https://www.slashfilm.com/leslie-jones-new-ghostbusters-sequel/
The woman (and I use the term loosely) is such a bore.
Her film bombed, it didn't make any money, it lost $70 million.
shareI've found the reactions to Ghostbusters 2020 from the Ghostbusters: Answer the Call team amazing, belying a complete lack of self-awareness. Their complaints about the new film seem to be that this new film is ignoring their work and not respecting what they did and accomplished enough.
Setting aside the fact that the GAC movie bombed, they don't seem to realise that their complaint is the exact same complaint the original Ghostbusters fans leveled against their reboot film: criticisms that the GAC team dismissed and mocked.
They seem to be more into political views than a solid script and characters. Bringing up gender or race isn't so much rising expectations too high as just alienating potential film goers.
It's hypocritical that they doing the same thing to GB2020 as fans did to them.
Real reason they're being ignored they were nothing what come before and were not really interesting enough to captivate a new audience.
Exactly! People talk about bigotry, sexism, racism (etc.) in Hollywood, and they're not wrong, but Hollywood loves the bottom line more than anything else.
They might not cast as many black guys in leading roles as they do white guys, but they've got no racist problem with Will Smith - Will Smith makes bank. That rule applies here: if people clamoured for the ladies of the last Ghostbusters movie, if they had paid big dollahs to see them, then Hollywood would have greenlit three sequels. But they made no cash, so Hollywood forgets they exist.
Also they forget there was plenty of female leads in the past like Ripley from Alien or Sarah Conner but like like GB2016 they didn't try to make their gender a point, what annoys me a lot of films or TV shows with female leads is that they try to make their gender a point when it should be a non issue.
They were trying to appeal to women as they made up the market that director Paul Feig had the most success with but I don't think a movie about ghost hunting was going to appeal enough women for it to be profitable and a movie starring only four women was not going to appeal to young boys either since not many of the 2016 actress are huge draws at the box offices or popular with male viewers.
If you want a female lead it's always best to go with a boy/girl cast like two men and a women or two men and two women or two women in the team.
I think story and character dictate casting.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly doesn't have any women in it. It shouldn't. The story doesn't call for women.
Alien wanted to tell a futuristic story, so they thought it'd be cool to diversify the cast. See which parts fit the actors for once. They got a female lead out of it because Sigourney Weaver crushed it.
I think this is the reason Quentin Tarantino responded with, "I reject your hypothesis." The notion that he should have written more lines for a character because the character was female or because the character was being played by Margot Robbie is intrinsically moronic. The story and the character dictate the number of lines. He needed to tell a certain story - she gets these lines. Just as Sergio Leone wanted to tell a certain kind of story and cast certain people.
This is why I never had a problem with certain "woke" properties. Star Trek: Discovery is the best example. I've never seen it, so I'm not commenting on the show itself, but people responded oddly to that, I thought. Star Trek has always been about pushing for social justice. That's why Uhura was a ranking officer and why Chekov got to navigate. Roddenberry was all about making that point. And Trek has always had plenty of cringe, too (Code of Honor; Turnabout Intruder).
But when you take a politically-neutral property like Ghostbusters and try to brag, put down the fans, and dismiss their concerns or complaints - you've gone off the edge.
The all female aspect of 2016 had little to do with story or character it was a gimmick like doing an all black production of Hamlet or Oklahoma.
Ghostbusters was made at a time where a lot of films had all male casts like The Thing and Predator but the Ghostbusters were male types.
My understanding of the original Ghostbusters - what makes it so funny - is to take something awe-inspiring (contact with the supernatural) and to treat it in such a mundane fashion (exterminators). These doctors and scientists are just Joe-jobbing it up with ghosts. That's funny stuff. And who do you get for exterminators? Schlubs. Bums. Sleazy "game show host" Venkman, doughy smoker Ray, and strange-duck Egon. The guy they recruit is just looking for a paycheque. But they're dealing with the supernatural like cockroaches.
To switch that to women is...how many female exterminators are there?
Isn't the same with them as all women, would 2016 had been better if they were all men? Yeah maybe if you got a different writer/director.
Paul Feig does seem to try too hard to be progressive.
Not many female exterminators.
I think the original also relied on the situation and the characters to be funny. It allowed things to build, it allowed moments to go by without a joke, but most importantly: everybody was in-character. Bill Murray might have improvised, but *as* Venkman. Egon never does anything that isn't distinctly Egon.
The complaint I here leveled against Ghostbusters '16 most often is that they're just firing as many random jokey moments in, but nothing works. Nothing's in character, they're all just pumping as much material as possible out there and it floods the script.
This has been a complaint of mine for years with these semi-improvised films. I like The 40-Year Old Virgin, but the best, funniest parts are the parts that are more scripted, more on-message and on-task (in-character). The stuff where Paul Rudd is screwing around in Best Buy - not as good as when Steve Carrell is asking questions in the class. Because when the performers improvise with the goal of "be funny" they come up with a few good one-liners and some ridiculous things to do, but none of it moves the story forward or tells us about character, just that the actor can keep a straight face while saying, say, any line in Anchorman.
2016 was tonally different from the original to the point it was incongruent, the original cast had a unique screen chemistry that the female cast don't come close to. If they tried to make 2016 a continuation in tone and humour they either succeed or failed and if they didn't try to do that they made a fatal error. All the things that were wrong with 2016 were pretty obvious in the trailer, the trailer was the most damaging to the movie, it started with one of our heroes being vomited on and saying the goo got everywhere and ended with the others beating up a possessed hero, it's dumb.
All their gadgets would appeal to young boys where girls and women would be into chick flicks or romantic comedies. It is a boys movie, as you implied being exterminators doesn't appeal to most women really.
shareAll their emphasis on political views didn't really inspired any significant numbers to see 2016 or significant numbers to stay at home either.
SJWs complaining 2020 is gonna be all men and misogynistic when it's gonna be a mixed cast of boys and girls.
She jumped the gun too fast on criticizing the new Ghostbusters (This article is from Jan 19) as now it was confirmed that the main character will be a girl and a family..Making her complain that it is the men who wants to replace the women irrelevant.
shareMen or women really doesn't matter it's the script that matters. Women's rights really isn't relevant especially a movie about ghosthunting.
They're a bunch of hypocrites callings fans sexist when complaining there's boy's on the team is pretty sexist coming from a woman.
True but to be fair on the others, Leslie Jones really is the only one who went on a rant about it. Paul Feig the director of answer the call, said he was looking forward to see the new film and complimented Jason Reitman.
shareToday, it's come down to film after film, that men are misogynistic if they don't buy tickets to women's crap. The gals are putting their crazy on full display. And, to think, the idiot men in the 1920s gave 'em the vote, and the first thing they did was make beer illegal. You just can't make this shit up.
shareThe lady Ghostbusters aren't exactly sex symbols for men. Also women go to see male driven films anyway, more women went to see Rambo Last Blood.
shareIt's also hypocritical given that in her own version of the film, women replaced male characters. Seems like she doesn't want to understand that.
shareHer and others like her treat it if it's sexist for the original to be all men is hypocritical also because they're doing the same thing, she seems like a man hater since 2016 was anti male.
shareTurning male characters into women is seen as a cheap gimmick like turning Bond into a woman.
share"Its only wrong if someone else does it" is the logic nowadays.
shareAnnoys me that people are playing the diversity card.
shareIt was evident they were going to ignore her film, it bombed, it didn't make any money.
shareThat is really the crux of it. It could have been the worst movie ever made but if it raked in the dollars they would have franchised it.
She comes across as so bitter and seems to really have bought the idea that because she is black and female and the cast were all women that somehow it guaranteed them success and immunity from criticism.
But then these strong independent type women tend to be like that.
With production and marketing costs it needed 300 million to break even and half a billion to be considered a success, so the movie lost about 70 million dollars.
Problem is nobody cares if the Ghostbusters were all women, it's not if any of the actresses are sex symbols, the film isn't like a story of social norms it's a movie about ghosthunting, so the all female aspect didn't matter to anybody other than to the cast and crew especially Leslie Jones it would seem.
She wasn't up to date about it, she thinks it's gonna be all men when it's actually going to be a teenage team with two boys and two girls.
shareYou know what really sucks? Now when somebody wants to talk to me about Ghostbusters, of which I've always loved the first two original movies since I was I little kid, I have to say, "I'd rather not talk about politics."
How in the hell did that happen??? How did Ghostbusters, out of all the movie franchises in the world, have to be the one that was dragged down into the stupid dumb ass extremist politics of the late 2010's?
I miss when it was a simple popular comedy movie franchise about catching ghosts.
Now Ghostbusters might as well have an hour long panel talk show on MSNBC every night to discuss the political issues of the day. Leslie Jones even randomly starts ripping on Trump out of nowhere in the middle of her twitter rant...like she's just trying to bitch about politics, and decided to throw Ghostbusters in there, or vice versa. Politics and Ghostbusters go hand in hand now, and with this new sequel I'm guessing it will be more of the same, just from the other side of the argument bitching.
Reminds me of, when in an interview, Dan Aykroyd generalized the "trolls" (aka: people who have a differing opinion from yours and it upsets you) as he saw it who were making fun of the 2016 movie, describing them by age, race, gender, political views, and living status (the generic "mother's basement" insult). People who fit THOSE demographics were the ONLY ones making fun of the 2016 movie.
The moral of the story is rather grim: Fuck people...they suck, and they ruin things. I really mean that.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Haha.
Yeah, it is like that in general now. Everything is political. Why can't they just make a decent film or tv show without so much propaganda. In the end though it hurts them, so many of their films flop now because they bore and divide people. They are catering to an audience that doesn't even watch the films anyway!
share