaver’s suggestion. “She could be kind of uptight and a bit strict, but you know she has a soul because she plays the cello,” says Weaver. “We always thought of Sigourney as the Margaret Dumont of this movie,” says Reitman, referring to the redoubtable actress who served a foil to Groucho Marx in seven Marx Brothers films.

 

[Supernova]

The female slimer with makeup and a wig just looks terrible, whats next slimer kid ghost running around? How about you do a new take on this franchise instead of constantly bringing back bits from the first 2. But yet they keep saying the originals never happened in this movie yet we keep seeing callbacks.

On a side note im getting tired of reading everywhere you dont like this movie Because women are starring in it.

 

[bluejake01]

As said it's the only thing they've shown. Also, you do know what the strictest view of the most strictest feminists on men is right? Not saying all feminists, but the really die hard ones - view men as useless doofuses who would be lost without women to guide the way like Hemsworth's character is shown in the marketing and like the other guy is. If someone wanted to make a really heavy handed feminist commentary on men that goes to the extreme that some feminists hold - it would be that portrayal.

I should note that some women aren't the only ones guilty of thinking this way. We all know there's an equivalent of guys who think that way as well. I don't really like seeing either side of that promoted. If joking good-heartedly, fine let both joke and let neither jump the gun. But, overall see each other with respect and equally just as capable as the other. I want a world where there is no sexism/racism/homophobism/classism nor reverse sexism/racism/homophobism/classism and it's just equal across the board as all of us just being human. The state of collective whole that something like an alien invasion or Skynet would put us into, but those kinds of scenarios shouldn't be necessary to get there.

This film isn't, but through marketing alone and the way the marketing is painting the film that is a direction I saw it as possible to go in.

I see your problem, you are confused between "feminists" and ********s.

 

[Kyle]

On a side note im getting tired of reading everywhere you dont like this movie Because women are starring in it.

If that is directed towards me, get some reading comprehension there bub. Because I never stated that at all. What I stated was I love female action movies that just let the movie be - Force Awakens, Fury Road. While hating films overall that try to overly hammer in a political statement (where the film itself is largely forgotten and characters are made into cardboard statements) because it feels like a step backwards in progress to me. Remarkably there is a huge difference between the two. To not go backward in time as stated hopefully that's just a horrible as hell marketing campaign painting the film in that light - that they focused on statement over story/characters - rather than movie itself.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

I see your problem, you are confused between "feminists" and ********s.

that seems to be a major problem with a lot of people
there was a march in my town the other week mostly about civil rights, abortion, better pay a whole hodge podge of ideals

one group was chanting and had signs like feminism again, and we're all equal, treat everyone with respect etc etc

now another group about 5 or 6 groups back in the parade had a similar idea only they're signs were stuff like make feminism a weapon again, women take control of the world, men fear strong real women

now the first group were changing dancing around having fun, the second group were being really aggressive and marching in unison

now the second group was what reminded me what most mra's think feminists are all about, and to be honest i couldn't tell if it was serious

to me all this shows is there are extremists on both sides of this and people like that from either side need to be told to be quiet while the grown ups talk

 

[Kyle]

Feminism, normal feminism I align with. I want equality.... To put this into a different light the modern Martin Luther King's I align with, it's the modern day equivalents of Malcolm X extremism that disturbs me. One is preaching unity, the other is preaching Y The Last Man like a middle grounds of everyone living together in unity doesn't exist to them. I should note Malcolm X's among every group disturbs me, the ones who preach down with women and that women are the devil scare me equally as well because to me that's not preaching peace - it's preaching hate for any group that isn't your own.

 

[Supernova]

If that is directed towards me, get some reading comprehension there bub. Because I never stated that at all. What I stated was I love female action movies that just let the movie be - Force Awakens, Fury Road. While hating films overall that that try to hammer in a political statement because it feels like a step backwards in progress to me. Remarkably there is a huge difference between the two. To not go backward in time as stated hopefully that's just a horrible as hell marketing campaign painting the film in that light - that they focused on statement over movie.

Not directed at you at all, just venting on what I see on youtube etc. Im all for female leads especially if there strong interesting characters. What I see from this movie is just low level bad comedy with annoying actors trying to make a buck off loyal fanbase that begged for a new ghostbusters movie not bridesmaids with proton packs.

 

[Supernova]

Mad max maybe the best actress driven movie in the past 20 years

 

[Matt]

Feminism, normal feminism I align with. I want equality.... To put this into a different light the modern Martin Luther King's I align with, it's the modern day equivalents of Malcolm X extremism that disturbs me. One is preaching unity, the other is preaching Y The Last Man like a middle grounds of everyone living together in unity doesn't exist to them. I should note Malcolm X's among every group disturbs me, the ones who preach down with women and that women are the devil scare me equally as well because to me that's not preaching peace - it's preaching hate for any group that isn't your own.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The backlash toward this movie is not anti-feminism backlash because this is not a feminist movie. Rather than breakdown why, I will just post my old points:

You know, I see so many people saying how this is a "feminist" movie and if you don't like it you are sexist. I gotta disagree. If you want to see a feminist movie, look no further than Neighbors 2, which I watched last night. Feminism is not sticking women into roles previously played by males and patting yourselves on the back for doing so. Neighbors 2 is a dissection of gender roles in college and society as a whole. It addresses sexism from all ends of the spectrum (against women, against men, even homophobia) and is not afraid to poke fun at our cultural norms, ignorance, etc related to it. THAT is how you use film/comedy to explore a feminist message. Trainwreck does the same. This movie has no indication of doing so.

I'm gonna throw this out there: people who dislike the movie are not sexist, the filmmakers are.

Look at almost every joke in the trailer. The humor all stems from antiquated gender (and racial) stereotypes. Almost every joke is a woman screaming, giving an over-the-top hormonal reaction to a situation. Those that do not fit into that category seem to fall into the category of "woman is overweight and/or not living up to traditional gender roles...isn't it funny when fat woman dances? How absurd!" So, based on the trailer, the humor seems to stem almost entirely from these two premises; "women are irrational" or "woman is fat and that is funny." The only character who doesn't seem to fall into this category is McKinnon's. And its worth noting that she is barely featured in either trailer.

Or, in the alternative, there is one other source of humor: Leslie Jones screaming and acting like a really racist person doing an impression of a black lady. Her character seems to be written and acted as less of a fully formed character and more of an over-the-top caricature. Let me ask all of the social crusaders who are claiming people who dislike this movie to be either sexist/racist opponents of progression: when is the last time that a comedy portrayed a black female as anything other than an over-the-top caricature? Why can't the black woman be the straight man rather than the fall guy?

Further, when is the last time a comedy portrayed women as anything more than hormonal, reactionary, messes of human beings, who really just deep down, need a man? Its not progress to have women headline movies if the movies portray them as little more than two dimensional caricatures. For all of his so called "feminist" movies Paul Feig sure seems to fall into these traps quite a bit. In fact, all filmmakers do.

The only example I can think of that does not do this is Veep. In Veep, the female characters (one of whom is the lead and the other is the main supporting character, Dryfus and Chlumsky) are strong, assertive, driven by something other than men, and are in no way cliches. You could take any bit of dialogue on Veep and switch it to a male role without missing a beat. The characters are written as people, not men or women. Similarly, it is the only comedy I can think of in which an African American woman plays the straight man. Sue, the President's assistant is the only professional character on the show (in fact, her humor derives from her being overly professional). There is no fall back on cheap cliches.

Incidentally, Veep is one of the most beloved comedies on TV right now, having just won an Emmy for Best Comedy Series.

So, I suggest this: perhaps the issues people have with this movie have nothing to do with it being headlined by women. Perhaps the issue is the fact that it isn't particularly funny (based on the trailers) and despite being headlined by women, Feig feels the need to present women in the most marginalizing and patronizing light possible and then paint it as "feminism" and "progression."

 

[Dyson]

On a side note im getting tired of reading everywhere you dont like this movie Because women are starring in it.

In the end, I think it's not about the fact that there are females in the film but it is a remake of a classic film. There was no reason to remake it. Let's say Adam Sandler and company remade Ghostbusters, we would all be on the negative bandwagon. Paul Feig is a talented comedy director (I personally think Bridesmaids is going to end of being looked at as a comedy classic) but it seems he took the film down a rough, rocky path that he didn't need to take it down. Feig has stated that Ivan Reitman offered him the film when it was still going to a continuation of the first two films. Reitman saw it has a "passing of the torch" kind of film with male and female team members, however, Feig said while the script for Ghostbusters 3 was good, he didn't really get it nor did he connect with it. Thus, Feig said he would just remake Ghostbusters for a new generation but instead of males, it will be strictly females. Now the film looks more like a spoof of Ghostbusters with slapstick humour but it's not because of having females.

 

[Kyle]

I agree with you full-heartedly Matt, can't believe I forgot Leslie Jones' character. Because the way that character is portrayed does come off as racist and more than stands out in a film where the filmmakers have made it clear they're aiming on being progressive. It has good intentions, I don't doubt that for a second, but at the same time it feels antiquated especially considering it's following soon after Force Awakens, Mad Max, BvS, Zootopia, and coming soon Rogue One among many others that I'm sure I'm forgetting which all did this remarkably well. As said I'm just hoping this is just the marketing doing a horrible job. BlueJake said it does so hopefully they use the cut he saw and he's right.

 

[Supernova]

In the end, I think it's not about the fact that there are females in the film but it is a remake of a classic film. There was no reason to remake it. Let's say Adam Sandler and company remade Ghostbusters, we would all be on the negative bandwagon. Paul Feig is a talented comedy director (I personally think Bridesmaids is going to end of being looked at as a comedy classic) but it seems he took the film down a rough, rocky path that he didn't need to take it down. Feig has stated that Ivan Reitman offered him the film when it was still going to a continuation of the first two film. Reitman saw it has a "passing of the torch" kind of film, however, Feig said while the script for Ghostbusters 3 was good, he didn't really get it nor did he connect with it. Thus, Feig said he'll remake Ghostbusters for a new generation but instead of males, it will be females. Now the film looks more like a spoof of Ghostbusters with slapstick humour.

Yeah its a weird mashup of alot of things. I get RIPD/MIB/Pixels/Bridesmaids vibes all at once and ironically no ghostbusters vibes.

 

[Dyson]

Yeah its a weird mashup of alot of things. I get RIPD/MIB/Pixels/Bridesmaids vibes all at once and ironically no ghostbusters vibes.

Simply put, I don't think Feig was the right choice for a new Ghostbusters film. I think his heart is in the right place, yes, as he is a fan of the franchise but that doesn't mean he was the right person to bring Ghostbusters back to the big screen.

I remember when John Logan was announced as the writer for Star Trek: Nemesis. He kept saying he was a massive Trek fan and he wanted to give the fans the best Trek film ever with an incredible script. Well, we all know how that film was received. It wasn't completely Logan's fault that the film was so poorly received by critics and fans alike, but it's clear that the script was lazy and uninteresting. John Logan, who is clearly a big Trek fan, merely wasn't the right choice for a Trek fan. I'm feeling the same vibes with Paul Feig and Ghostbusters. There are pretty enjoyable moments in Star Trek: Nemesis but as a whole, the film is weak. I'm very sure Ghostbusters will have some enjoyable moments, however, it won't surprise if the film just comes off as unnecessary and somewhat lazy. So a dumb, somewhat enjoyable romp of a film but very forgettable type of film is what I am expecting from Feig and company.

 

[TheVileOne]

Kyle I sort of understand what you are saying and you make good points.

I understand the backlash of this movie as well.

I think what's sort of become a problem here is that due to the backlash against the new Ghostbusters, it's being put on a pedestal and heavily defended by feminists and political commentators because the four leads are women. So if the movie is a flop, it's like they've picked a strange hill to die on. Then again, if it does well, it could potentially reinforce their statements.

 

[Supernova]

Simply put, I don't think Feig was the right choice for a new Ghostbusters film. I think his heart is in the right place, yes, as he is a fan of the franchise but that doesn't mean he was the right person to bring Ghostbusters back to the big screen.

I remember when John Logan was announced as the writer for Star Trek: Nemesis. He kept saying he was a massive Trek fan and he wanted to give the fans the best Trek film ever with an incredible script. Well, we all know how that film was received. It wasn't completely Logan's fault that the film was so poorly received by critics and fans alike, but it's clear that the script was lazy and uninteresting. John Logan, who is clearly a big Trek fan, merely wasn't the right choice for a Trek fan. I'm feeling the same vibes with Paul Feig and Ghostbusters. There are pretty enjoyable moments in Star Trek: Nemesis but as a whole, the film is weak. I'm very sure Ghostbusters will have some enjoyable moments, however, it won't surprise if the film just comes off as unnecessary and somewhat lazy. So a dumb, somewhat enjoyable romp of a film but very forgettable type of film is what I am expecting from Feig and company.

I agree with all of that, I just cant think if any director that could have done this justice.

The original cast and director were all just perfect and worked off each other so well. Thats movie magic you just cant recreate easily especially 30 years later

 

[Sithborg]

Expecting an instant classic only leaves disappointment. I'm not expecting the original movie, so I can easily enjoy the changes. But, that seems to be a rarity among fandoms.

 

[marty mcfly]

Ivan Reitman, the original director, was supposed to direct this. But Amy Pascal from Sony didn't want him, she wanted to find someone who was more in line with the direction she and the studio wanted to go.

That (and especially after Harold Ramis died) was when Retiman backed down.

 

[bluejake01]

I agree with all of that, I just cant think if any director that could have done this justice.

The original cast and director were all just perfect and worked off each other so well. Thats movie magic you just cant recreate easily especially 30 years later

I think that's exactly right...which is part of the reason the I dislike Ghostbusters 2 so much. It is so inferior to the original that it falls hard, even though it isn't "that bad".

I think the reason I liked the Feig Ghostbusters is that it is a completely different take on the material. I doubt a Ghostbusters 3 would have ever delivered in a way that honored and elevated the original. At least this remake can stand as something different and since there is no way it could ever live up to the original, I'm glad it isn't tied to its canon and continuity.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I saw on a couple of places (including here) where they said the toys are already in clearance. I thought to myself, maybe it's an isolated instance. Nope, sure enough Walmart, Target and Toys R Us has the 6" female GB figures in clearance on their web site. The movie isn't even out yet.