During a panel discussion on diversity in film at the 8th annual PGA Produced By conference in Los Angeles, the 53-year-old writer-producer-director lamented that his upcoming Ghostbusters remake is constantly referred to as “all-female.”They may be the funniest women he knows, but as it happens, they're not very funny. Kristen Wiig is moderately amusing, but making her the lead in a comedy is like starting a WR3 as your top receiver. Your passing game is inevitably going to suffer.
“It was my idea to do it all-female,” Feig said, according to the Hollywood Reporter. “I wanted to do an origin story and I thought the best way to do it was by doing it with the funniest women I know.”
The trailer for the updated Ghostbusters was uploaded to YouTube in March and quickly earned the dubious honor of being the most-disliked film trailer in the video-sharing website’s history.
Monday, June 6, 2016
Feminism means never owning your failures
The director of the all-female Ghostbusters is already making excuses for the coming failure of his expensive film:
25 comments:
Kristen Wig can be very funny in a supporting role but as a lead she's boring. The others are like most female comedians, forgettable.
Translation: The only way I could get funding for this flop was if I made an all-female cast.
They all can be funny, in supporting roles. Just don't give the full weight on them.
I noticed he wanted this to be an "origin" story. So, it was intentionally set up to have a sequel. I understand the pressure studios have to build three movie stories, but it's incredibly risky if the first film doesn't have the material to hook the audience. They often deliberately leave plot points unresolved to give room for the follow on films, which can be bad story-telling if not done properly.
The climax of the movie's trailer in the theatre was a very graphic scene of the fat black female character slapping the shit out of a Rosie ODonnell-looking character.
To appeal to black female audiences?
PA
Note that (((Feig))) is getting irritated by all the criticism the 'Ghostbusters' film is already receiving, criticism that he attributes to a “very small minority” of “bullies” in the geek community who “write misogyny and hate and threats.”
What does putting words in multiple parentheses indicate?
Wiig is the lead? As in Bill Murray?
Whoa. I thought she was Ackroyd based on the trailer. Thought McCarthy was supposed to be the lovable loser scam artist lead.
That trailer is worse than I thought.
What is fascinating is how this shows the limit of feminist levers of control. Getting the studio to flush tens of millions down the toilet in the interest of advancing the feminist agenda? No problem.
Making audiences suffer through feminist pablum by tacking it on to a movie they otherwise want to see? No problem.
Making people agree to the most egregious PC nonsense? No problem.
Convincing people (even feminists) to laugh at feminist humor? Not possible.
@Anchorman: From Wikipedia:
Triple parentheses, also known as an echo, are used online by "Neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and white nationalists" to highlight Jewish names.
https://mic.com/articles/144228/echoes-exposed-the-secret-symbol-neo-nazis-use-to-target-jews-online#.IEi9LqvGt
Triple parentheses, also known as an echo, are used online by "Neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and white nationalists" to highlight Jewish names.
Also by Jews and philo-Semites. And American Indians, occasionally.
“I wanted to do an origin story and I thought the best way to do it was by doing it with the funniest women I know.”
They're about to learn that looks aren't everything.
Who knows? Maybe this whole thing is a Producers-style plot on the part of (((Feig))).
Heh. Judd Apatow is blaming it on Trump supporters: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/entertainment/judd-apatow-ghostbusters-trump/
Of course the nazis really are slandering Jews by claiming this movie is good for the Jews when it would seem to me just the opposite
Wiig was great as the lead in Bridesmaids.
The key difference being that there she was playing a woman (with unusual candor), rather than a man.
If they kept the budget around 75 million, it will probably end up slightly in the black.
Sitting through the godawful thing will be required SJW tribal signaling for the first week it's out.
Seeing it will show those Trump voting Dudebros!!!
The hilarious part being they will actually have to sit through it.
Normally an SJW sermon movie never rates lower than a 65% at Rottentomatoes. If it's really bad it might end up around the 50% mark.
I am curious to see where this one will land.
Daniel, remember this is a feminist film, so none of the women will be losers. They will all be brilliant but held back by the evil patriarchy.
I will grant one thing to this movie. A big part of reason people already hate it, is Ghostbusters II.
The Ghostbusters franchise is not Star Wars, the second one was not an improvement. The second one was pretty much a film school lesson in how not to make a sequel.
GBII was effectively a shot for shot remake of the original. Point to any scene in GBII and you can find it's analog in the first movie. Yes, there were a few small things here and there that were funny but taken as a whole the movie was awful because it didn't take any chances.
I suppose that is the core of the negative reaction to this movie. It's not that it's an all girl remake of Ghostbusters, its the fact that it feels like an all girl remake of Ghostbusters II.
They were very careful to point out in the trailer that there will be no surprises and no risks were taken in the making of this movie.
I suppose that is the core of the negative reaction to this movie. It's not that it's an all girl remake of Ghostbusters, its the fact that it feels like an all girl remake of Ghostbusters II.
If it weren't for the fact that nobody in Hollywood these days is capable of doing so anyway, they might as well just pass a law making it illegal to make any movies with original plots.
They should just rename the movie "Trainwreck" and be done with it
Why do I have a hunch that Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd and the rest of the cast of the original Ghostbusters will suddenly form the settled conviction that they are actually women and will demand a place on the new Ghostbusters XX film?
Seen the trailer, with a an open mind I must say, how boring. And by the way, if Judd Apatow is reading this, I don't like Trump. In fact I don't like this election cycle, they're all morons...where was I? Ah yes, the trailer makes the movie not only boring and insufferable, but it's SO forced. It's like "Look! Chicks fighting ghosts! You will enjoy!"
Seen the trailer, with a an open mind I must say, how boring. And by the way, if Judd Apatow is reading this, I don't like Trump. In fact I don't like this election cycle, they're all morons...where was I? Ah yes, the trailer makes the movie not only boring and insufferable, but it's SO forced. It's like "Look! Chicks fighting ghosts! You will enjoy!"
An all female *sequel* set 30 years later could have been OK. The initial decision to reboot it betrays an extremely lazy attempt to follow bad trends rather than create a good product. If it were all female just for the hell of it, or for comedy value, that would be OK too.
I'm thinking Sarah Silverman playing an autistic gadget-maker, Jennifer Lawrence as an overly serious wannabe badass, and maybe that weird chick with black hair (Kate Micucci) as the paranormal nerd, could be entertaining. Then find a woman who's actually funny to be the profiteering capitalist. It might not be funny but it could be entertaining.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.