Ghostbusters reboot (film) - Female cast

[bassman]

It's a real shame, though, that the original lads couldn't get another film together to round off a trilogy. Not in film form, but Ghostbusters: The Video Game on PS3/XBOX 360 is actually the PERFECT third film. If you play video games, I highly recommend it. It's essentially playing through a third film that ties the whole trilogy together, written by Aykroyd and Ramis, and features all of the original cast voices/likenesses. It was surprisingly very well made and captures the "feel" of the original film. It's a shame they were never able to make the actual third film, but this game pretty much nails it all around. Aside from the story being well done, it's also very fun to play regardless of the player's GB fandom.

[MinionZombie]

The thing is, people don't raise an eyebrow when it comes to thousands of all-male cast films. The argument you're making, that it's "going in the wrong direction", I only ever hear when it comes to all-female cast films or things of it's kind. I agree that the gimmick is getting in the way of the movie - but that's the case with most films these days, isn't it? So why single this one out? I mean, wouldn't you say that the gimmick of Expendables is also getting in the way of the movie? I would. It's a very specific gimmick. As for it being regressive, I don't buy it. If it's regressive to produce an all-female cast film, then why does nobody ever raise an eyebrow at all-male cast films? Maybe that is the point it's trying to make, and you can't deny that if that's the case - it's succeeded because that's all everyone is talking about including us. It's very sad that people feel the need to attack this film for it's all-female cast. Why is that not allowed to exist? There's no good answer to that question. I'm not really a Ghostbusters fan. So I don't really care about the remake aspect of it. 1) It needs to be what works for the property. There are also films that are primarily/all female - and that's not a recent thing, either - or films where the lead is a woman, it just so happens that that's how the story shakes out. 2) "Going in the wrong direction" brings in a wide range of potential criticisms - and is a statement targetted at any film, regardless of who the cast are, that is looking to be a dud or have serious problems with it. Mad Max Fury Road is a great example of how to get it right - and by "it" I mean both getting a 30 year old franchise going again, and having men and women side-by-side on-screen. Max and Furiosa battle, fight, and work side-by-side throughout. Their back stories are strong and completely fit within the story of Fury Road and within what Mad Max is as a franchise. It doesn't feel forced, or binary, it feels completely natural, while also being able to make a point or two - but, again, in a way that entirely works for the material and the franchise at large. 3) The gimmick of The Expendables is the entire point of the movie. The stories are serviceable, but aren't deep or surprising - but that's not really the way to present that material, the stories are there to serve the gimmick - 80s action heroes on screen together fighting with/against each other. 4) For me, the female cast issue is more about it in connection to Ghostbusters than movies in general. I'm totally fine with an all female cast, or an all male cast, or an entirely mixed cast (I refer back to how spot-on the Fast & Furious franchise gets it when it comes to a diverse cast that sits comfortably, very comfortably, with the material and with the franchise in general). I think part of the problem is that Ghostbusters is a seriously iconic film. It would be like remaking Back to the Future (a creative travesty of an idea) and saying "All the boys are now girls and all the girls are now boys, woo, look how right-on we're being, aren't we good? Please say we're good!" - Ghostbusters is so linked to that particular cast. Even if this movie exactly replicated the placement and split of men and women, it'd still get a tongue lashing - because it isn't those four very specific guys who made Ghostbusters the beloved and recognisable franchise that it is. Another problem is the - apparent - disregard of all that came before (i.e. GB1 and GB2 don't exist). This is not only jarring, but it has that full-on smack of movie remake beligerance. If they have changed the script to include GB1&2 as cannon - and incorporated a 'passing of the torch' theme (which would work far better IMHO, and be easier for established fans to swallow) - then why haven't they been shouting it from the rooftops? 5) that's all everyone is talking about Which says, to me at least, that they're failing at the main task - to be a Ghostbusters movie. The public - and that goes for everyone, regardless of gender, age, race, whatever - don't like having a finger wagged in their face, or having a point driven into their skull with a hammer. The fact that the "all female" thing has taken over the project illustrates what a clumsy move it has been - and again I refer back to my "behind where we should actually be on this issue" assertion. 'Doing something different' - are they though? Numerous parts of that trailer just look like cookie cutter copies of elements from the original movie. The racial mix is exactly the same - heck, people could complain that the black lady (who, generically enough, is sassy and shouts a lot) isn't a scientist in this one, but all the white ladies are. Actually, some people have made that complaint - but isn't that always the case? There's always something to complain about, there's always something not being represented, or something not being balanced out - much like in life (which is part of the struggle and variety of life in itself). Ultimately, my point is, the binary flip/flop of "they were all guys before, so now we'll just do all women" is, to me, a step behind where we should really be on this issue. Ghostbusters isn't gender or race specific as a concept, it's not a film for socio-political issues. To use it as a vehicle to make a point (rather than, I dunno, make new franchises, new concepts, new stories with all female casts, or female dominated casts - if that's what the material requires/would benefit from) gets in the way of what nu-GB should be doing, which is be a good Ghostbusters movie - and going on the strength of that trailer, there's either a huge uphill battle to be fought (and an advertising campaign in need of new leadership) or they've buggered it up. Sometimes a movie just shouldn't be remade ... like Back to the Future, or The Shawshank Redemption, or Casablanca, or Thelma & Louise ... or, in my view, Ghostbusters. A "Fury Road" or "Creed" style addition/continuation to the franchise that fits in with what the franchise should be? Let's talk, otherwise jog on. Good remakes are rare things indeed. 6) I'm not really a Ghostbusters fan. ... Well to me Ghostbusters is my Star Wars, so that should explain a lot. ... Speaking more generally, if they wanted to bring back Ghostbusters they should have (going on the strength of this trailer as that's all we've got to go on right now) tried to go more in the direction of Mad Max Fury Road or Creed - both of which acknowledge the past of their respective franchises, reboot/restart/rejuvinate the franchise in a fan friendly way, and mix the old and the new together. One positive I will say - the ghosts look pretty cool, like the effects, I mean. CGI tweaks to people who were there on set (e.g. wearing LED light suits and spraying practical goo about). Not a fan of that 'trap' though ... feels too 'production designery' if that makes sense? There was something wonderfully utilitarian about the original trap's design - like something somebody would make rather than draw in a production sketch book. It's like Leatherface's mask in TCM1 vs TCM2. I get that there's alot of angry white dudes out there that feel that they should be ontop of everything. It's sad to see. But this isnt gonna be the last all-female action film, so let's not even bat an eye about it. Action film? Since when was Ghostbusters an action film? It's a comedy, first a foremost ... you could call it a "supernatural comedy", perhaps. Also, bit of a generalisation, much? Yes, there are plenty of asshats making a stink, but there's plenty of Ghostbusters fans - in general, of all genders and races - who are non-plussed by this whole remake-that-nobody's-calling-a-remake-but-which-might-not-be-as-much-of-a-remake-as-initially-thought-but-if-so-why-haven't-they-just-stated-that-loud-and-proud ... *gasps* ... movie. Now here's my biggest nerdy conundrum with this thing...is it a continuation or a complete remake? There are soooo many hints that this may actually be a third film in the existing franchise, but it seems like Sony is trying to play coy for some reason. The "30 years ago" text, the rumored rewrites and reshoots for franchise continuity reasons, the inclusion of the firehouse including interior shots with equipment and such, the spray painted ghostbusters logo in the subway(almost like the sort of "we remember" bat logos in The Dark Knight Rises), spoilery details regarding the original cast cameos, maybe even the times square scene of the busters obviously time travelling or walking through a parallel dimension 1970/80s times square(im thinking 70's because of the taxi driver advert though), etc. I'm thinking Sony feared the fan backlash and made some changes to make it a reboot rather than a full on remake. The original team has been out of business 30+ years, these new scientists discover a surge in paranormal activity, then are ultimately given the GB business by the original crew that has since moved on. One of them even being related to an original member... And IF they've re-written it to be a continuation WHY are Sony et al being so coy with this trailer? Why not just flippin' state that and avoid so much of the trouble? IF they've changed it about, they had a chance to flip the switch of perception here in a big, bad way - but willfully missed it. So if there is only one good thing to come from Feig's remake, it's that GB2 can no longer be widely referred to as "the crappy ghostbusters". I think GB2 gets treated a bit harshly by some out there. It's obviously not as good as GB1, and copies the first film an awful lot - but I dig it. GB1 reigns supreme, naturally, but I also dig GB2. Not in film form, but Ghostbusters: The Video Game on PS3/XBOX 360 is actually the PERFECT third film. Agreed! I loved that game! SO GOOD! Sorry for the long-arse post, chaps!

[shootemindehead]

Not in film form, but Ghostbusters: The Video Game on PS3/XBOX 360 is actually the PERFECT third film. If you play video games, I highly recommend it. It's essentially playing through a third film that ties the whole trilogy together, written by Aykroyd and Ramis, and features all of the original cast voices/likenesses. It was surprisingly very well made and captures the "feel" of the original film. It's a shame they were never able to make the actual third film, but this game pretty much nails it all around. Aside from the story being well done, it's also very fun to play regardless of the player's GB fandom. Aye, I have it knocking around somewhere, but I trailed off with it fairly early one. It just didn't grab me. I might have a bash again soon and see if I react differently. I recently started 'Alan Wake' up again after getting mightily bored with that a few years ago and I'll probably finish a playthrough this time. I don't consider computer games as canon though. Doesn't feel right to me at all.

[EvilNed]

1) It needs to be what works for the property. There are also films that are primarily/all female - and that's not a recent thing, either - or films where the lead is a woman, it just so happens that that's how the story shakes out. 2) "Going in the wrong direction" brings in a wide range of potential criticisms - and is a statement targetted at any film, regardless of who the cast are, that is looking to be a dud or have serious problems with it. Mad Max Fury Road is a great example of how to get it right - and by "it" I mean both getting a 30 year old franchise going again, and having men and women side-by-side on-screen. Max and Furiosa battle, fight, and work side-by-side throughout. Their back stories are strong and completely fit within the story of Fury Road and within what Mad Max is as a franchise. It doesn't feel forced, or binary, it feels completely natural, while also being able to make a point or two - but, again, in a way that entirely works for the material and the franchise at large. 3) The gimmick of The Expendables is the entire point of the movie. The stories are serviceable, but aren't deep or surprising - but that's not really the way to present that material, the stories are there to serve the gimmick - 80s action heroes on screen together fighting with/against each other. 4) For me, the female cast issue is more about it in connection to Ghostbusters than movies in general. I'm totally fine with an all female cast, or an all male cast, or an entirely mixed cast (I refer back to how spot-on the Fast & Furious franchise gets it when it comes to a diverse cast that sits comfortably, very comfortably, with the material and with the franchise in general). 1; there is nothing inherently male about ghostbusters. 2; I've already explained why I think this argument is bonkers, but no sense in repeating ourselves, is there? (I mean, let's not make a Land > Day out of this...) 3; Good point, but I can also flip it; the only reason people see this as a gimmick is because it's so rare. So while it's "groundbreaking" (for a lack of a better word), in ten years time you probably won't raise an eyebrow when something similar comes along. 4; I actually prefer this type of treatment to just a do-over. I think flipping gender roles is a good idea. I think this film is as good of an idea as we're likely to get out of Hollywood for a Ghostbusters sequel/remake.

[MinionZombie]

1; there is nothing inherently male about ghostbusters. Likewise there's nothing inherently female about Ghostbusters - indeed, there's nothing inherently gender specific about Ghostbusters. My point is really about the implementation of this particular cast - i.e. it seems to have been more about making a point, rather than anything else. The stick, rather than the carrot - and people don't like the stick, they don't like preaching, and they don't like finger wagging. You can drag a horse to water, and other metaphors. How about, instead of going out of your way to make a point, you just be what you want for the future. Skip to the conclusion - a cast that just happens to be mixed and it's not an issue at all, it's not commented on, it isn't wiggled about in front of the audience to teach them a 'lesson' or blah-blah-blah, it's just how it is. Once again I refer back to how the Fast & Furious franchise has totally nailed that aspect. In other words - it's possible, it's happening right now and has been for years - so why the need to make a blunt point (the stick), when you could just mix things up and not bother commenting on it at all because it's just how the cast shakes out (the carrot)? If we don't want it to be an issue - why does it need to still be addressed as an issue? Can't we just skip to the end goal? As an aside: "Life On Mars" versus "Ashes To Ashes" - the former has two male leads, while the latter has mixed leads (female/male). The latter was the much more interesting of the two shows (which were linked by certain characters, plots, and themes, and shared the same universe). The binary flip (in the case of nu-GB), while getting in the way of itself by going the route of the stick, in some ways regenerates the issue - and cuts off creative possibilities. Some stories are always going to require male or female dominated/exclusive casts - and that's still okay - whatever serves the story best is key. In this case, the binary flip - the 'positive discrimination' approach, you could say - has got in the way of the task at hand: making a good Ghostbusters movie, or at least, promoting the movie in a focused manner. I understand the fight, but I think the approach has been wrong and - I say once more - ultimately behind where we should be. Let's just skip to the conclusion already, yeah? Otherwise it's like wanting to reduce/get rid of the issue while continuing to make an issue out of the issue rather than just saying "the issue isn't an issue because the issue shouldn't matter, so we're not making an issue out of the issue and just cracking on", if that makes sense? The rumours of an "all male Ghostbusters" film (as part of an 'expanded GB universe') drived the point home further as to how spectacularly they've blundered the "stick" approach. Flip-flopping one way and then right back again is the dumbest idea, and is pretty insulting to the audience when you think about it. That's really what my frustration is with that particular issue. We have the same goal in mind, but our opinions on the approach to resolution are different. But I have many issues with this entire project - for one (and biggest of all), it appears to ostensibly be a remake of Ghostbusters. The way the filmmakers and studio are squirming around that word just goes to show how remakes mostly produce crap or products that are worse than the original and not better. Surely the purpose of a remake is to have another go at a film that should work as a concept, but which you didn't get right the first time. The Maltese Falcon was made in 1931 - but who remembers that one? We all remember the 1941 version with Bogart - because they nailed it. Conversely, who remembers the 1978 remake of The Big Sleep? I never knew about it until just this second looking on IMDb, no, we all remember the 1946 version because that's when they nailed it. The comedy just looks bad - that screamy, shouty, 'breaking the fourth wall without actually breaking it, but grinding everything to a halt so we can make a self-aware gag' nonsense ... the licking of the proton pistols (one: proton pistols?!, two: licking them, really?). I'm a big fan of Wiig, and McCarthy I can take or leave (it'd be good if she mixed in a few more St. Vincent type roles) ... the other two? I've absolutely no idea who they are. Hemsworth? Yeah he's alright. There was something I read online, in a comment section IIRC, specifically about the hearse thing - in the trailer it's a classic vehicle that's well maintained. Where's the joke? It's a hearse? So? It's a Cadillac ... and? Whereas in the original it was a total shit-heap hunk of junk - the joke was in Ray thinking it was amazing, but there was a shit-ton of problems with it. Just a small thing, maybe, but it might be more representative of them missing the target with this remake-or-whatever-the-hell-it-is. The P.R. for the film has also been woeful. The rather crass covert advertising campaign of them visiting a children's hospital in costume while the film was still in production (so, in other words, you aren't the Ghostbusters yet because you're film's not even finished, let alone released and seen by the public). The Avengers folks do it - but their films have actually been watched by those kids, and they just did it to cheer up the kids - here with the nu-GB cast getting tossed in it felt far more like some PR idiot's idea of a cheap bit of advertising, and/or some sort of 'face saving' exercise. Further to this - again, why are they being so coy about the cameos of the original cast? Have they re-written it as a continuation? Are GB1&2 cannon, despite Feig & Co stating the complete opposite when they started the project? The whole venture feels more like a way to rinse more money out of cinematically dormant franchise. It just feels wrong, it feels off, it feels more like a studio cash grab with questionable creative choices than a natural next step for the franchise. I really think they've missed a trick by not following up on that proposed idea of having the original Ghostbusters creating franchises elsewhere in the country - the handing of the torch - rather than this salt the earth and start over while constantly tossing in references to the original film. That in itself - tossing in a bunch of references - is very shaky ground to be on. You're just going to constantly remind people of how the original exists, and how good it was, and how whatever this new film is just isn't going to be up to snuff. I don't envy Feig & Co at all. In many ways it's a task which cannot be succeeded at. Who knows, this could all turn out to be an absolute PR bugger up with a good film coming out through all the shit - but how likely is that, really? In the end the most likely outcome will be that it'll get some things right, but plenty of things wrong, and generally be "meh".

[EvilNed]

Eh. I gotta say I disagree with your hangup on the all-female cast. I don't think it's any more of a gimmick than what people will want it to be. You seem to want the gimmick to take more space than it actually does - which is why you're going off on this tangent. Anyway, as I said, there's nothing inherently male about the story. So casting all females rather than all males does not really damage the IP. I like it.

[MinionZombie]

Am I also discussing a wider issue beyond the film itself? Yes, but why not when nu-GB is part of that wider analysis? I don't think you're quite reading what I'm writing, Ned, and I don't know how to be any clearer in my thinking than I already have been.

[bassman]

And IF they've re-written it to be a continuation WHY are Sony et al being so coy with this trailer? Why not just flippin' state that and avoid so much of the trouble? IF they've changed it about, they had a chance to flip the switch of perception here in a big, bad way - but willfully missed it. My guess is that they want to make it appear as a full on remake for the general audience that doesn't really care to see the original characters carried on. But at the same time, they want the connection for the legions of hardcore fans so that they're happy and don't lash out against the film. Mind you, this is all IF there is a real connection to the originals. This is all speculation at this point and it's a BIG if. Adding more fuel to the flames, fans that attended the premiere screening event of the trailer at the Sony/Ghost Corp lot say that Reitman assured the fans that BIG things are coming for the GB franchise and Feig's film is just the beginning. Of course we know that big things have to be coming considering Sony gave Reitman an entire block of the Sony offices lot that is now dressed like the firehouse, logos all about, and the cars parked on display, but from the way the fans in attendance explain it, Sony is looking to turn the GB franchise into something akin to Marvel or Star Wars. This leads me to believe this film must branch out into others, including the original films continuity in some form of fashion. I've even heard some quite plausible predictions that they're playing with alternate realities and parallel dimensions in order to make films in separate, yet connected continuity. GB has referenced alternate dimensions from the start, it was Aykroyd very idea for the abandoned third film, and you can see multiple portals and time changes throughout the new trailer. Remember how star trek was "remade", but ya know....not actually remade? All speculation, but hey....that's the fun of fandom, I suppose. The greatest news from all this is that something is definitely coming after Feig's film and GB is alive and in the general population's mind again after 30 some odd years....

[EvilNed]

Am I also discussing a wider issue beyond the film itself? Yes, but why not when nu-GB is part of that wider analysis? I don't think you're quite reading what I'm writing, Ned, and I don't know how to be any clearer in my thinking than I already have been. Well, I can only issue the gender issues. I don't really like Ghostbusters that much so the remake aspect of it I can't comment on. But for the gender issue, all I can say is that you're making it a bigger issue than it needs to be. The reason probably being that an all-female cast is unusual and out of the ordinary. You can't deny that the internet hate this film is generating from insecure white boys all over the world is unwarranted. It's a ghostbusters films and the ghostbusters are girls. Get over it. Another thing to consider is also this; remember that men dominate everything. With that in mind, it's pretty arrogant to just want to "skip to the conclusion". That approach would take longer and would protect the ego of "the white man" for as much as possible. We won't get to the conclusion before we as a society can accept that yeah - some things can also be done with all female casts. So I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. Mind you, in this case it's just a stupid Hollywood film that I don't really care about. But it's an underdog because of those aforementioned insecure white guys who feel that their prestige is threatened. I think that's sad.

[MinionZombie]

Bassman - interesting, RE: all that 'alternate universe' stuff. So I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. Likewise (same goal sought, different methods in mind). I say 'skip to the conclusion' because why not? It's only a movie, it's totally possible, and it's happening right now in other franchises. 'Positive discrimination' is just more discrimination, and seeking to undo segregation via more segregation just seems like the most bizarre method IMHO. But again - I'm speaking of the issue in general, beyond nu-GB, which is a representative fragment. Ultimately I don't really care who the cast is as long as they're good at their job and the movie's good - the problem is the movie's not looking good (the comedy stylings, the remake aspect, the apparent disregard of the originals as cannon), and the point-making has got way beyond their control, taken over the project, and caused a distraction (as you said: "that's all everyone is talking about"). The idea of an 'all male Ghostbusters' in another film just illustrates how clumsy it's all been handled - hence 'skip to the conclusion' - because why not just do it and lead by example? Society is infinitely more complex, but a movie can be do whatever it wants right now. There's undoubtedly plenty of arses on the Internet, some truly believe the bile they spew forth, while others are just trolling or poking sticks at the easily offended - so it makes me question whether it's been all that productive as a debate. There's been lazy generalisations on both sides of the chitter chatter out there on the web ... there's been an awful lot of shallow posers trying to make themselves look good on Social Media in reaction to nu-GB, and there's been an awful lot of scumbags saying stupid shit in reaction to nu-GB. My prediction for it, in the end, is that it'll just be 'eh, okay'.

[EvilNed]

I say 'skip to the conclusion' because why not? It's only a movie, it's totally possible, and it's happening right now in other franchises. 'Positive discrimination' is just more discrimination, and seeking to undo segregation via more segregation just seems like the most bizarre method IMHO. But again - I'm speaking of the issue in general, beyond nu-GB, which is a representative fragment. Because in a world where we "skip to the conclusion", we must be willing to accept all forms of types of entertainment. All male films and all female films. I personally hate shoehorned mixing as that promotes stereotypes. I don't mind stereotypes at all, I just find it's lazy writing. I don't want to live in a world of Fast and the Furious' films where there's the latino chick, the asian hacker, the black wisecracker etc. etc., I want my culture varied and this Ghostbusters film is a part of that zeitgeist. I'd also like to point out that it is very healthy for us to be exposed to this all female cast of films. It's mere presence is enough to provoke argument, which is absurd in it's own right. I, for one, am very happy people are reacting to it. It shows how fucked up we are.

[MinionZombie]

I'll absolutely watch this movie ... but being that I never bother going to the cinema anymore except on exceedingly rare occasions, I'll probably end up borrowing it from someone or watching it when it rolls around on telly. All male films and all female films. Agreed. All I'm saying is the implementation and P.R. for it on this project has been exceedingly clumsy. That and other things make it look like they don't really know what they're doing with this movie in general, or are struggling to get all their ideas lined up - and that worries me. Who knows - it might be amazing - although that's highly unlikely at this point. Some of the jokes in that trailer ... ugh ... oh dear, as Neil might say. The ghosts look kinda cool though ... but not scary ... that's another concern. Ghostbusters was a little bit scary (that gnarly zombie-like taxi driver, the library ghost when it gets mad, the dog beasts etc) ... but, again, all you can really go on is the trailer at this point, and they can be misleading. The trailer for Terminator Salvation rocked, but the movie was a total bugger up ... I'm trying to think of bad trailers that turned into good movies, but I'm struggling - does anyone have any examples they can think of?

[bassman]

A fan edit of the trailer that is much better, IMO. It removes the jokes that don't fit too well with the GB style of witty humor and also replaces that dubstep version of theme song.

[MinionZombie]

A fan edit of the trailer that is much better, IMO. It removes the jokes that don't fit too well with the GB style of witty humor and also replaces that dubstep version of theme song. This raises a few points. In many ways, particularly with Ghostbusters, there's certains things that the established fanbase - as far and wide and as varied as it is, the very thing that has enabled this remake/whatever-the-hell-it's-supposed-to-be to exist in the first - want from a GB movie. This fan edit bringing back the original theme speaks to that. But in many ways that can be as much a help as a hindrance on a project such as this. The references could easily frustrate as much as they could entertain, indeed if you include too many then you weigh this film down under the crushing weight of what came before (and inspired a fanbase for thirty years). This further makes me question why on earth you would really want to go down the "GB1&2 aren't cannon" route - which seems to be the case, but frankly who the hell knows at this point, does Sony even know? Seriously though, if GB1&2 had been included as cannon, you'd save face with the fans and I think that 'franchising' story idea would have made for a more interesting choice - perhaps in the face of dwindling paranormal activity. Almost like the people are starting to wonder whether it all really happened or not (there's almost a hint of that in this trailer, in fact) - it would also mean you could have references to the movies everyone loves in a way that would flow more naturally, rather than just being tossed in. Thrown in references can sometimes work, but they can all-too-easily come off as crunched gears. But Hollywood can never leave anything alone now, can they? For example, the "Suspiria" remake is apparently still going ahead - which just makes no creative sense whatsoever ... but that's another thread entirely. Back to nu-GB, I'm wondering if they'll try and cut down some of the jokes in the movie - the ones that have kind of landed like clangers around the web - to try and reduce the more face-palm-inducing self-aware '21st century comedy' stuff.

[EvilNed]

All I'm saying is the implementation and P.R. for it on this project has been exceedingly clumsy. That and other things make it look like they don't really know what they're doing with this movie in general, or are struggling to get all their ideas lined up - and that worries me. To be honest, all I see is a trailer. There's nothing really female or politically correct about it. The clumsy part, I'd say, is the insecure white rage that gets thrown at it - which is an ugly mirror for us as a society to stare into.