Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
#4978970
Kingpin wrote: February 18th, 2023, 1:17 am Ernie has probably been the most consistent ambassador for the Ghostbusters brand, it's beyond rediculous that EVEN NOW he has to be firm in order to get his name on the bloody film poster. Give the man his well-deserved due, Sony. :angryvigo:
Ernie is probably being a little too polite here. His treatment isn’t just a Sony failure. It’s on everyone in a position of power. If you don’t think Ivan Reitman, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and others had the power to force Sony(or Coke) to put Ernie on that first movies poster then you’ve got another thing coming. Now I’m 1000% happy they cut Ernie’s part down in the first movie. I’m sorry but the movie works better that way. I’m sure it was a blow to his ego but it is what it is. You can’t argue with the end result. But he’s a Ghostbuster and should’ve been on that poster. Is it racism? I duno. If Eddie Murphy was Winston and had the exact same role as it exists now, he’d be on that poster. Would they have included Winston on the poster if he was a white dude? I don’t think so. But wrong is wrong. And the optics are bad.

What’s weird is when Sony released GB1 and 2 on DVD & remastered VHS in ‘99 they got in backwards. Ernie was on the cover of GB1 but not on the cover of GB2. It’s like they can’t help themselves. “We have to screw Ernie Hudson somehow”.

BUT

This one has always bothered me. There’s an iconic shot in Ghostbusters that was used in almost all the trailers. It’s the shot right before or after “Looks like we might have to put a little overtime in on this one” and the camera dollies in low on the GB’s. Very iconic shot. Guess who is framed out? Ernie. You’ve got the 3 original GB’s side to side and Ernie is behind and blocked by Bill I think. And again…directors aren’t always just thinking about the movie, they are thinking about selling the movie. Plenty of directors do “trailer shots”. Shots in movies that look great in trailers. I’d bet 10,000 dollars this is one of those. And Ernie is framed out. It ruins the composition of the shot too.

Then there’s GB2. I’m glad he has more to do but the movie makes him feel like an outsider. He isn’t invited to go on Dana’s case right away. Again, the scene works better with the 3 Gb’s. But include Winston somehow. I know he’s not a doctor like them but so what? He’s a friend. Include him.

And didn’t I read somewhere(was it the latest GB book?)that he wasn’t big on doing the ghost train sequence reshoot? He didn’t wanna do a stereotype “big eyed black man” thing? I think I read that somewhere. Which is ironic because it’s one of his funniest sequences. “Sorry. I missed it”.
Kingpin, Sav C liked this
#4978992
RichardLess wrote: February 18th, 2023, 3:42 pm And didn’t I read somewhere(was it the latest GB book?)that he wasn’t big on doing the ghost train sequence reshoot? He didn’t wanna do a stereotype “big eyed black man” thing? I think I read that somewhere. Which is ironic because it’s one of his funniest sequences. “Sorry. I missed it”.
Yes, it was on page 119-120 of Greene's book. It originated from a June 14, 1989 article in the Boston Globe. Hudson said:
As a black man in America, I don't want to do stuff that's going to be embarrassing. And black people tend to get embarrassed by black guys getting on a bus with pink curlers in their hair. I don't feel I can take the same liberties with a character that, say, Rick Moranis can take. I become aware that I'm going to be run over by a train, okay? Now a train's going to run me over, right? But, man, I don't want to open my eyes too wide. Yet, the reality as an actor...I was very happy to be the one chosen to be hit by the train because it's a great bit. You don't get many bits, let's face it.
Reitman promised Hudson the train would look real. Hudson was blunt with the director about his concerns: "I don't want to lose my membership in the NAACP over this.
Sav C, Kingpin liked this
#4980030
I never really understood why people thought Winston wouldn't have been marginalised in the original GB.He came in halfway through the film and yes he's edited out of the poster which is harsh but you use the 3 most recognised faces to sell your film, Annie Potts wasn't in the poster either, or Weaver who after Alien was pretty recognizable.In regards to the poster for the sequel both he and SW are in it because by that time she was probably the most successful of them all and Winston was included.I never saw it as racist just he wasn't as well known as the other 3
ghoulishfright liked this
#4980032
Dondraper85 wrote: March 16th, 2023, 12:46 pm I never really understood why people thought Winston wouldn't have been marginalised in the original GB.He came in halfway through the film and yes he's edited out of the poster which is harsh but you use the 3 most recognised faces to sell your film, Annie Potts wasn't in the poster either, or Weaver who after Alien was pretty recognizable.In regards to the poster for the sequel both he and SW are in it because by that time she was probably the most successful of them all and Winston was included.I never saw it as racist just he wasn't as well known as the other 3
The movie is called “Ghostbusters”. Of course he should be on the poster! He is a Ghostbuster! They literally first started advertising the movie with nothing but the no ghost logo. People had no idea what that was so why would putting Winston on the poster be any different? Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver aren’t “Ghostbusters”. Winston is. That’s why he should be on the poster. Yes Bill & Dan were famous. Harold was known a bit from Stripes but he hasn’t a star the average person could place or recall.

It is absolutely racist. Think of it. The movie is called “Ghostbusters”. You’re a black dude in 1980s America/Hollywood. You get a part that was originally meant for Eddie Murphy. Once you get the part you find out your role has been reduced and what was once a leading role is now a supporting role that misses the first half of the movie. But ok. Then the poster comes out. The tag line reads “Coming to save the world” and 3 white faces are up there. You’re a ghostbuster. Meaning they actively decided to not include you.

Then the trailer comes. “Starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver & Rick Moranis”. Again the movie is called “Ghostbusters” not “3 Parapsychologists”.
BatDan, jonogunn, Kingpin and 4 others liked this
#4980056
RichardLess wrote: March 16th, 2023, 4:32 pm
Dondraper85 wrote: March 16th, 2023, 12:46 pm I never really understood why people thought Winston wouldn't have been marginalised in the original GB.He came in halfway through the film and yes he's edited out of the poster which is harsh but you use the 3 most recognised faces to sell your film, Annie Potts wasn't in the poster either, or Weaver who after Alien was pretty recognizable.In regards to the poster for the sequel both he and SW are in it because by that time she was probably the most successful of them all and Winston was included.I never saw it as racist just he wasn't as well known as the other 3
The movie is called “Ghostbusters”. Of course he should be on the poster! He is a Ghostbuster! They literally first started advertising the movie with nothing but the no ghost logo. People had no idea what that was so why would putting Winston on the poster be any different? Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver aren’t “Ghostbusters”. Winston is. That’s why he should be on the poster. Yes Bill & Dan were famous. Harold was known a bit from Stripes but he hasn’t a star the average person could place or recall.

It is absolutely racist. Think of it. The movie is called “Ghostbusters”. You’re a black dude in 1980s America/Hollywood. You get a part that was originally meant for Eddie Murphy. Once you get the part you find out your role has been reduced and what was once a leading role is now a supporting role that misses the first half of the movie. But ok. Then the poster comes out. The tag line reads “Coming to save the world” and 3 white faces are up there. You’re a ghostbuster. Meaning they actively decided to not include you.

Then the trailer comes. “Starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver & Rick Moranis”. Again the movie is called “Ghostbusters” not “3 Parapsychologists”.
Well was not Moranis a "Ghostbuster" in the sequel? He wasn't in the posters.I find mentioning colour pretty pointless when it was star power he was lacking.If it had originally been say Eddie Murphy in that role he would have been pushed to the fore instead of the other 3.The reason it was the three main stars was because they were THE stars and writers of the piece who were in the film from the beginning to the end and didn't crop up in a supporting role have way through the film.
So what would you have Ramis and Aykroyd do? Take an unknown and give him equal screening because people in the future are going to be incredibly touchy about the pigment of someone's skin? Have a word with yourself.Ramis had written the screenplay, along with many National Lampoon films and was in the film from start to end which I imagine gave him more clout than Hudson.
#4980080
Dondraper85 wrote: March 17th, 2023, 2:50 am
RichardLess wrote: March 16th, 2023, 4:32 pm

The movie is called “Ghostbusters”. Of course he should be on the poster! He is a Ghostbuster! They literally first started advertising the movie with nothing but the no ghost logo. People had no idea what that was so why would putting Winston on the poster be any different? Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver aren’t “Ghostbusters”. Winston is. That’s why he should be on the poster. Yes Bill & Dan were famous. Harold was known a bit from Stripes but he hasn’t a star the average person could place or recall.

It is absolutely racist. Think of it. The movie is called “Ghostbusters”. You’re a black dude in 1980s America/Hollywood. You get a part that was originally meant for Eddie Murphy. Once you get the part you find out your role has been reduced and what was once a leading role is now a supporting role that misses the first half of the movie. But ok. Then the poster comes out. The tag line reads “Coming to save the world” and 3 white faces are up there. You’re a ghostbuster. Meaning they actively decided to not include you.

Then the trailer comes. “Starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver & Rick Moranis”. Again the movie is called “Ghostbusters” not “3 Parapsychologists”.
Well was not Moranis a "Ghostbuster" in the sequel? He wasn't in the posters.I find mentioning colour pretty pointless when it was star power he was lacking.If it had originally been say Eddie Murphy in that role he would have been pushed to the fore instead of the other 3.The reason it was the three main stars was because they were THE stars and writers of the piece who were in the film from the beginning to the end and didn't crop up in a supporting role have way through the film.
So what would you have Ramis and Aykroyd do? Take an unknown and give him equal screening because people in the future are going to be incredibly touchy about the pigment of someone's skin? Have a word with yourself.Ramis had written the screenplay, along with many National Lampoon films and was in the film from start to end which I imagine gave him more clout than Hudson.
Was Moranis a Ghostbuster? I mean…that’s a joke in the film, right? He’s not really a Ghostbuster. It’s a joke how he thinks he saved the day and everyone else does as well.

Star power has nothing to do with it. Think about that argument for a second. Bill, Dan & Harold are on the poster, right? In a movie called “Ghostbusters”. There’s 4 Ghostbusters. It’s not about Ernie not having the star power. If it was Sigourney Weaver would’ve been on that poster. It’s about showing The Ghostbusters. Posters tell the audience a story. in this case it’s “these are the Ghostbusters”. Except it’s not. Now if a white unknown actor was cast as Winston, do you think he’d be on that poster?

I do. It’s honestly a better composition of the frame with 4 people. And the fact that they are still using that poster is what irks Ernie.

1980s Hollywood was incredibly racist. Ask Dan Aykroyd about theatre owners not wanting to show Blues Brothers. With the biggest comedic actors of the day. Why? Racism. Have you seen a movie like Short Circuit? Fisher Stevens was browned faced. Even a movie like Aliens isn’t immune. The actor that plays Vasquez is the same actor who plays John Connors Foster Mom in Terminator 2. She’s a freckled red head.

And it’s not about “being touchy about the pigment of someone’s skin”. It’s that this stuff is entrenched in our society.

And this is about how Ernie, a black man who lived thru this, perceived it.

deadderek wrote: March 17th, 2023, 8:44 am
RichardLess wrote: March 17th, 2023, 8:11 am

Well at least he’s seemed to take it easy with the dislike button lately. That’s something.

But yeah Deaderek, you seem super combative & a bit rude in some these posts.

Just everyone relllax.

Let’s talk some GB4!
Still waiting on your answer to my previous question.
And you’re going to keep waiting. I’m not going to get into a back & forth with you when it’s obvious for anyone to see you’re embarrassing yourself with this garbage. Just stop.

deadderek wrote: March 17th, 2023, 8:50 am How about we all just drop things and stay back on topic before the mods lock this thread again?
There ya go. Now we are talking!

(mod note: triple post merged)
deadderek, Kingpin, robbritton and 1 others liked this
#4980087
RichardLess wrote:
Dondraper85 wrote: March 17th, 2023, 2:50 am Well was not Moranis a "Ghostbuster" in the sequel? He wasn't in the posters.I find mentioning colour pretty pointless when it was star power he was lacking.If it had originally been say Eddie Murphy in that role he would have been pushed to the fore instead of the other 3.The reason it was the three main stars was because they were THE stars and writers of the piece who were in the film from the beginning to the end and didn't crop up in a supporting role have way through the film.
So what would you have Ramis and Aykroyd do? Take an unknown and give him equal screening because people in the future are going to be incredibly touchy about the pigment of someone's skin? Have a word with yourself.Ramis had written the screenplay, along with many National Lampoon films and was in the film from start to end which I imagine gave him more clout than Hudson.
Was Moranis a Ghostbuster? I mean…that’s a joke in the film, right? He’s not really a Ghostbuster. It’s a joke how he thinks he saved the day and everyone else does as well.

Star power has nothing to do with it. Think about that argument for a second. Bill, Dan & Harold are on the poster, right? In a movie called “Ghostbusters”. There’s 4 Ghostbusters. It’s not about Ernie not having the star power. If it was Sigourney Weaver would’ve been on that poster. It’s about showing The Ghostbusters. Posters tell the audience a story. in this case it’s “these are the Ghostbusters”. Except it’s not. Now if a white unknown actor was cast as Winston, do you think he’d be on that poster?

I do. It’s honestly a better composition of the frame with 4 people. And the fact that they are still using that poster is what irks Ernie.

1980s Hollywood was incredibly racist. Ask Dan Aykroyd about theatre owners not wanting to show Blues Brothers. With the biggest comedic actors of the day. Why? Racism. Have you seen a movie like Short Circuit? Fisher Stevens was browned faced. Even a movie like Aliens isn’t immune. The actor that plays Vasquez is the same actor who plays John Connors Foster Mom in Terminator 2. She’s a freckled red head.

And it’s not about “being touchy about the pigment of someone’s skin”. It’s that this stuff is entrenched in our society.

And this is about how Ernie, a black man who loved thru this, perceived it.
Oh my God. Just shut up already. Being woke is like a magic moral time machine in which you judge everyone by what you think you would have done at the time, and you always win.

Ernie himself said not to blame racism when he was on the Howard Stern Show:

“The original script, Winston was in the very beginning of the movie. By the time we got ready to shoot the movie, Winston came in halfway through the movie,” he recalled. “All those things…It definitely felt deliberate. And I’m still not trying to take it personally. Anything bad, if you’re African American in this country, anything bad happens to you, you can always blame it on because I’m Black. You don’t want to go there. That’s the last thing I want to do…I got nothing bad to say about anybody but it was hard. It took me 10 years to get past that and enjoy the movie and just embrace the movie. Ghostbusters was really hard to make peace with it.”

You don't know what the studios' motivation was at the time. He doesn't either. The fact that Winston was on the poster for GB2 and was shown hanging out with Ray at the beginning of GB2 signals to me that there weren't racist motives for cutting down Winston's time in GB1 and for omitting Winston from the GB1 poster. At the time GB1 was being marketed, Ernie was an unknown actor. To sell the movie, they wanted the familiar faces front and center. I mean if there were really racist motives, would they have even casted Ernie to play the 4th Ghostbuster? Why not just change his name to Dave Smith and cast some unknown white guy?
#4980092
JonXCTrack wrote: March 17th, 2023, 9:38 am
RichardLess wrote:
Was Moranis a Ghostbuster? I mean…that’s a joke in the film, right? He’s not really a Ghostbuster. It’s a joke how he thinks he saved the day and everyone else does as well.

Star power has nothing to do with it. Think about that argument for a second. Bill, Dan & Harold are on the poster, right? In a movie called “Ghostbusters”. There’s 4 Ghostbusters. It’s not about Ernie not having the star power. If it was Sigourney Weaver would’ve been on that poster. It’s about showing The Ghostbusters. Posters tell the audience a story. in this case it’s “these are the Ghostbusters”. Except it’s not. Now if a white unknown actor was cast as Winston, do you think he’d be on that poster?

I do. It’s honestly a better composition of the frame with 4 people. And the fact that they are still using that poster is what irks Ernie.

1980s Hollywood was incredibly racist. Ask Dan Aykroyd about theatre owners not wanting to show Blues Brothers. With the biggest comedic actors of the day. Why? Racism. Have you seen a movie like Short Circuit? Fisher Stevens was browned faced. Even a movie like Aliens isn’t immune. The actor that plays Vasquez is the same actor who plays John Connors Foster Mom in Terminator 2. She’s a freckled red head.

And it’s not about “being touchy about the pigment of someone’s skin”. It’s that this stuff is entrenched in our society.

And this is about how Ernie, a black man who loved thru this, perceived it.
Oh my God. Just shut up already. Being woke is like a magic moral time machine in which you judge everyone by what you think you would have done at the time, and you always win.

Ernie himself said not to blame racism when he was on the Howard Stern Show:

“The original script, Winston was in the very beginning of the movie. By the time we got ready to shoot the movie, Winston came in halfway through the movie,” he recalled. “All those things…It definitely felt deliberate. And I’m still not trying to take it personally. Anything bad, if you’re African American in this country, anything bad happens to you, you can always blame it on because I’m Black. You don’t want to go there. That’s the last thing I want to do…I got nothing bad to say about anybody but it was hard. It took me 10 years to get past that and enjoy the movie and just embrace the movie. Ghostbusters was really hard to make peace with it.”

You don't know what the studios' motivation was at the time. He doesn't either. The fact that Winston was on the poster for GB2 and was shown hanging out with Ray at the beginning of GB2 signals to me that there weren't racist motives for cutting down Winston's time in GB1 and for omitting Winston from the GB1 poster. At the time GB1 was being marketed, Ernie was an unknown actor. To sell the movie, they wanted the familiar faces front and center. I mean if there were really racist motives, would they have even casted Ernie to play the 4th Ghostbuster? Why not just change his name to Dave Smith and cast some unknown white guy?
Oh look! We are discussing racism & someone busts out the “W” word. What a surprise. “Woke” is so overused as a word it’s tiring.

And when it comes to talking about this stuff, I won’t shut up. Read what Ernie said and I mean truly read it. See the part where he said it was “deliberate”. And the “You don’t want to go there”. You don’t see what he’s saying there do you?

There’s also a difference between the people who cast the movie and the people who market the movie. Do we know FOR SURE what the motivations are? Of course not. But given the era and the fact that the movie is called f**** “Ghostbusters” & the black Ghostbuster is not on the poster?

See many people seem to think racism is about hatred. But a lot of can simply be a form of bias, of ignorance or of fear
Kingpin, Sav C, robbritton and 3 others liked this
#4980100
RichardLess wrote: March 17th, 2023, 11:05 am
JonXCTrack wrote: March 17th, 2023, 9:38 am

Oh my God. Just shut up already. Being woke is like a magic moral time machine in which you judge everyone by what you think you would have done at the time, and you always win.

Ernie himself said not to blame racism when he was on the Howard Stern Show:

“The original script, Winston was in the very beginning of the movie. By the time we got ready to shoot the movie, Winston came in halfway through the movie,” he recalled. “All those things…It definitely felt deliberate. And I’m still not trying to take it personally. Anything bad, if you’re African American in this country, anything bad happens to you, you can always blame it on because I’m Black. You don’t want to go there. That’s the last thing I want to do…I got nothing bad to say about anybody but it was hard. It took me 10 years to get past that and enjoy the movie and just embrace the movie. Ghostbusters was really hard to make peace with it.”

You don't know what the studios' motivation was at the time. He doesn't either. The fact that Winston was on the poster for GB2 and was shown hanging out with Ray at the beginning of GB2 signals to me that there weren't racist motives for cutting down Winston's time in GB1 and for omitting Winston from the GB1 poster. At the time GB1 was being marketed, Ernie was an unknown actor. To sell the movie, they wanted the familiar faces front and center. I mean if there were really racist motives, would they have even casted Ernie to play the 4th Ghostbuster? Why not just change his name to Dave Smith and cast some unknown white guy?
Oh look! We are discussing racism & someone busts out the “W” word. What a surprise. “Woke” is so overused as a word it’s tiring.

And when it comes to talking about this stuff, I won’t shut up. Read what Ernie said and I mean truly read it. See the part where he said it was “deliberate”. And the “You don’t want to go there”. You don’t see what he’s saying there do you?

There’s also a difference between the people who cast the movie and the people who market the movie. Do we know FOR SURE what the motivations are? Of course not. But given the era and the fact that the movie is called f**** “Ghostbusters” & the black Ghostbuster is not on the poster?

See many people seem to think racism is about hatred. But a lot of can simply be a form of bias, of ignorance or of fear
You know what else can be deliberate? Casting a white actor instead of a black one. That didn't happen. Your virtue signaling is nauseating.
#4980101
'youre virtue signaling is nauseating '
'Oh my god, just shut up already'.

How is this helping any argument and actually finding some common ground if we alienate people with those kind of remarks?

I understand you don't agree with Richardless, and you raise a few good points, and so does he, but like I said before to a few others, to me the personal attacks just deflate the whole argument.

Some respect goes a long way, and it might help keeping this thread alive.
Kingpin, SpaceBallz, Sav C and 2 others liked this
#4980102
deadderek wrote: March 17th, 2023, 5:23 amEven after Kingpin told you to drop it, you continued on. It's only fair for my rebuttal.
Actually, I said:
Kingpin wrote: March 17th, 2023, 3:50 am I feel the point's been made to GuyX, no need to turn it into a dogpile.
And despite that request, it still kinda turned into a dogpile.
JonXCTrack wrote: March 17th, 2023, 9:38 amOh my God. Just shut up already. Being woke is like a magic moral time machine in which you judge everyone by what you think you would have done at the time, and you always win.
JonXCTrack wrote: March 17th, 2023, 12:47 pm Your virtue signaling is nauseating.
You're welcome to disagree with Richard, Jon, but you could go about it in a much more respectful and adult way than the examples I've just quoted. Accusing him and the points he's made as being "woke" and "virtue-signaling" doesn't actually disprove what he's said, it just leaves your remarks as looking like a knee-jerk reaction to something you've found uncomfortable.

Remarks like that don't encourage a well-reasoned discussion, so please try go for something a bit more thoughtful and less alienating.

I appreciate we're of differing opinions and passions can flare up... But the mod team's already had to lock this topic once already, and I don't relish us having to do it again if things get heated like they've done a couple of times in the last 24 hours.
Either agree to disagree, take it to the PMs, or try to be a bit more civil... Talking about the new film shouldn't be resulting in what we're seeing occur here.

isitatomic? wrote: March 17th, 2023, 5:49 am Of course, Sony were also the people who okayed Morbious using the extremely distinctive-looking London Underground as the equally distinctive-looking NYC subway, so who knows?
That was beyond terrible. :boogieman:
Alphagaia, zeta otaku, Sav C and 2 others liked this
#4980103
Kingpin wrote:
deadderek wrote: March 17th, 2023, 5:23 amEven after Kingpin told you to drop it, you continued on. It's only fair for my rebuttal.
Actually, I said:
Kingpin wrote: March 17th, 2023, 3:50 am I feel the point's been made to GuyX, no need to turn it into a dogpile.
And despite that request, it still kinda turned into a dogpile.
JonXCTrack wrote: March 17th, 2023, 9:38 amOh my God. Just shut up already. Being woke is like a magic moral time machine in which you judge everyone by what you think you would have done at the time, and you always win.
JonXCTrack wrote: March 17th, 2023, 12:47 pm Your virtue signaling is nauseating.
You're welcome to disagree with Richard, Jon, but you could go about it in a much more respectful and adult way than the examples I've just quoted. Accusing him and the points he's made as being "woke" and "virtue-signaling" doesn't actually disprove what he's said, it just leaves your remarks as looking like a knee-jerk reaction to something you've found uncomfortable.

Remarks like that don't encourage a well-reasoned discussion, so please try go for something a bit more thoughtful and less alienating.

I appreciate we're of differing opinions and passions can flare up... But the mod team's already had to lock this topic once already, and I don't relish us having to do it again if things get heated like they've done a couple of times in the last 24 hours.
Either agree to disagree, take it to the PMs, or try to be a bit more civil... Talking about the new film shouldn't be resulting in what we're seeing occur here.

isitatomic? wrote: March 17th, 2023, 5:49 am Of course, Sony were also the people who okayed Morbious using the extremely distinctive-looking London Underground as the equally distinctive-looking NYC subway, so who knows?
That was beyond terrible. :boogieman:
It has nothing to do with being uncomfortable. It has everything to do with Ernie never levying claims of racism, but here Richardless is making it about racism, as if he knows what was in the hearts and minds of studio executives 40 years ago.

This is conduct of phonies and showoffs—folks who adopt opinions and postures solely to garner praise and sympathy or whose good deeds are tainted by their need for everyone to see just how good they are. Combined with a culture that says only victimhood confers a right to comment on certain issues, it's a big factor in online pile-ons and one that certainly contributes to social media platforms, or internet message boards, being such a bummer sometimes.

And the whole point of Ernie mentioning how things went down during his filming of GB1 is to show that the crew making the new movies values both him and the Winston character. Because, like us, Jason and Gil are actually fans.
#4980104
Guys, can we tone it down? This is why we can't have nice things. The election hasn't even started yet and were getting into the political soup too soon here. Accusing eachother of using cards, being woke, it doesn't end well. It's hard enough for me resistng to Opine. Maybe the mods can move this stuff to another topic so people can talk freely there?
#4980106
JonXCTrack wrote: March 17th, 2023, 1:44 pm It has nothing to do with being uncomfortable. It has everything to do with Ernie never levying claims of racism, but here Richardless is making it about racism, as if he knows what was in the hearts and minds of studio executives 40 years ago.
Ernie doesn't make the accusation, but it's a valid line of discussion (albeit maybe not in this topic) as to whether racism in the upper echelons of 1980s Hollywood, and at Columbia in particular, might've had a negative impact on his role in Ghostbusters, and its subsequent marketing.

You can disagree that it played a factor, that's part of a healthy and respectful debate... But telling Richard to "just shut up already" isn't respectful or a valid line of counter-argument, nor is automatically dismissing his reasoning as "woke", nor is the dig about "the conduct of phonies and showoffs".
timeware wrote: March 17th, 2023, 2:04 pm The election hasn't even started yet and were getting into the political soup too soon here.
The election has no relevance in this discussion, so please don't bring it up. The discussion has already been charged enough for one day without bringing politics into things.
mrmichaelt, robbritton, seekandannoy and 1 others liked this
#4980108
timeware wrote: ↑
Today, 8:04 pm
The election hasn't even started yet and were getting into the political soup too soon here.
In future would you please not bring up politics or the election unless it is explicitly relevant to the topic, this remark was not helpful in the slightest.
I'm just judging from past expereince that things are going to get out of hand here real quick. I don't want to see this topic locked before filming starts next week. But I agree with you we should be discussing the stuff about Ernies misstreatment in a different topic.
#4980109
RichardLess wrote: March 17th, 2023, 8:56 am
Dondraper85 wrote: March 17th, 2023, 2:50 am

Well was not Moranis a "Ghostbuster" in the sequel? He wasn't in the posters.I find mentioning colour pretty pointless when it was star power he was lacking.If it had originally been say Eddie Murphy in that role he would have been pushed to the fore instead of the other 3.The reason it was the three main stars was because they were THE stars and writers of the piece who were in the film from the beginning to the end and didn't crop up in a supporting role have way through the film.
So what would you have Ramis and Aykroyd do? Take an unknown and give him equal screening because people in the future are going to be incredibly touchy about the pigment of someone's skin? Have a word with yourself.Ramis had written the screenplay, along with many National Lampoon films and was in the film from start to end which I imagine gave him more clout than Hudson.
Was Moranis a Ghostbuster? I mean…that’s a joke in the film, right? He’s not really a Ghostbuster. It’s a joke how he thinks he saved the day and everyone else does as well.

Star power has nothing to do with it. Think about that argument for a second. Bill, Dan & Harold are on the poster, right? In a movie called “Ghostbusters”. There’s 4 Ghostbusters. It’s not about Ernie not having the star power. If it was Sigourney Weaver would’ve been on that poster. It’s about showing The Ghostbusters. Posters tell the audience a story. in this case it’s “these are the Ghostbusters”. Except it’s not. Now if a white unknown actor was cast as Winston, do you think he’d be on that poster?

I do. It’s honestly a better composition of the frame with 4 people. And the fact that they are still using that poster is what irks Ernie.

1980s Hollywood was incredibly racist. Ask Dan Aykroyd about theatre owners not wanting to show Blues Brothers. With the biggest comedic actors of the day. Why? Racism. Have you seen a movie like Short Circuit? Fisher Stevens was browned faced. Even a movie like Aliens isn’t immune. The actor that plays Vasquez is the same actor who plays John Connors Foster Mom in Terminator 2. She’s a freckled red head.

And it’s not about “being touchy about the pigment of someone’s skin”. It’s that this stuff is entrenched in our society.

And this is about how Ernie, a black man who lived thru this, perceived it.

Star power has everything to do with making a comedy in the 80s with 2 of the biggest, at the time, faces in comedy.Whether you want to accept it or not Winston's role was cut down true because it didn't have to be big to fit a star who would want a more substantial role.If I'm selling something I'm using the guy who had 1. Written it, starred in several big films at the time and a rising star in Murray.And are you telling me that as writers Aykroyd and Ramis pushed Hudson down because of race? Because they wrote it.Id be surprised by a guy who has made Blues Brothers and Trading Places was racist.

And I'd disagree about Weaver, sure she'd made Alien by then but she was far more prominent in G2 because she had been in Working Girl, Alien 1 and 2, Gorillas in the Mists.She was huge by then and so, because star power exists, she is as prominent as Murray in the advertisement.

It's entrenched if you obsess over it as you seem to do.
#4980112
timeware wrote: March 17th, 2023, 5:21 pm I'm just judging from past expereince that things are going to get out of hand here real quick.
You could've expressed your concern about the direction the topic was heading in without having to make the unnecessary comment about the election. Failing that you can always send a PM to one of the mod team, or use the report post option.
#4980127
Dondraper85 wrote: March 17th, 2023, 5:24 pm
RichardLess wrote: March 17th, 2023, 8:56 am

Was Moranis a Ghostbuster? I mean…that’s a joke in the film, right? He’s not really a Ghostbuster. It’s a joke how he thinks he saved the day and everyone else does as well.

Star power has nothing to do with it. Think about that argument for a second. Bill, Dan & Harold are on the poster, right? In a movie called “Ghostbusters”. There’s 4 Ghostbusters. It’s not about Ernie not having the star power. If it was Sigourney Weaver would’ve been on that poster. It’s about showing The Ghostbusters. Posters tell the audience a story. in this case it’s “these are the Ghostbusters”. Except it’s not. Now if a white unknown actor was cast as Winston, do you think he’d be on that poster?

I do. It’s honestly a better composition of the frame with 4 people. And the fact that they are still using that poster is what irks Ernie.

1980s Hollywood was incredibly racist. Ask Dan Aykroyd about theatre owners not wanting to show Blues Brothers. With the biggest comedic actors of the day. Why? Racism. Have you seen a movie like Short Circuit? Fisher Stevens was browned faced. Even a movie like Aliens isn’t immune. The actor that plays Vasquez is the same actor who plays John Connors Foster Mom in Terminator 2. She’s a freckled red head.

And it’s not about “being touchy about the pigment of someone’s skin”. It’s that this stuff is entrenched in our society.

And this is about how Ernie, a black man who lived thru this, perceived it.

Star power has everything to do with making a comedy in the 80s with 2 of the biggest, at the time, faces in comedy.Whether you want to accept it or not Winston's role was cut down true because it didn't have to be big to fit a star who would want a more substantial role.If I'm selling something I'm using the guy who had 1. Written it, starred in several big films at the time and a rising star in Murray.And are you telling me that as writers Aykroyd and Ramis pushed Hudson down because of race? Because they wrote it.Id be surprised by a guy who has made Blues Brothers and Trading Places was racist.

And I'd disagree about Weaver, sure she'd made Alien by then but she was far more prominent in G2 because she had been in Working Girl, Alien 1 and 2, Gorillas in the Mists.She was huge by then and so, because star power exists, she is as prominent as Murray in the advertisement.

It's entrenched if you obsess over it as you seem to do.
I’m sorry everyone. I just have to respond to this because it’s something very important to me. “Obsessed”, no. But important. I was going to ignore the whole “racist discussion” because the thread had moved on. But then I remember someone very important in my life once told me “silence is complicity”. So I just have to do this for my own conscience. Especially after being told to “shut up”.

Are Dan Aykroyd & Harold Ramis racist? I don’t know. I don’t think so. I do know they’ve been accused of cultural appropriation & Dan does don black face in Trading Places. Some people might have an issue with that. I don’t. Ultimately Ernie’s role being downgraded in the film was a benefit to the film. It was a “what’s best for the movie” choice. The movie is perfect as is and Winston comes in as the audience surrogates at just the right time.

What I was talking about is the marketing. The poster. Hollywood of the 1980s, the corporate part was incredibly racist(on average). This has been documented over and over again. Now some people think Racism is a zero sum game. That “oh if they were racist they wouldn’t make films with black people” which is ridiculous. The examples of corporate America exploiting African Americans for financial gain whilst simultaneously saying & doing racist shit is a long and distinguished list. Also African Americans weren’t the only group being marginalized but since this is about Ernie Hudson, we’ll stick with him.

You can disagree with Weaver. You’d be wrong I think. Alien was a huge phenomenon. It was massive. It made her a bonafide star. Aliens and Ghostbusters made her a bigger star.

Again. There are 4 Ghostbusters. Count ‘em. 1, 2, 3 and 4. You say “well why would they put Winston on the poster he wasn’t a star” & I say “Why wouldn’t they put Winston on the poster, they have 2 major stars on the poster already!”.

The poster is saying here are the Ghostbusters. Only 1 is missing. Looked at analytically, without bias, what data do we have? It’s 1980s corporate America. It involves an African American male in his first major motion picture, he’s the only major African American role in the film, the film is called “Ghostbusters”, the African American male plays one of the 4 Ghostbusters in the film, the other 3 Ghostbusters are Caucasian, 2 of which are big stars. The first poster contained only the “No Ghost Logo” with no stars. The 3 Caucasian males, 3 of the 4 Ghostbusters, are featured on the poster.

If you fed that data set into a computer and asked it for a probable reason on why Ernie Hudson wasn’t included on that poster, if you don’t think “Racism” is the top choice, we just live in different worlds.

Shit. As someone who worked in marketing in the 21st century I could tell you horror stories. I’ve said here in the past, I use to see and think the world was one way. Then I worked in marketing & had the rose coloured glasses removed for good.

Anyways, sorry for interrupting the thread with this stuff again. I just had to say my piece. Sorry.
zeta otaku, Alphagaia, robbritton and 5 others liked this
#4980366
Split from the main GB4/Firehouse discussion topic. As a reminder please keep the discussion civil and respectful even if opinions greatly differ over how Winston and Ernie were treated during the filming of the original Ghostbusters films and in their marketing.
#4983623
I personally never perceived anything about Winston's treatment as being racist. But then, I've owned the book Making Ghostbusters since the 80s. Here are two sidebars from page 54:

In the July and August drafts, Dana's appearance at the firehall is preceded by a scene in
which Winston Zeddemore — armed with enough references to nail down a job as security
chief for the White House —- presents himself in reply to a trifling 'help wanted' ad for a guard.
The inclusion of Winston was in clear response to a perceived notion on the part of the
filmmakers that the team needed to embrace a fourth member who could serve as the
on-screen voice of the viewing public —a no-nonsense professional, with a major streak
of skepticism when it came to the avowed objectives of his employers. On further reflection,
however, it was decided to delay Winston's introduction until after the Ghostbusters' first
big score when, conceivably, they could really begin to need some augmentation.

''As writers, we'd never done a black character. Nor had we ever written women very well.
The Writers Guild sends out letters about this regularly —'let's see more women and more
minorities.' So when we wrote Winston, l think we had our own little reverse backlash going.
We bent over backwards to make Winston's character good— and in doing so, we made him
so good that he was the best character in the movie. We looked at it and said: 'Jesus! He's
got all the good lines.' At the same time, everybody was saying Bill's character was a little
weak. So, little by little, we started shifting Winston's attitude to Bill's character— which
made perfect sense — and we also ended up delaying Winston's introduction until much
later in the film."
~ Harold Ramis

So here's a book from 1984/5 where Harold Ramis states that the impetus for introducing a positive black character to the script actually came FROM the Hollywood establishment, who specifically wanted to see scripts with more diversity as well as more female characters in the ensembles.

Later in Making Ghostbusters, p. 99, at the point in the included script where Winston finally appears, we have two more sidebars:

Unable to keep up with their crushing workload, the paranormal entrepreneurs place a
‘help wanted’ ad which draws the fourth member of their team —Winston Zeddemore.
Until the final shooting draft, Winston had been seen in the script as a security man for
the company. When it became apparent that the Ghostbusters had no real need for a
security man, he became instead a full-fledged — if not altogether convinced — Ghostbuster.

"l think the original concept for Winston's character was younger and hipper. At one
point, we were talking with Gregory Hines about playing the part. We also considered
getting a young, black comedian — somebody like Eddie Murphy. But, in retrospect,
it's probably just as well we didn't. lt would have been just too much. As it is, there is a
nice balance among the four characters. Winston is the moderate character against which
the other three can play."
~ [producer] Michael Gross

This reveals that turning Winston into an actual team member was a late change to the original concept. Take this with the first sidebar mentioned above, and what they're saying is that originally, Winston was introduced earlier in the script NOT as a full member of the team but rather just as their security man. They decided to instead make him an equal-status Ghostbuster in the final shooting script, but felt that his introduction worked better later in the story, building the team when they need more help due to the increased workload illustrated in the montage sequence.

The original Aykroyd-only concept was for the team to be a trio consisting of Dan as Stantz, John Belushi as Venkman, and Eddie Murphy as a third buster then called 'Ramsey'. The three roles in Aykroyd's original 'unfilmable' draft were, according to Ramis in the book's foreword, totally interchangeable personalities. The death of Belushi and the non-involvement of Murphy led to the script being restructured heavily with the input of Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis.

Once Murray was on board, they realized that the biggest star in the film had no good lines. So, as Aykroyd says in the Movies That Made Us retrospective, the role intended for Murphy did NOT become the role played by Ernie Hudson, rather he was "replaced by Billy, really, as the main comic voice."

The book also states that the character we now know as Winston was NOT one of the busters. He was conceived first as a security guard. He was elevated to buster status at the eleventh hour, and his first appearance delayed until the point in the story where it made the most sense.

So, the thread's title asks was his role diminished due to Hollywood racism? Let's go point by point.

Was Ernie Hudson's role (Winston Zeddemore) *diminished*? If we accept the Ramsey and Winston roles as distinct, then no. Ramsey became what we know today as Venkman, while the different character of Winston was *elevated* from company employee to equal team member, as well as the Everyman audience surrogate.

Was this alleged diminishment *due to Hollywood racism*? From these insights recorded at the time the film came out, the entire reason both the Ramsey and Winston characters were originally created was because the Writers Guild was calling for more diversity.

Did Ernie read and audition from a script closer to the Ramsey take on things, before that specific character evolved into Murray's Venkman? Undoubtedly.

But was the evolution of Ramsey into Venkman indeed racially motivated? Ask yourself this... if Eddie Murphy had played Ramsey, would they have still taken all those good lines and given them to Bill Murray?

If you think the answer is no, then the script's final evolution had less to do with skin color than it did with star power.

Lastly, will anything I've typed here change anyone's mind?

Not one whit.

And I know that.

But at the same time, there seemed to be a great deal of speculation in this thread on why things occurred the way they did, without anyone citing the writers' and filmmakers' own explanations from almost forty years ago. Not what they might say today, if they were asked to justify it in the current climate, but how they felt about it at the time. Harold Ramis isn't here to defend himself anymore, so the quote from Making Ghostbusters is his 'best evidence' of what they did and why. Michael Gross is also deceased now. I wanted to give them a voice in this.

Thanks for reading.

Alex
doney84, Alphagaia liked this
#4983636
Alex Newborn wrote: June 13th, 2023, 1:58 am I personally never perceived anything about Winston's treatment as being racist. But then, I've owned the book Making Ghostbusters since the 80s. Here are two sidebars from page 54:

In the July and August drafts, Dana's appearance at the firehall is preceded by a scene in
which Winston Zeddemore — armed with enough references to nail down a job as security
chief for the White House —- presents himself in reply to a trifling 'help wanted' ad for a guard.
The inclusion of Winston was in clear response to a perceived notion on the part of the
filmmakers that the team needed to embrace a fourth member who could serve as the
on-screen voice of the viewing public —a no-nonsense professional, with a major streak
of skepticism when it came to the avowed objectives of his employers. On further reflection,
however, it was decided to delay Winston's introduction until after the Ghostbusters' first
big score when, conceivably, they could really begin to need some augmentation.

''As writers, we'd never done a black character. Nor had we ever written women very well.
The Writers Guild sends out letters about this regularly —'let's see more women and more
minorities.' So when we wrote Winston, l think we had our own little reverse backlash going.
We bent over backwards to make Winston's character good— and in doing so, we made him
so good that he was the best character in the movie. We looked at it and said: 'Jesus! He's
got all the good lines.' At the same time, everybody was saying Bill's character was a little
weak. So, little by little, we started shifting Winston's attitude to Bill's character— which
made perfect sense — and we also ended up delaying Winston's introduction until much
later in the film."
~ Harold Ramis

So here's a book from 1984/5 where Harold Ramis states that the impetus for introducing a positive black character to the script actually came FROM the Hollywood establishment, who specifically wanted to see scripts with more diversity as well as more female characters in the ensembles.

Later in Making Ghostbusters, p. 99, at the point in the included script where Winston finally appears, we have two more sidebars:

Unable to keep up with their crushing workload, the paranormal entrepreneurs place a
‘help wanted’ ad which draws the fourth member of their team —Winston Zeddemore.
Until the final shooting draft, Winston had been seen in the script as a security man for
the company. When it became apparent that the Ghostbusters had no real need for a
security man, he became instead a full-fledged — if not altogether convinced — Ghostbuster.

"l think the original concept for Winston's character was younger and hipper. At one
point, we were talking with Gregory Hines about playing the part. We also considered
getting a young, black comedian — somebody like Eddie Murphy. But, in retrospect,
it's probably just as well we didn't. lt would have been just too much. As it is, there is a
nice balance among the four characters. Winston is the moderate character against which
the other three can play."
~ [producer] Michael Gross

This reveals that turning Winston into an actual team member was a late change to the original concept. Take this with the first sidebar mentioned above, and what they're saying is that originally, Winston was introduced earlier in the script NOT as a full member of the team but rather just as their security man. They decided to instead make him an equal-status Ghostbuster in the final shooting script, but felt that his introduction worked better later in the story, building the team when they need more help due to the increased workload illustrated in the montage sequence.

The original Aykroyd-only concept was for the team to be a trio consisting of Dan as Stantz, John Belushi as Venkman, and Eddie Murphy as a third buster then called 'Ramsey'. The three roles in Aykroyd's original 'unfilmable' draft were, according to Ramis in the book's foreword, totally interchangeable personalities. The death of Belushi and the non-involvement of Murphy led to the script being restructured heavily with the input of Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis.

Once Murray was on board, they realized that the biggest star in the film had no good lines. So, as Aykroyd says in the Movies That Made Us retrospective, the role intended for Murphy did NOT become the role played by Ernie Hudson, rather he was "replaced by Billy, really, as the main comic voice."

The book also states that the character we now know as Winston was NOT one of the busters. He was conceived first as a security guard. He was elevated to buster status at the eleventh hour, and his first appearance delayed until the point in the story where it made the most sense.

So, the thread's title asks was his role diminished due to Hollywood racism? Let's go point by point.

Was Ernie Hudson's role (Winston Zeddemore) *diminished*? If we accept the Ramsey and Winston roles as distinct, then no. Ramsey became what we know today as Venkman, while the different character of Winston was *elevated* from company employee to equal team member, as well as the Everyman audience surrogate.

Was this alleged diminishment *due to Hollywood racism*? From these insights recorded at the time the film came out, the entire reason both the Ramsey and Winston characters were originally created was because the Writers Guild was calling for more diversity.

Did Ernie read and audition from a script closer to the Ramsey take on things, before that specific character evolved into Murray's Venkman? Undoubtedly.

But was the evolution of Ramsey into Venkman indeed racially motivated? Ask yourself this... if Eddie Murphy had played Ramsey, would they have still taken all those good lines and given them to Bill Murray?

If you think the answer is no, then the script's final evolution had less to do with skin color than it did with star power.

Lastly, will anything I've typed here change anyone's mind?

Not one whit.

And I know that.

But at the same time, there seemed to be a great deal of speculation in this thread on why things occurred the way they did, without anyone citing the writers' and filmmakers' own explanations from almost forty years ago. Not what they might say today, if they were asked to justify it in the current climate, but how they felt about it at the time. Harold Ramis isn't here to defend himself anymore, so the quote from Making Ghostbusters is his 'best evidence' of what they did and why. Michael Gross is also deceased now. I wanted to give them a voice in this.

Thanks for reading.

Alex
This is an interesting write up and you did a really good job but it’s important to note..

The WGA is just the writers guild. They are not the studio. In fact they are often at odds with the studios which can be seen right now with the Writers Strike.

I don’t think anyone made the claim the writers guild was racist. Rather that the marketing and the studios were. In fact it says everything that the WGA was actively encouraging movies with members of the opposite sex and minorities yet white males were still overwhelmingly ruling the box office and majority of movies put into production tells a sad tale indeed

I mean we saw what happened with another Dan Aykroyd film didn’t we? Blues Brothers. A movie that features two white dudes, two big stars, in the main roles and that movie just celebrates African American culture and music… but theatre owners wouldn’t play it. It didn’t even have two black stars. Just cameos and music. They still shunned it.

So you could see how that bleeds into the other facets of the system. Again, I don’t think Dan or Harold are racist. But the marketing? The studio? I don’t think we can give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.

    Just got it today here's what the fit looks like[…]

    Proton Props UK

    None from me either

    You Probably wouldn't want to wear a pack even if […]

    Do you like Huey Lewis and The News? Their early w[…]