He kinda explains his reasons on an interview.
I'm gonna post some tidbits that scare me.
Are you freed from having to have one person who’s the Venkman and so forth, or do you feel like might adhere to some of those familiar dynamics?We want to have fun with giving nods to what came before, but we don’t want to be bound by it because Katie and I already have talked at length and we have really fun ideas for things. But we want to tell the stories that we would like to tell, which means we want to tell the character arcs that we want to tell, which means we want to start with some of our characters in a different place or with different personalities and things they have to overcome and learn through the experience of this first movie.
You're making a remake, but you don't want to be bound by the original... Then Why the %$#@ are you calling this Piece of Crap Ghostbusters? This is a gimmick to ride on the coattails of the GB brand Similar to a crappy movie starring the douchey son of Fresh Prince.
Do you know who the characters are going to be and know what the story’s going to be?
We have a very rough, rough outline that we’re working with, but definitely know the basic story, know what we want the basic characters to do, know what we want the world to do and what the rules of our world are, but nothing I want to discuss obviously. It’s cool. I think it’s a really strong origin story that feels real—as real as a ghost story is. It’s going to be really fun and real. We’ll make it scary and funny.
So, basically they have nothing other than Ghostbusters will be females, because reasons. THAT is the root of the problem. Feig has given no reasons as to why do the movie with an all female cast, besides, "reasons"...
You’ve worked with so many funny women, but when news first came out of your plans there was still backlash to the idea. Deadline ran a piece with the headline “Do We Want An Estrogen-Powered ‘Ghostbusters?’” What is your reaction to that?
I just don’t understand why it’s ever an issue anymore. I’ve promoted both Bridesmaids and The Heat and myself and my cast are still hit constantly with the question, “will this answer the question of whether women can be funny?” I really cannot believe we’re still having this conversation. Some people accused it of kind of being a gimmick and it’s like, it would be a gimmick if I wasn’t somebody whose brain doesn’t automatically go to like, I want to just do more stuff with women. I just find funny women so great. For me it’s just more of a no-brainer. I just go, what would make me excited to do it? I go: four female Ghostbusters to me is really fun. I want to see that dynamic. I want to see that energy and that type of comedy and them going up against these ghosts and going up against human detractors and rivals and that kind of thing. When people accuse it of being a gimmick I go, why is a movie starring women considered a gimmick and a movie starring men is just a normal movie?Because it IS A GIMMICK you ^%$#ing moron! It's not about whether women can be funny. They can, but that's not the point here. The reason that you always gravitate to "use women" is not a reason. It's you trying to justify your gimmick as a director. Now to answer your question :why is a movie starring women considered a gimmick and a movie starring men is just a normal movie?
BECAUSE this movie is a remake of a 1984 movie that starred Dan Akroyd, Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson, who happen to be all males. If you were doing an original movie with an all female cast, then it wouldn't be a gimmick. All female Ghostbusters is a gimmick much like Hamlet with talking African Animals, or Avatar: The last Airbender with a mostly white cast.
Hell, let's make Thelma and Louise with men! It's along the same lines... Or even better Golden Boys, cause why the Hell not!?
Now there is a competition between Josh Trank's Not so Fantastic, but politically correct four and Ghost Bust hers on which one will suck more ass.
No comments:
Post a Comment