[Alphagaia]

GB16 director Paul Feig uses females in front and behind the camera's to help them get a footing in the movie-business. It's his trademark so to speak. Or gimmick, depending on your point of view. In the new GB movie that's almost upon us he genderswapped the 4 male actors from the original 2 movies with females and restarted the timeline, so ghost are non-existant in this new universe. (It's still unclear if the other movies happened in another parallel universe or timeline, but I feel it could all fit in a multiverse.)

People dislike the movie because it's a reboot, because they think the trailer looks bad, and/or the jokes suck. All fair points that merit discussion. I happen to like what I've seen so far, though i do hope the jokes in the trailer are not the best ones in the movie.

But fans also dislike the movie because they feel the genderswap is a gimmick, and if Paul Feig really wants female equality he should have made it a mixed team.

Now before you let your opinion known, here is a helpful info-graphic about the current state of females working in the movie-history.

Spoiler for huge!

This Post Contains Spoilers

So what are the main things gandered from this:

-30.8% of speaking characters are female.
- a third of female speaking actors are shown having sexually revealing attire of are partially naked.
-there is a 5:1 ratio of men working in films to women.

If you feel this infographic is not an accurate representation of the facts, they are based on the following links:

The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-scenes Employment of Women on the Top 250 Films of 2012
Round-Up of October Movies Directed by Women
There's Only 1 Female Film Director For Every 15.24 Male Ones, and Things Aren't Getting Any Better
Sundance Institute and Women in Film Release Unprecedented Study on Women Directors
Twilight's Melissa Rosenberg becomes highest grossing female screenwriter
The New York Times: Female Directors Gain Ground, Slowly
Sundance Film Festival leads the way: Half of the directors in its Dramatic Competition this year are women
Twilight's Melissa Rosenberg Becomes Highest Grossing Female Screenwriter
Hollywood's Highest-Paid Actresses: Where Gender Bias Reigns Supreme
Robert Downey Jr. Tops Forbes' List Of Top Earning Actors With $75m Take
Angelina Jolie Tops Our List Of Hollywood's Highest-Paid Actresses
Women Missing From Oscar Nominations
2013 Oscar Week: Feminism and the Oscars: Do This Year’s Best Picture Nominees Pass the Bechdel Test?
The Largest Acting Paychecks In Hollywood History
The Big O: Natalie Portman Swings the Hammer When it Comes to Her Post-Oscar Career

This Post Contains Spoilers

Conclusion:
While there are strong females characters in movies, they are FAR more strong male characters. So Feig is at least not lying about that. He helped a few females to stardom already, and GB16 can give McKinnon and Jones more starpower if they can show their worth.
If the Gb has a mixed team Feig would help less females in the saddle and the scales are tipped to males as is.

That all being said, he does profits hugely from this unique way of moviemaking. He is using his starpower to force negotioations with moviecompanies to let them sign a contract to agree they hire more females (not only actrices) when creating a movie. One could say it's a bold move that could cause his career to plummet or that's it's another gimmick to sell more tickets.

Now the main question:

Is the genderswap a gimmick to sell more tickets or considered progress to aqcuire more females to work in the movie industry?
Perhaps you even think it's both?
Let me know what you think and why you think that way!

[Egon's Pompadour]

I think it's a gimmick. What Paul Feig does with his original material is his business. But taking an established franchise and swapping the genders for his own political purposes is a gimmick.

Regarding women being shown wearing sexually revealing clothing, I can't help but think of the countless number of women wearing stretch pants/yoga pants in public, of their own choosing. Nobody is making them wear clothes that reveal every contour of their lower body. Is this self-objectification?

[JurorNo.2]

A mixed team would also be a gimmick. Heck, bringing in Bill Murray was a gimmick because he was coming off a couple of hit comedies. There are always going to be gimmicks. It doesn't mean the movie is out to trick the audiences.

[DarkSpectre]

So the nostalgia bait with the 30 years ago and the shot of the firehouse at the beginning of the trailer wasn't a trick? Considering this movie has nothing to do with the originals and the firehouse only comes into play at the end? also Murray was contacted by Aykroyd because of their working together on SNL and that Belushi had passed.

[JurorNo.2]

So the nostalgia bait with the 30 years ago and the shot of the firehouse at the beginning of the trailer wasn't a trick?

No, it was common sense. Regardless of what "canon" this movie belongs to, general audiences are going to see the connection between the original movies and this one.

[JurorNo.2]

also Murray was contacted by Aykroyd because of their working together on SNL and that Belushi had passed.

Big SNL fan here, I know. It's always a little of both. Obviously they were friends and co-workers, but from the studio's point of view, Murray was a big catch. In that coffee table Ghostbusters book, they included a survey that was given to the audiences to fill out and it asked if they'd seen Meatballs and Caddyshack (also Trading Places and Blues Brothers).

[Alphagaia]

So the nostalgia bait with the 30 years ago and the shot of the firehouse at the beginning of the trailer wasn't a trick?

Though to be fair: it could have been mistaken for being a sequel thanks to this opening, even after the million quotes from Sony, Feig and Ivan that said it was a reboot.
Feig was quick to adress it in the Empire interview that launched on the same day, but without context it could look like it's a sequel, while Feig and Ivan wanted to acknowledge the old movies still exist.

[JurorNo.2]

So the nostalgia bait with the 30 years ago and the shot of the firehouse at the beginning of the trailer wasn't a trick?

Though to be fair: it could have been mistaken for being a sequel thanks to this opening, even after the million quotes from Sony, Feig and Ivan that said it was a reboot.
Feig was quick to adress it in the Empire interview that launched on the same day, but without context it could look like it's a sequel, while Feig wanted to acknowledge the old movies still exist.

Here's another thought. On IMDB someone tried comparing Batman v Superman with Ghostbusters II (...not sure why, but anyway...). A surprising number of people said, "Oh that won't do well!" They apparently had no idea Ghostbusters II even existed and thought they were there to discuss Ghostbusters (2016)! I'm going to assume these were younger people? Still, perhaps I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say perhaps they were just confused by the comparison the post was making in the first place.

Regardless, the studio may have felt some of their audience needed some context to build on. Regardless of what "universe" the new movie takes place in.

[dazsin]

I definitely think it's a gimmick, but it could have worked really well. A continuation movie, with a decent cast (ie not the ones in the remake), different director etc, and I think an all-female cast would have been brilliant

[savintheday]

You and I have already discussed this in another thread, so here's my final two cents on the matter.

The gender swap feels like a pandering and patronizing marketing gimmick. Although it may not have been Feig's intent, the controversy it's stirred up is generating free publicity for a movie most people might not have known about. Maybe the movie will prove otherwise, but it's gonna be an uphill battle for Feig.

I think for most people it's less about the gender of the cast, and more to do with it being a reboot, misleading nods to the original, and the change in tone and humor style.

And again, I think the whole "equality" movement is a farce. It's just a game of tug of war. We're not all equal, and gender, race and religion have nothing to do with it. We're all individuals with different qualities and skills. At what point are people ever going to just be people?

[Raystantz Italy]

Maybe Feig has unintentionally hinted that women weren't skilled enough to improve the original Gb equipment? They has to come up with their gizmos because there isn't a woman out there who can surpass Egon and Ray?

[DarkSpectre]

I've stopped trying to figure out Feig. He's got an unhealthy obsession with women, seems to be afraid of male actors and goes off like a teenager on social media. Honestly if he was all about putting women in the forefront, he would've stepped back and just produced this thing and let a woman direct it. So hes all for women's lib as long as he's calling the shots? Plus I think Pascal had no clue other than dollar signs for this project and didn't want Reitman to have a hand in it.

[Batfly]

That's a really good point you have about him directing the film!

[Kingpin]

Maybe Feig has unintentionally hinted that women weren't skilled enough to improve the original Gb equipment?

If anyone else has come up with such a view, they thankfully haven't posted it. Given that they've built their own Proton Packs and Traps, it seems reasonable that (probably Holtzman and Gilbert) they operate on a similar electrical, mechanical and theoretical level as Drs. Spengler and Stantz.

I've stopped trying to figure out Feig. He's got an unhealthy obsession with women

In contrast to other people his age, he doesn't seem that "unhealthily obsessed" with them at all. If fewer men would ogle women in strip joins and be punished by dominatrices, and put their energies into helping them a more equal footing, and helping to shrink the gender gap in some pay packets, things may not seem so out of balance.

Honestly if he was all about putting women in the forefront, he would've stepped back and just produced this thing and let a woman direct it.

I've seen this point raised before, to which I repeat what I said then: what if none of the female Directors who were approached wanted to do it, who'd they then hand it to?

What if no female Directors were approached by Sony at all?

[DarkSpectre]

So then THEY were being sexist, Ben? They'd rather let a man who's based his career on making women do gross and humiliating things on camera direct then try to get a woman to direct?

[Alphagaia]

Honestly if he was all about putting women in the forefront, he would've stepped back and just produced this thing and let a woman direct it. So hes all for women's lib as long as he's calling the shots?

That remark just makes no sense to me at all.

Feig can tell Sony to take a female director instead, and he actively helps female directors in their seat, but Sony does not want a lesser known director to helm their pet project. It's not his choice who gets to direct. Sony wants GB to be directed by someone who has directed numerous comedy hits, and people know Feig can deliver on that premise. Feig can say no every time someone asks him to direct a movie, and thus killing his own career, and thus stopping him from using his starpower to get more women jobs in moviemaking.

You might not like the guy, or his movies, but you cannot deny he has helmed multiple box office hits and elevated a variety of women into stardom.

[DarkSpectre]

Of course it doesn't make sense to you because it makes a good point. Again if he was all about the gender pay gap or what ever he'd prove a point and let a woman helm this film. doesn't mean everytime, but if the man if going to be so active about putting women in better jobs in Hollywood, let him put his money where his mouth is. Feig is more or less a pimp, he makes money off of exploiting women. There are men out there that can find women funny without them having to do repulsive acts to get a laugh.

[Phasmatum Fractor]

We know it's a gimmick, because they worked it into the marketing. First, there's the boob-ghost in Kevin's "ghost bust" logo. As presented in the trailer, this is barely even a joke. There's no setup or punchline or logic to it, it's just a man drawing the GB logo with boobs. This is to call attention to the gender swap, and maybe poking fun at men's supposed obsession with breasts. Then, there's a bit in the trailer where two of the Ghostbusters attempt to crowd surf. The first one is successful; after the second falls to the floor, she complains, "I don't know if it's ... a lady thing, but I'm mad as hell." It's obviously not a lady thing, because the crowd caught the first woman. The joke doesn't make any sense. But they put it in there, because they are depending on the "lady thing" and the talk it engenders to sell the movie. If they were confident in their story and their characters, these non-jokes would not have been filmed; therefore, it is a gimmick.

[Alphagaia]

Of course it doesn't because it makes a good point. Again if he was all about the gender pay gap or what ever your social justice warring you keep spouting off about was he'd prove a point and let a woman helm this film. doesn't mean everytime, but if the man if going to be so active about putting women in better jobs in Hollywood, let him put his money where his mouth is. Feig is more or less a pimp, he makes money off of exploiting women. There are men out there that can find women funny without them having to do repulsive acts to get a laugh.

I think it's the complete opposite of a good point, really. (I even thought you were trolling or joking!)
What you are suggesting is career suicide, which is probably not a thing you mind happening to Feig, hehe.
At least you toned it down to 'well, not everytime'. But again, as he is a director, its not his choice. Once he becomes a producer, he can wield more power on that department.
As it is, he is already taking risks with wanting female equality a clause in his contracts so film-companies agree to hire more females.
The whole exploiting women is just silly, but feel free to prove your claim.
You don't like the cruder humor, that's completely fine. Bill Murray did not feel exploited 'jerking off' in caddyshack or being a total disgusting tool in Osmosis Jones by the Farrelly brothers. You don't like that kind of humor, fine. Don't blame Feig for it excisting.

[DarkSpectre]

Didn't he produce the Peanuts film and he hired a male director for that? Oh I'm fine with cruder humor. That's my brand. But I'm also a guy who doesn't enjoy women doing gross things for shock value either. Call me old fashioned, SJW, but I know women are capable of being funny with out having to resort to crapping into sinks.

[Alphagaia]

We know it's a gimmick, because they worked it into the marketing. First, there's the boob-ghost in Kevin's "ghost bust" logo. As presented in the trailer, this is barely even a joke. There's no setup or punchline or logic to it, it's just a man drawing the GB logo with boobs. This is to call attention to the gender swap, and maybe poking fun at men's supposed obsession with breasts. Then, there's a bit in the trailer where two of the Ghostbusters attempt to crowd surf. The first one is successful; after the second falls to the floor, she complains, "I don't know if it's ... a lady thing, but I'm mad as hell." It's obviously not a lady thing, because the crowd caught the first woman. The joke doesn't make any sense. But they put it in there, because they are depending on the "lady thing" and the talk it engenders to sell the movie. If they were confident in their story and their characters, these non-jokes would not have been filmed; therefore, it is a gimmick.

I have seen the crowd surfing scene brought up a few times for not making sense, but that one is solved quite easy: the people catching McCarthy are other people then the ones Jones jumps onto. Who is to say she accidentally jumped into the misogyny pit .

I have always seen The 'make'mbigger' joke as a stab to the backlash to some of the fans during the earlier days about Ghostbustiers and stuff. Is Marketing aware of the controversy? Sure. Does that make the genderswap only a gimmick? I think, or want to think, it goes deeper.

[Alphagaia]

Didn't he produce the Peanuts film and he hired a male director for that? Oh I'm fine with cruder humor. That's my brand. But I'm also a guy who doesn't enjoy women doing gross things for shock value either. Call me old fashioned, SJW, but I know women are capable of being funny with out having to resort to crapping into sinks.

Not sure about the peanuts movie, but are there female directors for digital movies?

I think the joke ratio in bridesmaids is a lot more varied then that one food-poisoning scene. They don't even show shit. Pun intended.

[DarkSpectre]

So nothing about the producing thing, huh?

[Alphagaia]

So nothing about the producing thing, huh?

See above! I ninja edited it in the same time you responded.

[DarkSpectre]

Didn't he produce the Peanuts film and he hired a male director for that? Oh I'm fine with cruder humor. That's my brand. But I'm also a guy who doesn't enjoy women doing gross things for shock value either. Call me old fashioned, SJW, but I know women are capable of being funny with out having to resort to crapping into sinks.

Not sure about the peanuts movie, but are there female directors for digital movies?

I think the joke ratio in bridesmaids is a lot more varied then that one food-poisoning scene. They don't even show shit. Pun intended.

I'm so blown away.....

Frozen was written and directed by a woman. And It made all the money now there was a a guy who also directed as well but Jennifer Lee was the driving force behind it

[Alphagaia]

Not sure about the peanuts movie, but are there female directors for digital movies?

I think the joke ratio in bridesmaids is a lot more varied then that one food-poisoning scene. They don't even show shit. Pun intended.

I'm so blown away.....

Frozen was written and directed by a woman. And It made all the money now there was a a guy who also directed as well but Jennifer Lee was the driving force behind it

Not saying you don't raise a good point, but can you name female directors that are not working for Disney? Cause I don't think Disney and Blue Sky mix well together.

Beyond that, can you name female directors that had the time to work on the movie in the timeslot that was slated for the movie? I think Jennifer Lee was still busy with Frozen while Peanuts was being developed, but I could be wrong.

Again, I don't know how many females are capable of directing such kind of animations, but there are more problems: they also need to make the timeslot and been approved by everybody involved. Just like Ivan needed to approve Feig.

On a related note: Jessie Henderson helped produce Spy, The Heat and Ghostbusters 2016. So there is that.

http://www.zimbio.com/Jessie+Henderson/pictures/pro
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2295810/

[DarkSpectre]

Good, maybe Feig will let her step up to the plate next time.

[Kingpin]

because they worked it into the marketing.

I don't know, I might agree with you if the opening tagline had said something to the effect of "30 years ago, 4 men saved New York. This Summer a new team of women will answer the call."

That'd definitely be working it into the marketing.

Meanwhile, the logo concept with breasts presented by Kevin is obviously not the final logo they're going with, and has been clarified (although I forget the source) as a lampooning shot at some of the less mature critics of the film.

Let's not forget, some of these (a number have appeared in articles related to the reboot, I couldn't determine how many of them were deliberately made in response to the reboot) were made as reactions to the reboot, and aren't much less crass than Kevin's initial concept:



- I'm sure I've seen more, and even worse (some which were even made long before the reboot was announced), it's stuff like that which we're told Kevin's logo is lampooning, and I'm willing to take that explanation at face value.

There's no setup or punchline or logic to it, it's just a man drawing the GB logo with boobs.

The setup was Abby saying she'd asked Kevin to come up with some logo concepts, the punchline is a visual gag, as well as Kevin's remark that he can "make them bigger" when Abby, Erin and Jillian aren't impressed with what he's come up with, and the logic is poking fun at the sort of people who made the above logos, and who might equate the reboot with being "Ghostbusters, with boobs".

There may be more setup in the film, as well as other concepts, we probably won't know for certain until July.

This is to call attention to the gender swap

I don't think it was, but even if it were, that'd be a secondary note to the point I emphasised earlier: poking fun at the people making "Girlbuster" logos.

Then, there's a bit in the trailer where two of the Ghostbusters attempt to crowd surf.

I'm happy to concede mostly to you on the crowdsurfing fail moment, McCarthy doing it on her own would've been harmlessly amusing, but the prat fall was cringe worthy, and as you noted, if she wasn't allowed to drop because she was a woman, then there are few other options offered for why they let her drop.

Were they fully selling the film on the fact the new Ghostbusters were all women, I think it'd be a bit more less subtle than two subjective ghosts, they might make reference to it in the taglines on the posters and in the trailer, in a specific scene in one or both trailers (like some guy telling them they can't be paranormal investigators, or something equally sexist).

They've actually spent more screen time selling this on the action/badass content of the film than the "hey look, these Ghostbusters are women!" content, which is why I don't think it's what they're really selling the film on.

[GhstbstrLMLIII]

I completely believe it's a gimmick. Feig took the lazy way out making a reboot. Add on the fact of his political agenda - it makes for an easy "This movie bombed because I cast the 4 GB roles as women." They've set that up from the beginning and the media has already run with it. Female GBs have been done - and done excessively well (see IDW). But this is nothing but a gimmick to grab more publicity for the movie and an excuse if the movie fails. As mentioned here - one of the first footage "jokes" we saw was Kevin's logo with breasts. That the production team keeps regurgitating the genderswap shows (to me anyway) that it is a gimmick. They can't let it just stand - they have to continually point it out.

As I mentioned in another thread - I don't support the "reboot" part of this at all, and I will probably not go see it in the theaters because of that. Where Hollywood has no new ideas, but at least is BUILDING on prior franchises (see Star Wars and Jurassic Park/World) there was no reason at all this should have been a reboot. None. Of course - also as mentioned in this thread - for wanting to tread new ground, the first trailer did nothing but use the established universe to grab appeal. The "30 years ago..", the firehouse, Slimer. He's now trying to play it both ways. They don't seem to know who their target audience is going to be.

But my prediction is that all we will hear when the movie comes out - whether it does well or bombs mind you - is about the 4 female GBs.

[Alphagaia]

Good, maybe Feig will let her step up to the plate next time.

Who knows? If that is what she wants.

But, uhm, are we agreeing on my reasoning why Feig chose a male producer for Peanuts?