Ghostbusters (2016)

TravisR

Studio Mogul
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
34,975
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I would still say it's unprofessional. I can understand him wanting to stick up for his cast, but I'd still call it bad form as the director to tell a potential customer to go fuck himself. You wouldn't do that if you were the CEO of a company (and Feig is essentially the CEO of "Ghostbusters 2016") no matter how much of a jerk someone is. He shouldn't stoop that that level.
Many trolls wholeheartedly deserve to be told to fuck off (especially since they're only 'tough' when they're anonymous and would never say anything to anyone's face) but forget professionalism, the only reason not to do it is because it gives them the attention that no has ever or will ever give them in real life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tino and Bryan^H

Bryan^H

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
7,062
Many trolls wholeheartedly deserve to be told to fuck off (especially since they're only 'tough' when they're anonymous and would never say anything to anyone's face) but forget professionalism, the only reason not to do it is because it gives them the attention that no has ever or will ever give them in real life.
Well said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TravisR

Tony J Case

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
2,736
Most of it was from his twitter feed, stuff like this: https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/762665778097389568, or this, not an actual quote so-to-speak, but he and the cast were on a talk show and did an intentionally crappy version of the theme song specifically because they were "in the business of ruining men's childhoods."

Long, long ago when I worked at McDonalds, if I told the customers to fuck off, you know what would happen to me? I would have been shitcanned. It's not professional to be antagonistic to your customers, even if you do think poorly of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WillG and Neil J

Johnny Angell

Played With Dinosaurs Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 13, 1998
Messages
12,235
Location
Central Arkansas
Real Name
Johnny Angell
Yes, and by responding Feig gave the troll the biggest compliment he could. he acknowledged him.
Rule 1 of the Internet is never feed a troll.
I think I'd compare this to a baseball player who's got a fan (or better, asshole) riding him from the stands. His best course of action is to ignore him, IMHO.
 

Johnny Angell

Played With Dinosaurs Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 13, 1998
Messages
12,235
Location
Central Arkansas
Real Name
Johnny Angell
Basically, I think the issue is they remade a film that a lot of people seem to love. So, to some extent no matter who played the Ghostbuster characters (if it was not the original cast) they were in a tough spot. However, they should just admit the idea of changing all the male characters to female and changing the sex of the receptionist to male just for the sake of doing a gender flop to turn Ghostbusters into a "girls night out" film was just a horrible idea. One bound to upset fans of the original film. I mean that was pretty much rubbing their noses in the idea that they were changing their beloved film in the new version.

At the same time the idea that some people felt that the fact that this reboot exists "ruined their childhood" (which was a common comment that upset Sony) is pretty absurd. Nobody took the original film away and said you can never watch it again and nobody made fans of the original film go to see this remake.

Over the summer I heard some people involved with the new Star Wars film discuss the fact that it was "time" to change the franchise which was why they made the lead "hero" a young woman and another central character for the franchise going forward a black man. I mean I had thought they cast those characters because they liked the actors but apparently they claim they set out to do this because there was a lack of black men in the original series (I was thinking what about Billy Dee Williams?) and that the original films were demeaning to women because the main female in the film was a "princess."

Honestly, I burst out laughing listening to this nonsense...but that's how the people that made the film feel.

This was what I would call a strange summer when it came to this kind of thing. There was a lot of nonsense from the other side of this new Ghostbusters film that if you did not like it you must hate women...really? Interesting too that carried over into our presidential election this cycle as well.

We also had a ridiculous brouhaha over the sexual preference of Sulu in the latest Star Trek film. I made a joke about this in the Star Trek thread because I found the entire thing ridiculous and somebody deleted it saying it was in bad taste...hint here if you can't joke about it you obviously are not prepared to deal with it as an adult...and all I was doing was poking fun at people that got upset about something that really has zero impact on the Star Trek series. I mean it is not like they had the guts to make one of the major characters gay...they just made Sulu gay as some sort of bizarre tribute to Mr. Takei which hilariously he did not want and threw back in their faces. Which he was right to do because Hollywood is really being pompous and asinine to think they are righting the worlds wrongs by changing the sex or sexual preference of fictional characters.

Basically, they should focus on making good films NOT attempting to make sure there are a certain number of any type, sex, or color character in the picture. Do they not understand how horrifically ridiculous they appear when they do this?

I have no problem with female characters, black characters, gay characters but the truth really is if you want to help create more roles for different types of people then create properties and characters that give them good films to be in with good roles for them to play. Don't just gender flop an old film or make a minor character gay because you think it is "time" there was a "gay/black/non-princess female" character in the film just to say "Hey, look how brave and wonderful we are creating a role for ________" name your ethnic, sexual preference, gender of choice.
Some things I disagree with here. On it's face making the characters female and the secretary male is not a bad idea and it does not exclude males going to see the film. Women are funny. Also, films reflect the time in which they are made and things have changed since the original film.

I do not understand why the gender change was upsetting, it makes no sense to me and I'm a fan of the original. If the did a remake of To Kill a Mockingbird and made Atticus female, yeah, bad idea. But GB is not holy scripture, IMHO.

Making Sulu obviously gay in one small portion of the film ism also a reflection of our current time. I don't get that the original actor didn't like the idea, though I know he did. I had not issue with it.

I think we do need to make an effort to diversity, it doesn't happen on it's own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tony Bensley

Tino

Film Editor
Premium
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
17,936
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
Most of it was from his twitter feed, stuff like this: https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/762665778097389568, or this, not an actual quote so-to-speak, but he and the cast were on a talk show and did an intentionally crappy version of the theme song specifically because they were "in the business of ruining men's childhoods."

Long, long ago when I worked at McDonalds, if I told the customers to fuck off, you know what would happen to me? I would have been shitcanned. It's not professional to be antagonistic to your customers, even if you do think poorly of them.
Again he's responding to a "critic" not insulting fans. And that Graham Norton clip was in fun responding to the fanboy hate.

Also walking into a McDonalds as a customer and being told to fuck off is not the same as fanboys hating and trashing a film without seeing it.
 

WillG

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6,888
Some things I disagree with here. On it's face making the characters female and the secretary male is not a bad idea and it does not exclude males going to see the film. Women are funny. Also, films reflect the time in which they are made and things have changed since the original film.

I do not understand why the gender change was upsetting, it makes no sense to me and I'm a fan of the original. If the did a remake of To Kill a Mockingbird and made Atticus female, yeah, bad idea. But GB is not holy scripture, IMHO.

Making Sulu obviously gay in one small portion of the film ism also a reflection of our current time. I don't get that the original actor didn't like the idea, though I know he did. I had not issue with it.

I think we do need to make an effort to diversity, it doesn't happen on it's own.
Well, to some "Ghostbusters" has as much artistic significance as "To Kill a Mockingbird" as silly as it seems.

Also, I've never really been a fan of quotas, but then again I'm a white male so maybe I haven't had the same type of experience as others. But as for the Sulu thing, yeah I do think that's kind of blatant example of a social shoehorning. Was anyone asking if Sulu was gay? Is it important to the story in any way? If not, what's the need to address it?

You know what did it right? "Alien". If you're familiar with the early scripts, it was noted that any of the characters could either be male or female (and, note that in "Alien" none of the characters are ever identified by a first name). Sigourney Weaver auditioned and obviously impressed Ridley and voila, Ripley was born. As far as I know, there was never any pre-conceived notion of the main protagonist being a woman.
 

Reggie W

Producer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
6,361
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
Can you imagine going into to a script meeting for Goodfellas and some studio boob says "I want this film to be more diverse so let's make the Ray Liotta character a black man, the Joe Pesci character a woman, and the DeNiro character has to be gay." because you know that reflects our society better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil J and WillG

Tino

Film Editor
Premium
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
17,936
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
In the end, I doubt the films financial "failure" will affect anyone's careers. It will do fine on home video and who knows....in a few years it may become a cult classic. [emoji6]
 
Last edited:

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,884
Can you imagine going into to a script meeting for Goodfellas and some studio boob says "I want this film to be more diverse so let's make the Ray Liotta character a black man, the Joe Pesci character a woman, and the DeNiro character has to be gay." because you know that reflects our society better.
Not a valid comparison. Of course it'd be absurd to make a story about one very specific demographic "diverse", but movies like "Ghostbusters" or "Star Trek" can enjoy "diverse" casts without negative ramifications...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil Middlemiss

WillG

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6,888
True. But the point is Feig didn't insult all Ghostbusters fans. Just ONE who deserved it imo.
He's had more that one angry tweet. And I did mention people like Apatow who took his ire out on potentially half the nation.
 

Tino

Film Editor
Premium
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
17,936
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
A few angry tweets at angry fanboys and disgruntled "critics" constitutes Feig insulting all Ghostbusters fans and all male moviegoers??. C'mon.

I think this horse has been beaten enough don't you?:D
 

Johnny Angell

Played With Dinosaurs Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 13, 1998
Messages
12,235
Location
Central Arkansas
Real Name
Johnny Angell
Well, to some "Ghostbusters" has as much artistic significance as "To Kill a Mockingbird" as silly as it seems.

Also, I've never really been a fan of quotas, but then again I'm a white male so maybe I haven't had the same type of experience as others. But as for the Sulu thing, yeah I do think that's kind of blatant example of a social shoehorning. Was anyone asking if Sulu was gay? Is it important to the story in any way? If not, what's the need to address it?

You know what did it right? "Alien". If you're familiar with the early scripts, it was noted that any of the characters could either be male or female (and, note that in "Alien" none of the characters are ever identified by a first name). Sigourney Weaver auditioned and obviously impressed Ridley and voila, Ripley was born. As far as I know, there was never any pre-conceived notion of the main protagonist being a woman.
I didn't mean to compare the artistic significance of GB and TKAM, just to say Atticus has got to be male. Not so of the GB characters, IMHO.

I said nothing about quotas either but that films reflect the time in which they are made. We appreciate women as entertainers more than we used to, so to the film makers (and me) it seemed a reasonable choice. As for Sulu, a 30 second moment in the film, without dialogue, and if I remember correctly, we see them from the back only, is not a case of shoehorning. Ah for the day when it's not a remarkable moment, but just a moment.

Not sure if Alien is a fair example. When the audience first saw the film, no one knew the script didn't specify gender, and they certainly weren't remaking a classic and flipping the gender. Acceptance was much easier. I do remember one critic writing that she brought a new level of female profanity to the screen. He didn't like it.

Not a valid comparison. Of course it'd be absurd to make a story about one very specific demographic "diverse", but movies like "Ghostbusters" or "Star Trek" can enjoy "diverse" casts without negative ramifications...
Yes, exactly. Goodfellas represents a moment in the past. It would be absurd to cast females as the gangsters. Not so for GB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tony Bensley

WillG

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6,888
I didn't mean to compare the artistic significance of GB and TKAM, just to say Atticus has got to be male. Not so of the GB characters, IMHO.
Why does Atticus "have" to be male? What's stopping anyone from making an remake of TKaM where Atticus is a female?

I said nothing about quotas either but that films reflect the time in which they are made. We appreciate women as entertainers more than we used to,
I don't think that's necessarily true. There were a good number of female entertainers back in "the day" such as Carol Burnett, Joan Rivers, Bea Authur, Gilda Radner, Carol Channing, Phyllis Diller, Rita Rudner to name a few. I don't think we've ever had some renaissance of female comedy because there has always been female comics. I just think it's a profession that more men gravitate towards than women.

Not sure if Alien is a fair example. When the audience first saw the film, no one knew the script didn't specify gender, and they certainly weren't remaking a classic and flipping the gender. Acceptance was much easier. I do remember one critic writing that she brought a new level of female profanity to the screen. He didn't like it.
But that is not the point I was making. With "Alien" gender was never a big consideration. They just hired the person who impressed them who happened to be Sigourney Weaver. Ridley wasn't trying to make some kind of statement. He just picked who he thought was right for the role, and it paid off tremendously.
 

WillG

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6,888
That doesn't really have anything to do with the topic since Judd Apatow was insulting Donald Trump voters and not Ghostbusters fans.
I'm not sure I see it that way. He pretty clearly said the haters were Trump supporters and was clearly associating the two. He absolutely meant it as an insult.
 

TravisR

Studio Mogul
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
34,975
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I'm not sure I see it that way. He pretty clearly said the haters were Trump supporters and was clearly associating the two. He absolutely meant it as an insult.
Yes, he was associating the angry social media lunatics attacking his friends with Trump supporters but he wasn't saying that all Ghostbusters fans were Donald Trump supporters. Most importantly, Judd Apatow had nothing to do with any Ghostbusters movie so anything he says isn't really a factor in this part of the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tino

WillG

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6,888
Yes, he was associating the angry social media lunatics attacking his friends with Trump supporters but he wasn't saying that all Ghostbusters fans were Donald Trump supporters. Most importantly, Judd Apatow had nothing to do with any Ghostbusters movie so anything he says isn't really a factor in this part of the discussion.
I don't necessarily agree with that. Apatow inserted himself into the whole imbroglio. But to me even the comparison of haters to Trump supporters is an immature argument.

In Apatow's mind, calling someone a Trump supporter is the highest form of insult.
 
Last edited:

Johnny Angell

Played With Dinosaurs Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 13, 1998
Messages
12,235
Location
Central Arkansas
Real Name
Johnny Angell
Why does Atticus "have" to be male? What's stopping anyone from making an remake of TKaM where Atticus is a female?



I don't think that's necessarily true. There were a good number of female entertainers back in "the day" such as Carol Burnett, Joan Rivers, Bea Authur, Gilda Radner, Carol Channing, Phyllis Diller, Rita Rudner to name a few. I don't think we've ever had some renaissance of female comedy because there has always been female comics. I just think it's a profession that more men gravitate towards than women.



But that is not the point I was making. With "Alien" gender was never a big consideration. They just hired the person who impressed them who happened to be Sigourney Weaver. Ridley wasn't trying to make some kind of statement. He just picked who he thought was right for the role, and it paid off tremendously.
1) Movie is based on a book which is based to some degree on the author's childhood and she wrote about her father. Sure there's no law preventing the casting of a female, nor should there be such a law. I was making the point that some characters work only as a specific gender. I don't think GB falls into that category. If somebody has the money and the rights they can make a movie with a female Atticus. If it turns out to be a great movie, I'll buy my ticket and watch.
2) None of the ladies you mentioned, all talented and I grew up watching them, had a significant movie career. We are in a period where there are more opportunities for women in comedy.
3)OK

Finally, I don't think GB was about quotas. When I first heard about the casting decision, I thought, and still do, think it was a good idea. It could refresh the franchise. Unfortunately they forgot to make a funny movie. They could have done that with a male cast.

We are going around in circles here making the same points and counterpoints. I don't see any value in continuing the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tino

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,068
Messages
4,699,140
Members
141,158
Latest member
Wombat