Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[Ryan8bit]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

I don't think we'd have to worry about Melissa McCarthy and the like. She's getting too old to start a potential franchise. I mean, most of the actors in the first Ghostbusters were in their mid-30s, and that's about right. They were probably getting too old for a Ghostbusters 3 anyways. I'd like to see some younger, more up and coming comediennes.

In the past "creative decisions" meant: Most movies had male leads by default.
Things have changed, get used to it.

I'm not sure if things really have. I mean, I found Bridesmaids just as entertaining a movie as The Hangover, yet the latter made a lot more than the former. Critics' scores were about on par, but on user ratings sites, typically The Hangover was much higher. Probably because such rating sites are dominated by men (no doubt of which some are sexist).

And of those who saw Bridesmaids, 2/3 were women, which means it probably had around 3x less male viewers than a movie like The Hangover, and conversely, about the same number of female viewers. To me, it seems like that implies that it potentially turned away millions of dollars of men's money. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that, especially for a one-off comedy movie.

But when it comes to a tentpole franchise, especially one that requires a much heftier budget, studio executives are likely going to be a lot more cautious about what demographics they're going to try and pull in.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

How about: "Things are changing. Men will get used to it."
Women had decades to get used to watching movies with male leads. Men will manage.

Things have changed quite a bit already, though. You're only giving a tiny number of examples.
It seems movies like Frozen or Maleficent did quite well recently. There are plenty of positive examples. Even in the scifi/fantasy genre. I miss Buffy!

 

[Lance]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

I'm just throwing this out there folks, but, given Aykroyd's original conception of Ghostbusters was considered "too expensive", with it's dimension hops and all that jazz... if they were hell bent on a hard reboot, I think maybe it'd be interesting to see them go back and do something with that? Maybe more along the lines of how The Real Ghostbusters used to play with interdimensional beings and had the GBs jumping through different planes of reality and such. Rather than the Earth-bound threats posed in the original movies, where it was usually a demon trying to enter our world, maybe they could throw the story out there and broaden the scope now they'd have the money to do it justice.

But I still think the main characters need to be grounded, 'regular Joe' types. They need to be relatable to the common guy. If they made them quote/unquote "superheroes", with chiselled good looks and fancy equipment, I think they'd lose an essence of what I think worked the best about the original ensemble: that the Ghostbusters were this kind of struggling start-up company that was juggling real-life concerns like paying the bills alongside their role battling the demonic underworld. That juxtaposition between the fantastic and the realistic was a key element of the original movie, I thought.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

How about: "Things are changing. Men will get used to it."
Women had decades to get used to watching movies with male leads. Men will manage.

Things have changed quite a bit already, though. You're only giving a tiny number of examples.
It seems movies like Frozen or Maleficent did quite well recently. There are plenty of positive examples. Even in the scifi/fantasy genre. I miss Buffy!

I'm sure that over time men will get more used to it, but in the meantime, there are going to be budget people who aren't in it to change culture, but to make money. They're not in it to make some sort of statement.

And what I wrote wasn't meant to be some sprawling thesis about all movies, it was just a comparison of two comedies being very similar to each other, just with a predominant cast of one gender. Maleficent and Frozen don't really work for that kind of comparison for various reasons.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

How about: "Things are changing. Men will get used to it."
Women had decades to get used to watching movies with male leads. Men will manage.

Things have changed quite a bit already, though. You're only giving a tiny number of examples.
It seems movies like Frozen or Maleficent did quite well recently. There are plenty of positive examples. Even in the scifi/fantasy genre. I miss Buffy!

I'm sure that over time men will get more used to it, but in the meantime, there are going to be budget people who aren't in it to change culture, but to make money. They're not in it to make some sort of statement.

And what I wrote wasn't meant to be some sprawling thesis about all movies, it was just a comparison of two comedies being very similar to each other, just with a predominant cast of one gender. Maleficent and Frozen don't really work for that kind of comparison for various reasons.

Why does it have to be a statement? Why can't it just be four funny women making a movie about ghost busting?

 

[137th Gebirg]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

^^^ Precisely. This.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Why does it have to be a statement? Why can't it just be four funny women making a movie about ghost busting?

It was in response to Emilia's talking about men getting used to things, and changes in society. It makes this out to be an issue of feminism (which, let's be honest, it totally is). Executives don't care about such changes or social issues if it affects the bottom line.

 

[Aldo]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

You appear to be putting words in people's mouths.

 

[wulfio]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

It'll be fine with an all-female cast. Just please no more Melissa McCarthy. I find her completely unfunny, obnoxious and unwatchable - much like Rosanne Barr, Fran Drescher and Sofia Vergara. There are so many other talented comediennes out there. Give 'em a shot!

This is my only real worry about the movie. Paul Feig has directed three movies with Melissa McCarthy, and I find her extremely irritating. Plus, she really does one kind of humor, which even if I liked (and as I already established, I don't) I think she just wouldn't work with a Ghostbusters movie. Even though I think the whole female main cast is a bit gimmicky, I think it could work very well, it just needs a great cast, and I just hope McCarthy isn't cast, which based on the Director's track record is a real possibility.

Speaking of cast, some places on the internet say that Gillian Anderson wants to be in BG3. I've barely watched any X-Files, but I completely support this. I think she could do great, especially as the brains/scientist (which doesn't mean she should be some female copy of Egon, just that a movie like this is almost certainly going to have a super smart character, and she seems like a good fit).

As it stands now, the trend in hollywood is, if they are going for a funny woman, 9 times out of 10 they will go for the obvious choice. And in this current day, that means Melissa McCarthy, Maya Rudolph, and Kristen Wiig. I like none of these women for this movie. From their work I've seen thus far, I find their humour juvenile and obvious.

Among my wish list for this female cast would be Tina Fey, Kristen Bell, Emma Stone, Helen Mirren, and Anna Farris if you need someone to be the butt of jokes.

 

[Saul]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Why? You still haven't explained this element women apparently lack when it comes to science fiction/fantasy story telling. Is it the penis?

I don't need to explain that because I never said that.

You're free to feel that way, it's just your reasoning is faulty. You've hinged it all on a female cast, as if the lack of four main penises has just ruined this movie for you, but you have yet to explain just why that is.

You have yet to explain why a lack of penis is better for you?
I told you my opinion and I know that opinion hurts you in some way obviously because you are basically putting me down as saying "IF THE WOMAN AIN'T NAKED AND HAVE NO BOOBS THEN LETS SEE SOME MEN WITH GUNS!!!! YYEEEHAWWW!!"

Well I might ask the same question. Why would an all female cast work opposed to an all male one or even a mixed male and female GB crew? Even Ernie Hudson thinks it's a bad idea http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/index.ssf/2014/10/post_58.html

Ernie Hudson wants his paycheck, nothing more.

And Paul Feig doesn't want to have a run at making a lot of money by taking on a big franchise? Since he is known for Bridesmaids he takes what he is good at and shoves it into something else. He can make even more money.

We literally know three things about the film: Feig is directing it, Feig is co-writing it with Katie Dippold, and Feig plans on a female-led cast. We know nothing else, and all this sturm und drang is no different from a child stomping his foot and throwing a tantrum: "It's not going to have guys in the lead parts, it can't possibly be good!

"

Well we know what Paul Feig said. That to do this as fresh and original it should be a female cast. Again how is that idea fresh and original? Why is that his main selling point to his Directing the movie?

If the movie fails it won't have anything to do with having women as the central cast. That's absurd and sexist.

Enough with the sexist bullshit. It's a gimmicky move on Paul Feig's part. And if he had changed Wonder Woman into a guy it'd be a gimmick too.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

If the movie fails it won't have anything to do with having women as the central cast. That's absurd and sexist.

Enough with the sexist bullshit. It's a gimmicky move on Paul Feig's part. And if he had changed Wonder Woman into a guy it'd be a gimmick too.

Wonder Woman is kind of essentially female, don't you think? The least you could do is come up with a comparison that, I don't know, makes even a tiny bit of sense.

 

[BigJake]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Enough with the sexist bullshit.

I believe that's the general sentiment RobMax was trying to convey.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Why? You still haven't explained this element women apparently lack when it comes to science fiction/fantasy story telling. Is it the penis?

I don't need to explain that because I never said that.

You called it pandering, saying that a film with female characters wouldn't work. You didn't say that having four male leads was pandering, so why is this different?

You have yet to explain why a lack of penis is better for you?
I told you my opinion and I know that opinion hurts you in some way obviously because you are basically putting me down as saying "IF THE WOMAN AIN'T NAKED AND HAVE NO BOOBS THEN LETS SEE SOME MEN WITH GUNS!!!! YYEEEHAWWW!!"

I said no such thing.

If the movie fails it won't have anything to do with having women as the central cast. That's absurd and sexist.

Enough with the sexist bullshit. It's a gimmicky move on Paul Feig's part. And if he had changed Wonder Woman into a guy it'd be a gimmick too.

Wonder Woman is kind of essentially female, don't you think? The least you could do is come up with a comparison that, I don't know, makes even a tiny bit of sense.

Good point, and it's interesting that Saul automatically considers the Ghostbusters to be men, and that anything else is going to be subpar.

 

[Saul]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

If the movie fails it won't have anything to do with having women as the central cast. That's absurd and sexist.

Enough with the sexist bullshit. It's a gimmicky move on Paul Feig's part. And if he had changed Wonder Woman into a guy it'd be a gimmick too.

Wonder Woman is kind of essentially female, don't you think? The least you could do is come up with a comparison that, I don't know, makes even a tiny bit of sense.

Aren't Peter, Egon, Ray and Winston essentially 4 dudes don't you think?
We have Spider-Woman, Batwoman, Iron Woman. We can't have a Wonder-Man? OMFG! That's sexist.

Enough with the sexist bullshit.

I believe that's the general sentiment RobMax was trying to convey.

It's the mentality of some people to call others a (-----)"ist" if they disagree with what they are saying. Not liking an idea doesn't equal sexist. People are happy to throw around that argument but nobody here has actually given a reason for why they think a female cast of Ghostbusters will work opposed to a mixed or an all male cast.

Why? You still haven't explained this element women apparently lack when it comes to science fiction/fantasy story telling. Is it the penis?

I don't need to explain that because I never said that.

You called it pandering, saying that a film with female characters wouldn't work. You didn't say that having four male leads was pandering, so why is this different?

Because some sentences have different meanings in the English language?

Yeah *I* think it won't work. I never said women are lacking some element for science fiction/fantasy. I don't think it will work for Ghostbusters. I do think the director of Bridesmaid's is essentially doing what he knows works for him. I don't think it's the magic key to reviving it.

The original film had 4 male leads so how is it pandering if it stays that way? No one said keeping Captain Kirk a guy in Trek 09 as pandering to a male audience because the character was a guy to start with.

BTW you still can't come up with an answer for why an all female led Ghostbusting team will work.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Because some sentences have different meanings in the English language?

Yeah *I* think it won't work. I never said women are lacking some element for science fiction/fantasy. I don't think it will work for Ghostbusters. I do think the director of Bridesmaid's is essentially doing what he knows works for him. I don't think it's the magic key to reviving it.

The original film had 4 male leads so how is it pandering if it stays that way? No one said keeping Captain Kirk a guy in Trek 09 as pandering to a male audience because the character was a guy to start with.

BTW you still can't come up with an answer for why an all female led Ghostbusting team will work.

I didn't say it would, but you did say it wouldn't. You're the one who needs to back it up.

 

[Saul]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Because some sentences have different meanings in the English language?

Yeah *I* think it won't work. I never said women are lacking some element for science fiction/fantasy. I don't think it will work for Ghostbusters. I do think the director of Bridesmaid's is essentially doing what he knows works for him. I don't think it's the magic key to reviving it.

The original film had 4 male leads so how is it pandering if it stays that way? No one said keeping Captain Kirk a guy in Trek 09 as pandering to a male audience because the character was a guy to start with.

BTW you still can't come up with an answer for why an all female led Ghostbusting team will work.

I didn't say it would, but you did say it wouldn't. You're the one who needs to back it up.

I have given plenty of reasons why already and again understand that this is my opinion and it's not the word of an all knowing God.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Because some sentences have different meanings in the English language?

Yeah *I* think it won't work. I never said women are lacking some element for science fiction/fantasy. I don't think it will work for Ghostbusters. I do think the director of Bridesmaid's is essentially doing what he knows works for him. I don't think it's the magic key to reviving it.

The original film had 4 male leads so how is it pandering if it stays that way? No one said keeping Captain Kirk a guy in Trek 09 as pandering to a male audience because the character was a guy to start with.

BTW you still can't come up with an answer for why an all female led Ghostbusting team will work.

I didn't say it would, but you did say it wouldn't. You're the one who needs to back it up.

I have given plenty of reasons why already and again understand that this is my opinion and it's not the word of an all knowing God.

So your reasons are that since it will be four women, it will be pandering, because women as leads is pandering, and also that sci-fi/fantasy franchises with women as leads aren't successful, even though it was proven to you that there are such successful franchises with lead female roles. You then stated that guys don't like these kinds of films, because they won't go see a movie with four female leads because Ghostbusters is a movie about four men, and it should stay that way.

Am I wrong?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Aren't Peter, Egon, Ray and Winston essentially 4 dudes don't you think?

The question isn't whether the original Ghostbusters were all men, as everybody knows they were. The question is whether Ghostbusters must be men.

Star Trek survived the introduction of new main characters who weren't Kirk, Spock, or McCoy. Ghostbusters can survive the introduction of new main characters who aren't Peter, Ray, Egon, or Winston.

You think they won't be right, because they'll evidently be women. We get that. But not everyone is throwing in the towel, sight unseen. You can't please everyone, anyway.

Frozen is a great movie, by the way.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

You then stated that guys don't like these kinds of films, because they won't go see a movie with four female leads because Ghostbusters is a movie about four men, and it should stay that way.

Personally, I don't care what they do in a reboot as long as it's good, but I think there is a precedent for a lot less men to see a movie with an all female cast. It's just the same as if all the leads were black or gay or some other minority that gets people's dander up. It's why Hollywood typically doesn't go for such things. These people will write this script that will require a budget of $150 million to make, and the studio will only accept it if they can make it for less than $100 million because of the demographics.

So in a way, I think that having Ghostbusters all be men is pandering. Pandering is the business of Hollywood. I don't really think having women is pandering.

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Aren't Peter, Egon, Ray and Winston essentially 4 dudes don't you think?

The question isn't whether the original Ghostbusters were all men, as everybody knows they were. The question is whether Ghostbusters must be men.

That right there. The IDW comic even had a new generation of Ghostbusters consisting primarily of women (and one man, who was a blowhard) who very much filled the gap when the original 4 went missing. When the originals came back, the team essentially doubled and became an even more effective Ghostbusting unit, who could cover multiple calls at once or double-team larger threats like Vigo.

To wit, none of the original 4 questioned the women if they could do the job because of their gender. Because the thought never even once occurred to them. The only person that anyone questioned was... the one male on the new team, and he was sent off to Chicago instead of staying with the two teams.

Enough with the sexist bullshit. It's a gimmicky move on Paul Feig's part. And if he had changed Wonder Woman into a guy it'd be a gimmick too.

Wonder Woman is kind of essentially female, don't you think? The least you could do is come up with a comparison that, I don't know, makes even a tiny bit of sense.

Aren't Peter, Egon, Ray and Winston essentially 4 dudes don't you think?
We have Spider-Woman, Batwoman, Iron Woman. We can't have a Wonder-Man? OMFG! That's sexist.

We *do* have a Wonder Man.

Besides, you're now acting as if there's a shortage of male superheroes. Sexism is about the privileges that one sex enjoys over and then oppresses the other, and the scales are heavily tipped on the male side. That we can have dozens of male superhero movies but only a handful of female superhero movies *easily* illustrates that point in reality. Sure, change a female superhero to a male hero, but if you do that, you drastically reduce the number of female heroes with just that one change. If you change a male hero into a female, the male side loses a significantly smaller fraction. Indeed, for every one Spider-Woman that you can name, there's at least five more male Spider-heroes (Parker, Morales, 2099, Venom, Superior, etc) in the same book (thanks, Spider-verse!). Just because one of them is female doesn't mean that they're equal to the five males and thus should shut up and be happy about it.

Men and women ought to be equal. Women are *not* treated equally nor represented equally, nor do they have access to power and decisions equally.. You brought up the number that they're 51% of the viewing audience. But they certainly do not have 51% of the roles or movies or comedies. And they most certainly do not make up 51% of the superhero population. Because all those industries are created by men, simple as that. Even feminine hygiene products are marketed by color and beauty, and not according to their actual function and need -- because marketing is controlled by patriarchy.

If people are calling you sexist, then perhaps it would be best if you actually looked up the definition of sexism to see why they're calling you that (and also why you're misusing the term). That you equate satisfying women by telling them they should be happy with the crumbs they get and leave the good stuff alone is, itself, sexist. That's not gender balance, and that's not respect for women.