Support NeoGAF

[Flo_Evans]

That's not a gimmick. Sony wanted a Ghostbusters film. They shopped it around. Paul Fieg said yes. Paul Fieg likes working with women, so Paul Fieg cast all women. Done.

That is literally his creative desire at work, but through your personal lens, it's somehow a podium and a cheap hook. You should probably think about that a bit more.

I mean thats fine, do what you want. I wasn't really clamoring for a new Ghostbusters in the 1st place. I also didn't see the new transformers because they looked like shit, or the new TMNT cause it looked like shit. I'm not all over reddit or twitter sending death threats to the cast.

I just find it funny this movie is now a sexist battleground when Feig is the one who introduced that element, you have people losing their shit on one side and on the other people trying to defend bad movies from sexist bogeymen.

 

[The Shadow]

The first trailer might've looked bad and made things worse, but the second they announced the cast would be all female, people went from cautious to losing their shit over it without knowing anything about it

Yes. This right here. Even before the first trailer dropped people were burning their plastic proton packs.

Hell, I don't think the people that are so upset even think they're sexist. You can be sexist and racist without being overtly aware of it. Prejudice exists even among "enlightened" people, and I have no doubt that's what's going on here. Why the outrage over an all-female Ghostbusters reboot instead of, say, the re-imaged TNMT movies, Transformers, the new Power Rangers iron men, all the 80's and 90's movies like Robocop and Total Recall and Terminator that they keep fucking up, etc, etc, etc. Yes, people got upset, but they just kind of petered out and gave up. Not with Ghostbusters. Holy shit! This femi-nazi propaganda movie (trailer) must be stopped.

Seriously. The tears spilled over Ghostbusters is hugely disproportional to the other reboots and remakes. This is especially true because collectively, we've watched maybe ~5 minutes of the ENTIRE MOVIE. Fucking ridiculous. I don't buy this "calm discourse" that it has nothing to do with the all-female team. I don't.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

I felt like the lesbian shipping requests for Avatar Korra were less focused on progressiveness and more focused on the Yuri fappers.

Oh yes those yuri fappers, such a large and viable market in my opinion because I'm 14 and have to be cynical about everything all the time.

 

[The Elite]

The sense of ownership and entitlement goes both ways. The fans who want to keep things status quo and the fans who are yearning for change both demonstrate a sense of entitlement and perceived ownership of a property to think they are making rational arguments in favour of their beloved franchise.

The best case scenario generally lies somewhere in the healthy middle at a point when change can be satisfied without slighting those who feel change may be detrimental. Finding that balance leads to argument as neither side is willing to settle.

It's funny how I can exist on one side of the argument in one case and the other side in another. Female James Bond. I think that's a bad idea while a female Doctor Who just seems like the natural order of things for me. It's all about what's best for a particular character.

Ghostbusters is looking good. Change is good when it's applied appropriately and I admittedly take ownership and grasp at my own sense of entitlement for my beloved franchises just as much as the next Internet fanboy. I'm willing to listen though and give things a chance but I think everyone has a right to their opinion. If they don't want to see something because they aren't happy with change or lack there of, more power to them.

 

[Metrotab]

Not only does that line of questioning pretend like the property they're trying to "protect" with their fandom didn't come from the same multimedia conglomerates currently exploiting the brand in the first place, but it's the same sort of dodge you can see in the Gillian Anderson as Bond thread, and any other discussion about race-or-gender-bending an established hero:

"Why don't you make them their own original thing, over there somewhere, so it can go be over there somewhere, and I don't have to look at it. This way I get to claim that I'm all for original entertainment when I really don't give a shit about that, plus I get to call it a shameless ripoff of the thing I do like if I feel so inclined. But if you change the thing I like, now I have to pay attention to it, and that makes me upset."

Who are you quoting?

 

[DICKS AHOY]

I still don't get why James had to suddenly become this big target when it comes to discussing Ghostbusters on news sites. There has to be way more, like, legitimate "THIS FILM IS FEMINIST PROPAGANDA TURNING MY PURELY HYPOTHETICAL CHILDREN INTO SJW'S" types screaming about this film, but instead news places are effectively publicly shaming someone who sidestepped all that BS while telling their audience why they don't wish to see the film. It's accomplished little beyond giving credibility to those who were vocal about the film's faults for political reasons and helps paint this entire thing as a huge studio and the news ganging up on those who dare speak out against it. It's just dumb.

I'm not even a fanatical Ghostbusters fan but this remake still looks awful to me; should me not wishing to see it reflect poorly on my personal character?

I felt like the lesbian shipping requests for Avatar Korra were less focused on progressiveness and more focused on the Yuri fappers.

To me I always saw it as the creators partially giving the finger to Nick over their shabby treatment of the show. I doubt Korra would've been bi if the show had remained on TV

Spoiler

besides all the /34/, naturally.

 

[stufte]

I remember hearing things like the original director of Ghostbusters wanted an all female team but could never complete it.
Paul Fieg gets to direct it and with respect to the original creator, make it based on all female-cast.
So yeah what we got is different than the original vision, but still the idea was the same.

Which make it silly because we heard over 10 years this stuff. It only became an issue with the first trailer, LOL.

I don't know where you heard that, but that's not correct. It was originally written for John Belushi and John Candy, based on an SNL skit.

 

[TheSlySoul]

To me I always saw it as the creators partially giving the finger to Nick over their shabby treatment of the show. I doubt Korra would've been bi if the show had remained on TV

Spoiler

besides all the /34/, naturally.

Season 3 and 4 really felt like a middle finger to Nick. Cannot blame the team because Nick kept flip-flopping on renewing it.

Now Nick has got .... ummmmm ... I got nothing.

 

[Metroidvania]

I'm not entirely sure the comparison with an apparent campaign for Elsa to get a girlfriend, which I've never even heard of, to be in relevance of scope to the distaste/hate/other negative emotions some people have towards the new Ghostbusters.

Just feels like the author wanted it to stick it in there to draw some relevance to the underlying context of the thorny issue of one element of the anti-Feig film, instead of what they were aiming for in the 'crowd-demanded' vs 'popular opinion is changing, and movies should, or at least could, try to reflect that without leading to a huge loss in revenue' angle.

Those trailers got so many dislikes not simply because the game looked uninspired to fans, but because the franchise didn't bring out a game more in line with what they expected or hoped for. It became more personal, like the existence of that game was depriving them of a continued franchise or something.

I don't completely disagree with the Metroid comparison (and have not been a fan at all of anything regarding Federation Force that I've seen), but I feel there's different underlying factors insofar as it relates to the Franchise and its continued existence, especially with sales presumably playing a factor into Nintendo's continued development of said franchise.

It's also an off-shoot as opposed to a 'reboot', but that's a different argument.

But like I said, I don't disagree in that what people 'want' and their expectation is playing a role therein, especially as it ties into both the casting choices, and the accompanying different style of comedy Reitman, Akroyd, and Ramis had vs what Feig tends to use, and has shown in trailers.

I felt like the lesbian shipping requests for Avatar Korra were less focused on progressiveness and more focused on the Yuri fappers.

Because there are so many Yuri fappers out there, that the creators felt the best way to end the series (after it'd been pushed out of Nick) was to give them a bisexual avatar as a fanservice reward....as opposed to the reason Konietzko outright says here

Seems legit.

 

[The_Kid]

I just find it funny this movie is now a sexist battleground when Feig is the one who introduced that element, you have people losing their shit on one side and on the other people trying to defend bad movies from sexist bogeymen.

Yeah, if he hadn't have brought women into the picture this silly sexist argument wouldn't have been brought up. Shame on him.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Who are you quoting?

It's a paraphrase of the reasoning that often fuels that "why can't they just..." question.

 

[entremet]

I don't think it's an entitlement or fan culture thing. It's the internet has given people a voice thing.

Fan have been throwing tantrums on creative decisions for decades. Now they have widespread mediums to get that out since everyone can have a platform for free--Twitter, YT, etc.

 

[Eidan]

I still don't get why James had to suddenly become this big target when it comes to discussing Ghostbusters on news sites. There has to be way more, like, legitimate "THIS FILM IS FEMINIST PROPAGANDA TURNING MY PURELY HYPOTHETICAL CHILDREN INTO SJW'S" types screaming about this film, but instead news places are effectively publicly shaming someone who sidestepped all that BS while telling their audience why they don't wish to see the film. It's accomplished little being giving credibility to those who were vocal about the film's faults for political reasons and helps paint this entire thing as a huge studio and the news ganging up on those who dare speak out against it. It's just dumb.

He has a large following, and he made a video about not wanting to see a movie that has been getting a lot of press because of a backlash that many feel is fueled by misogyny. It's not surprising some outlets would pick up on it and discuss it.

 

[The Elite]

Not only does that line of questioning pretend like the property they're trying to "protect" with their fandom didn't come from the same multimedia conglomerates currently exploiting the brand in the first place, but it's the same sort of dodge you can see in the Gillian Anderson as Bond thread, and any other discussion about race-or-gender-bending an established hero:

"Why don't you make them their own original thing, over there somewhere, so it can go be over there somewhere, and I don't have to look at it. This way I get to claim that I'm all for original entertainment when I really don't give a shit about that, plus I get to call it a shameless ripoff of the thing I do like if I feel so inclined. But if you change the thing I like, now I have to pay attention to it, and that makes me upset."

The assumption your making here is that people are going to actively dismiss the "original thing" that is being made over there somewhere. Like I've said, I'm against a gender swap on Bond for various reasons pertaining to the character but I am more than willing to support a female spy film franchise. Actively willing. That's not dismissive behaviour. I just don't see a need to change the male lead of an existing franchise to satiate a fervor that seems rather unnecessary when alternate options are available, and that's said with an understanding that new franchises are difficult to lift of the ground.

The problem here isn't people ignoring the thing being done "over there somewhere" for the sake of ignoring it. I feel it has a lot more to do with Hollywood supporting such an endeavor and giving it the appropriate marketing to elevate it to being something as big as Bond. Hollywood doesn't support minorities. Full Stop. I love female spy driven stories.

I want there to be something in the market like that, but I don't want a gender swapped Bond. I am willing to pay attention to that. Emma Peel, Modesty Blaise and even Black Widow could be the catalyst for a franchise of their own.

 

[TheSlySoul]

I don't know where you heard that, but that's not correct. It was originally written for John Belushi and John Candy, based on an SNL skit.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/04/the-strange-history-of-the-ghostbusters-reboot

May 2009, the young team was going to be male and female.

There you go, it was planned to have some of the new young members be female.
Not all of them, but it is something they changed later on.

I honestly was hoping some of the plans worked out with the OG passing the torch, but it didn't.

 

[MHWilliams]

I mean thats fine, do what you want. I wasn't really clamoring for a new Ghostbusters in the 1st place. I also didn't see the new transformers because they looked like shit, or the new TMNT cause it looked like shit. I'm not all over reddit or twitter sending death threats to the cast.

Good! And if people had just treated Ghostbusters like those films, we wouldn't be here.

I just find it funny this movie is now a sexist battleground when Feig is the one who introduced that element, you have people losing their shit on one side and on the other people trying to defend bad movies from sexist bogeymen.

He "introduced that element" by simply casting women.

Do you see why that's a problem?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/04/the-strange-history-of-the-ghostbusters-reboot

May 2009, the young team was going to be male and female.

There you go, it was planned to have some of the new young members be female.
Not all of them, but it is something they changed later on.

I honestly was hoping some of the plans worked out with the OG passing the torch, but it didn't.

They could never get Murray to commit and then Ramis died. Hence where we are now. Sony tried to make that film. Never got off the ground.

 

[The Shadow]

I still don't get why James had to suddenly become this big target when it comes to discussing Ghostbusters on news sites.

My guess is because he didn't release a "very special" youtube video every time a remake or reboot came out. He's literally made money going to many of these remakes and reboots, reviewing them, and bitching (or praising!) the changes, but Ghostbusters all of a sudden is some personal limit of Hollywood going too far? Bullshit.

I'm not even a fanatical Ghostbusters fan but this remake still looks awful to me; should me not wishing to see it reflect poorly on my personal character?

You can totally believe it looks awful and not see it. If you get on your soapbox and proudly proclaim that you're not going to see this film for ....reasons.... whilst ignoring all the other remakes and reboot tripe, people are going to justifiably question your reasons.

It's as simple as that. James makes his money watching and reviewing movies (among other things), so yeah, when he takes a stand against...fucking Ghostbusters, you have to wonder why Ghostbusters and not something else.

 

[brandonh83]

He "introduced that element" by simply casting women.

Do you see why that's a problem?

And some people are saying there's no sexism involved. I mean, nah all that graffiti on the underpass, you're just imagining shit.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

The assumption your making here is that people are going to actively dismiss the "original thing" that is being made over there somewhere.

Why wouldn't I make that assumption?

Look at the last few decades of popular entertainment. I can make that assumption because I've seen that very thing happen over and over and over and over again. You can see it here on GAF pretty clearly, too. Look at the thread for "The Nice Guys," for a quick, recent example. Then look at any given thread for any installment of an established series. Look at how involved the conversations get. Look at the level of investment.

People don't get as excited, or interested, in new things. They like their new things to be "new" within the approved of bounds of the familiar. They want new-ish things to be placed within a safe context, one that doesn't make their fandom wobbly or unsure. Things can be new...but they'd better be new under the shingle of an already established/trusted brand. Otherwise it's either a) a ripoff, or b) something not worth my time, but if someone else wants to check it out, good on 'em (shrug).

Look at actual superhero comics for another example. How many new superheroes really get to latch on and grow an audience. How many unique new supers at either of the big two really get that readership and attention? It doesn't happen. They slide out of pulls and off of shelves until (or unless) they're paired up with the already established characters. Because "originality" only counts insofar as you're "originally" taking an idea from something already successful, and applying it to the also-already-successful thing you already like.

 

[TheSlySoul]

They could never get Murray to cmmit and then Ramis died. Hence where we are now. Sony tried to make that film. Never got off the ground.

Yep, the original plans are not really that different from the new one in terms of the central idea. Murray was being a diva which is why it didn't work.

Which is why it is funny the idea of a female Ghostbuster is only now causing issues specially when the 2nd cartoon had one.
I bet this movie would have probably had cameos if they get in touch. Most of the OG actors do not care enough to make an appearance.

 

[G-Fex]

I don't think it's an entitlement or fan culture thing. It's the internet has given people a voice thing..

yes, a voice to fandoms who are fucking awful.

 

[Fusebox]

But Rolfe’s video is striking because of its central presumption that he deserves to want to see it

Wtf is this shit...

 

[anaron]

the hashtags demanding a characters' sexuality are just...beyond.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Yeah, if he hadn't have brought women into the picture this silly sexist argument wouldn't have been brought up. Shame on him.

I mean he set out to specifically cast women in the movie. Thats like his whole deal. Oh look a buddy cop movie, but with girls! oh look a spy movie, but with girls! oh look a ghostbusters movie... wait for it, with girls!

It just feels cheap to me. Maybe they are good IDK.

 

[stufte]

I mean he set out to specifically cast women in the movie. Thats like his whole deal. Oh look a buddy cop movie, but with girls! oh look a spy movie, but with girls! oh look a ghostbusters movie... wait for it, with girls!

It just feels cheap to me. Maybe they are good IDK.

He also did it because he finds male comedies to be too "agressive".

"I love funny women. It's just been my life's goal to get funny women better roles, because I just throughout my career saw the funniest women I knew showing up in projects not being allowed to be funny. And usually just having to be mean or the bitchy girlfriend... and I was like this is such an injustice because the guys get to be hilarious... And it's selfish too because my brain thinks more in terms of female comedy, I guess. Male comedy in general, this is an overgeneralization, but can be very over aggressive...

"The hardest thing about casting "Ghostbusters" was there's 30 other women I would love to have in those roles too. But you've got to go like, who's going to be the perfect mix that aren't sort of going to step on each other and be mirror images of each other. So, these four are so unique and have such strong voices... If my career is nothing but working with funny women and giving more and more of them opportunities, that's really all I care about."

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Wtf is this shit...

It's accurate. That's the feeling at the core of his indignation (even tempered as that indignation was presented)

While the thread is likely going to veer into the railings and become yet another trial of the mere concept of ingrained sexism in media, the piece is interesting because of the question of fan-ownership that it's addressing—and I'm trying to respond solely to that aspect (I'm fairly certain most people coming in here have had more than their fill of my syllables on the sexism side of the discussion, if the subtweets and the off-board griping is any indication).

That's why the Frozen discussion, or the Cap/Bucky discussion, are just as fair game as Rolfe's ill-advised video that went up on just the right (wrong) day to catch the eye of the entertainment media. Because what the piece is really getting at is the idea that (as I said in a prior post) fandom's sense of ownership, while always somewhat present, is starting to feel much more overdeveloped in a rapid time-frame.

That sense of ownership is hungry for validation, which is why any number of -isms can be called in to help support it should it start to feel like fandom's importance is getting wobbly. But the core idea—we're fans, so we know best, so you should just listen to us if you don't want to fuck it all up, and if you don't listen to us, you're getting written off—is shortsighted and adversarial when it absolutely doesn't have to be.

But being adversarial is also part of why people self-select their little pop-culture tribes like this in the first place.

 

[Flo_Evans]

He also did it because he finds male comedies to be too "agressive".

Yeah this dude is straight up sexist. Maybe he likes the casting couch directing benifits eh?

 

[The_Kid]

Yeah this dude is straight up sexist. Maybe he likes the casting couch directing benifits eh?

Please tell me you aren't serious.

 

[BlackGoku03]

These remakes/reboots/reimaginings are all about playing into fan nostalgia, so I don't think there's any issue if fans like Rolfe voice their disinterest.

Remakes of Total Recall, Robocop, Halloween, Point Break etc, etc, all of them had much the same response that Ghostbusters is getting way before release, I don't see what makes this film a special case.

Precisely. The article even mentions that Hollywood is riding a huge wave of nostalgia to sell tickets.

People who are fans of the nostalgic material they're remaking/rebooting, I think, have a say in how the new product appealed to them.

People can't help but to feel a sense of ownership over these characters/movies because the studios shove merchandise down our throats and guess what? People buy into it. And then get upset when a status quo is changed, or the reboot is shitty. I can't blame them.

Don't get me wrong, I am tired of hearing "Not my Superman. Not my Batman. Not my RoboCop." But the studios and creative teams are part of the problem too when they just hand out bullshit remakes and movies that nobody asked for.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Yeah this dude is straight up sexist. Maybe he likes the casting couch directing benifits eh?

What a odd comment.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Yeah this dude is straight up sexist. Maybe he likes the casting couch directing benifits eh?

Classy.

 

[Eidan]

I mean he set out to specifically cast women in the movie. Thats like his whole deal. Oh look a buddy cop movie, but with girls! oh look a spy movie, but with girls! oh look a ghostbusters movie... wait for it, with girls!

It just feels cheap to me. Maybe they are good IDK.

Does casting women in lead roles always feel "cheap" to you?

 

[The Elite]

Why wouldn't I make that assumption?

Look at the last few decades of popular entertainment. I can make that assumption because I've seen that very thing happen over and over and over and over again. You can see it here on GAF pretty clearly, too. Look at the thread for "The Nice Guys," for a quick, recent example. Then look at any given thread for any installment of an established series. Look at how involved the conversations get. Look at the level of investment.

People don't get as excited, or interested, in new things. They like their new things to be "new" within the approved of bounds of the familiar. They want new-ish things to be placed within a safe context, one that doesn't make their fandom wobbly or unsure.

Look at actual superhero comics, for another example. How many new superheroes really get to latch on and grow an audience. How many unique new supers at either of the big two really get that readership and attention? It doesn't happen. They slide out of pulls and off of shelves until (or unless) they're paired up with the already established characters. Because "originality" only counts insofar as you're "originally" taking an idea from something already successful, and applying it to the also-already-successful thing you already like.

I don't really disagree with anything you have to say here but I'm not sure just changing the existing franchises is always the solution. You're right though, people do seem dead set on supporting existing properties at the detriment of giving something new a reasonable chance. It's frustrating and I can appreciate the reasoning behind changing existing properties to give minority workers a chance. Audiences want to be represented in the movies they go to see and, as a white male, I have had a ton of luck with that. I get it. Or, at least I try to understand.

In some cases it works. My gob-smack love for Ghostbusters made me hesitant of change at first but when you look at the reality of the situation change was necessary and it made sense. So I'm for an all-female led Ghostbusters. With Doctor Who, well, it just makes sense within the context of that universe so why the hell not.

With Bond, I'm hesitant because the franchise isn't in a terrible state. The last film was lackluster and some elements of the formula are still suffering from fatigue but I don't think the male lead is one of them.

To get back to your point, I will be honest, I don't know what it will take to get the base of fanboys that seem to latch on to the same properties over and over again to reach outside their bubble and give original, minority driven properties a chance. Part of it might be, resurrecting existing franchises and changing things up to feature a more diverse cast. A known-commodity that fans are willing to respond to that is now minority driven actually isn't a bad idea.

I do have to say, the Ghostbusters response has been disheartening though. Maybe 30+ years is still too soon for some? I'm not sure. I am a huge fanboy as a I said before but I came around on the idea pretty quickly, especially with Paul Feig and Kristin Wiig on board.

Maybe someone will finally look at my Back to the Future 2015 script starring Donald Glover that I really should get around to writing one day.

 

[Lothar]

My guess is because he didn't release a "very special" youtube video every time a remake or reboot came out. He's literally made money going to many of these remakes and reboots, reviewing them, and bitching (or praising!) the changes, but Ghostbusters all of a sudden is some personal limit of Hollywood going too far? Bullshit.



You can totally believe it looks awful and not see it. If you get on your soapbox and proudly proclaim that you're not going to see this film for ....reasons.... whilst ignoring all the other remakes and reboot tripe, people are going to justifiably question your reasons.

It's as simple as that. James makes his money watching and reviewing movies (among other things), so yeah, when he takes a stand against...fucking Ghostbusters, you have to wonder why Ghostbusters and not something else.

Ghostbusters is one of his favorite movies of all time. That's why this bad remake bothers him more than other bad remakes. As for why make a video, James has made many Ghostbusters videos over the years, including ideas for a remake and tour of Ghostbusters locations. It would have been extremely odd if he didn't make a video on this topic.

The people criticizing James know absolutely nothing about him and so shouldn't be commenting on him and asking why he's doing something. It hurts the credibility of anything they say regarding the hatred for the Ghostbusters trailers.

 

[Nekofrog]

I mean thats fine, do what you want. I wasn't really clamoring for a new Ghostbusters in the 1st place. I also didn't see the new transformers because they looked like shit, or the new TMNT cause it looked like shit. I'm not all over reddit or twitter sending death threats to the cast.

I just find it funny this movie is now a sexist battleground when Feig is the one who introduced that element, you have people losing their shit on one side and on the other people trying to defend bad movies from sexist bogeymen.

Wtf are you even talking about? Feig cast women. How is that introducing an "element"? Literally seconds after casting was announced, before any kind of principal photography or filming began, people were screaming from the hills that having women in the movie was a personal affront to their childhood. Sheer madness and hatred poured from a gigantic portion of geek sites. People called the women HORRIBLE things for visiting sick children in a hospital in costume. Like, venemous things. When the design of the proton pack was revealed, Feig literally sent the design specs to a fan over twitter who pretended to be into it, he built one, then set it on fire and tweeted it to feig and the cast with some really nasty things to say about them.

You're either ignoring what happened in the lead up to this movie or you're ignorant.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Yep, the original plans are not really that different from the new one in terms of the central idea. Murray was being a diva which is why it didn't work.

Which is why it is funny the idea of a female Ghostbuster is only now causing issues specially when the 2nd cartoon had one.

The central idea of Ghostbusters is silly, men catching ghosts and people turning into dogs and fighting a god and a giant marshmellow man.

That is not why GB is so good, it was a character movie, it's the characters and humour style with some of the best humour not even being from jokes but from characters just being who they are.

If Murray had starred in a new GB movie it would not be the randomness and slapstick the new trailer presents itself as, that is a totally different kind of movie to what both GB 1 and 2 were. That is a big reason why so much hate for this, it's a different type ofmovie, not a different cast or the fact it a remake.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

People who are fans of the nostalgic material they're remaking/rebooting, I think, have a say in how the new product appealed to them.

This is the misunderstanding that I think the article is getting at though:

They don't.

Not really. They can voice their opinion, they can be displeased/angry, all that. They can not go. They can even make a video about why they're not going, ill-advised as that might be (especially if they're a YouTube star whose entire career is based off humorously reviewing bad interpretations of childhood properties). But fans having the right to express an opinion on the quality of the media they consume is not the same thing as fans having the right to creatively influence the media themselves.

Like, the possibility of toning back the fandom or leaving it completely isn't even an option for a lot of people - and it should be. It's not even considered, usually. Instead, fans believe, as you just put forth, that they're owed a seat at the decisionmaking table. Like they're stockholders who deserve to attend the board meetings.

(this viewpoint isn't dissuaded by many people's voluntary surrender to executive-think that causes them to replace words like "story" and "character" with "IP" and "Franchise")

That sense of ownership and its ensuing entitlement is part of the growing disillusionment that gets people frustrated and heated over their media like they do. That seems to be what the article is poking at.

edit: Thanks for that post, Doc.

 

[God Dayumm]

Does casting women in lead roles always feel "cheap" to you?

With Feig, yes. That is like the only thing he has going for him.

J. J. Abrams, on the other hand, did an excellent job casting a woman as the lead in a role that male actors used to have. The reviews, ticket sales, and acclaim from old and new fans show this.

 

[The Shadow]

Maybe someone will finally look at my Back to the Future 2015 script starring Donald Glover that I really should get around to writing one day.

He's too street for BttF.

 

[Ishida]

I don't give a shit if Rolfe doesn't want to see it. What annoys me is when people are egocentric enough to think I need to know why they don't want to see something. I didn't give a shit about why you hated something when I used to kick you out of the comic shop for bothering other customers for hours on end, and I don't give a shit now even if you've found an audience that, for some reason, actually listens to your drivel.

Rolfe did not point a gun at your head and force you to watch the video, so I have no idea of what you are complaining about. He posted a video on why he won't watch the new movie. People who are interested in his opinion and reasons will watch the video. Those who don't care (Like you).... Why are you so pissed to begin with?

That video is not aimed at YOU. So you are the one who needs to stop being egocentric.

 

[atr0cious]

this right here. Ghostbusters was not the right podium for such an important issue. It weakens the movie and trivializes what women's power is about.

Not saying you are, but the idea that a female reboot is somehow a political stance is sexist. It's saying women can't be Ghostbusters without an agenda, which is horseshit.

 

[Eidan]

With Feig, yes. That is like the only thing he has going for him.

J. J. Abrams, on the other hand, did an excellent job casting a woman as the lead in a role that male actors used to have. The reviews, ticket sales, and acclaim from old and new fans show this.

It's so weird how you see his filmography and you think "cheap attempts to add women in leading roles", and I just think, "This guy likes working with Melissa McCarthy". Fascinating.

 

[BlastProcessing]

The central idea of Ghostbusters is silly, men catching ghosts and people turning into dogs and fighting a god and a giant marshmellow man.

That is not why GB is so good, it was a character movie, it's the characters and humour style with some of the best humour not even being from jokes but from characters just being who they are.

If Murray had starred in a new GB movie it would not be the randomness and slapstick the new trailer presents itself as, that is a totally different kind of movie to what both GB 1 and 2 were.

Yeah, the originals would have never stooped to a cheap slapstick gag were a character gets covered in slime.

The type of character comedy you are talking about is almost impossible to get across in trailers. The Original Ghostbusters trailer was pretty bad. We don't really know what the tone of this movie will be until we see it.

 

[SpaceWolf]

Man, Hollywood really pulled the lid off Pandora's box when they decided to greenlight this Ghostbuster's remake.

 

[Nekofrog]

Yeah, the originals would have never stooped to a cheap slapstick gag were a character gets covered in slime.

The type of character comedy you are talking about is almost impossible to get across in trailers. The Original Ghostbusters trailer was pretty bad. We don't really know what the tone of this movie will be until we see it.

Ghost BJ dream sequence is *TOTALLY* character driven, man. No stooping there.

 

[The Shadow]

It's so weird how you see his filmography and you think "cheap attempts to add women in leading roles", and I just think, "This guy likes working with Melissa McCarthy". Fascinating.

It's pretty common for directors to re-cast actors and actresses they like. Jonny Depp and Tim Burton. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy with Nolan, etc.

Feig does it for the attention though.

 

[God Dayumm]

It's so weird how you see his filmography and you think "cheap attempts to add women in leading roles", and I just think, "This guy likes working with Melissa McCarthy". Fascinating.

Well, then lets make it "Cheap attempts to add Melissa McCarthy in leading roles", a stance that rings true to the both of us.

 

[Jeffolation]

The people criticizing James know absolutely nothing about him and so shouldn't be commenting on him and asking why he's doing something. It hurts the credibility of anything they say regarding the hatred for the Ghostbusters trailers.

He entered the conversation regarding this film but because he's a Real Fan his comments about the film that he hasn't seen are above reproach? What?

 

[What did he mean by this?]

That Rolfe's video has become some kind of lynchpin of this whole thing is embarrassing. If the flick had a scene of the original cast handing down proton packs to the women, he would want to see it.

 

[brandonh83]

The new Star Wars did that, kept enough fan service to please people who watched the originals and did enough new stuff to not make it feel like a complete copy.

Plenty have also bitched to the high heavens about this and have straight up called it a remake of A New Hope-- which is complete bullshit-- I'm just saying that even when they do "stick" to something, people cry that it's not original enough. Not everyone, but it happens. The whole point is that not everyone will be pleased with everything, and as an artist you have to go with what you feel is right. Not everyone will feel that Paul Feig was right, just like not everyone feels that Ghostbusters 2 which was all the same folks back was right.