Leslie Jones recounts unfair pay, death threats, and more from Ghostbusters
Leslie Jones claims cuts to 2016's Ghostbusters made the film worse
Aux News Ghostbusters
Leslie Jones is set to tackle the controversial 2016 Ghostbusters in her new memoir Leslie F*cking Jones. In an excerpt published by Rolling Stone, Jones reflects on the incredible amount of bullying she endured in the wake of the reboot—a film for which she says she wasn’t even offered a fair salary. According to Jones, she was first offered a meager $67,000 and had to fight for a total of $150,000, still less than her co-stars Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy. “[The] message was clear: ‘This is gonna blow you up—after this, you’re made for life,’ all that kind of shit, as though I hadn’t had decades of a successful career already,” Jones writes. “And in the end, all it made for me was heartache and one big-ass controversy.”
As for that big-ass controversy: “Of all the women in Paul’s remake of the movie, I was the one who got taken through the ringer. I wonder why… Oh, right, because I was a Black girl,” the Saturday Night Live alum notes. “I was being sent films of being hanged, of white guys jacking off on my picture, saying, ‘You fucking n****r. We going to kill you.’ Why are people being so evil to each other? How can you sit and type ‘I want to kill you.’ Who does that?”
Jones’ social media was under such constant threat of hacking that then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey personally interceded. It “was basically the start of Twitter taking this shit more seriously,” Jones claims. She endured vitriol and death threats over the comedy, only for Ghostbusters: Afterlife director Jason Reitman to make the “unforgivable” comment that he was giving Ghostbusters “back to the fans” with his version. “Bringing up the idea of giving the movie ‘back to the fans’ was a pretty clear shout-out to all those losers who went after us for making an all-female film,” Jones writes.
There were positives to the film, like bonding with and learning from Kate McKinnon, McCarthy, Wiig, and director Paul Feig, as well as working with the “fucking incredible” crew. “That crew deserved for y’all to see the movie we actually made. But a lot of stuff got cut for cost,” she reveals.
What was left on the cutting room floor? Character moments between Jones and McKinnon as well as McCarthy and Wiig, a lot of improv, one of her fight scenes, and a whole dance sequence for Chris Hemsworth’s character choreographed by the late Michael K. Williams. “It was like a really funny, weird version of ‘Thriller,’” she writes. “The day of that taping we were so excited because we figured that when people saw this, they were going to lose it.”
Instead, it was cut. “The reason given was that the special effects needed were too expensive, or some bullshit. But if this film can’t afford special effects, then what the fuck are we doing making a Ghostbusters movie in the first place?” Jones wonders. “If they had released the movie as we’d shot it, I swear things would have been different.” You can read the full excerpt here, or check out the book, which was published this week.
229 Comments
So, we gonna start a “Release the Feig Cut” campaign?
Based on the description of what was cut, I hope not. The last thing that film needed was more meandering, overlong improv scenes.
Many of those scenes were already restored in I believe an extended cut released later in 2016. You are correct its even more meandering inprov.
Yeah Feig was over his head with the movie and the studio made some bad decisions. (if you’re going to film in Boston, SET it in Boston) It didn’t know if it was a reboot, sequel or remake. I’d love for another writer/director to use the cast for a sequel and go full Wrath of Khan on it and have fun.
A all female version of Wrath of Khan would be cool. Let’s make some phone calls!
Ironically, the original Ghostbusters was one huge meandering improv session.
Oh, but it wasn’t. A key difference (maybe the key difference?) between the two films is that the improv in the original was tight and didn’t meander at all.
I firmly think a good editor is the most important job for a comedy
I hate to drop a well, actually… but apparently Reitman had MILES of footage due to all of the improvising and had to edit the mess into a coherent story. There are people who have claimed to have seen alternate or extended cuts and it was a mess. There was a great podcast several years ago with Reitman and Aykroyd talking about how chaotic the production was.
Did it end up on the screen? No, and that’s what’s relevant.As I said, the improv in the original film – that is, what we all saw when we went to the theater or watched it on home video – was indeed tight and the fact that a lot of hard work and skill in the editing bay made it that way doesn’t change that. The finished product is the only thing that matters, at least as far as I’m concerned; what ended up on the cutting room floor doesn’t enter into it.Star Wars was a mess before (Marcia) Lucas, Hirsch, and Chew got their hands on it, too, and that doesn’t diminish what we saw between the original release and when George Special-Editioned all over himself.
“Star Wars was a mess before (Marcia) Lucas, Hirsch, and Chew got their hands on it, too”
That’s a myth.
Now that’s something you don’t see every day.
Not really. There was some improv but the pacing was much tighter in the original.
No, a “Release the Jones Cut” campaign.
Oh boo hoo you talentless ass
Eat shit
“Bringing up the idea of giving the movie ‘back to the fans’ was a pretty clear shout-out to all those losers who went after us for making an all-female film.” Jones writes.”Or maybe that film just felt like a heartless, unfunny cash grab?Nah, definitely overt sexism, it has to be the sexism.
It…can be both? It’s not like Afterlife wasn’t also a heartless, unfunny cash grab.
I still found Afterlife to be the worse of the 2 films. It wasn’t funny and sucked.
That largely centered around a young female protagonist becoming empowered?
Full disagree. That movie was screamingly funny. Hell, there’s a supercut of McKinnen doing outtakes that are all improv and they’re all absolutely hilarious. All four of the lead actresses were in amazing form. The problem was that people expected a full on Ghostbusters remake and they didn’t get it. Fuck ‘em.
I think I laughed like 3 times during the whole film.
So maybe, just maybe, this film wasn’t targeted toward you, and that’s OK. Men are so used to every piece of media being produced by and for them, that they make these sweeping judgments about stuff that maybe they’re not the key audience for. I can’t stand the original Ghostbusters, but I recognize that I wasn’t in the core audience. I thought Jones and Co.’s Ghostbusters was funny, and the women in the audience when I went to see it were having a good time. It’s not a masterpiece, but it is better than it got credit for being.Not everything has to be for you. And regardless of that, it’s pretty clear that sexism played a huge role in what happened with the film, practically from the moment it was announced. So much vitriol online for butt-hurt fanboys. So much review bombing.
Or maybe I don’t care who the film is ‘targeted’ towards and think that none of Paul Feig’s work is very funny in general, not just this film. If you gave the same material to 4 men it wouldn’t have been funny either. From what I saw, the sexism thing was really puffed up by loads of articles about how anyone who didn’t like the movie was obviously a horrible sexist who hated all women.
“From what I saw” is doing ALL the work here.
“and think that none of Paul Feig’s work is very funny in general,”Interesting, since a lot of Feig’s film work is more female-focused.“From what I saw, the sexism thing was really puffed up by loads of articles about how anyone who didn’t like the movie was obviously a horrible sexist who hated all women.”If that’s all you saw, then I’d guess you were being real specific about where you chose to look.
In my experience comedy is comedy independent of the gender of the person making it. If it’s funny it’s funny, if it’s not it’s not.“If that’s all you saw, then I’d guess you were being real specific about where you chose to look.”I was pretty much looking on the internet in general: A lot of people complaining about how anyone who didn’t like the movie was a horrible sexist, a few people actually being sexist about it and the vast majority of people not really giving a shit and just thinking it wasn’t a very good flick.
“In my experience comedy is comedy independent of the gender of the person making it. If it’s funny it’s funny, if it’s not it’s not.”You’re saying two different things here. As to the first sentence, we aren’t disputing whether it’s “comedy.” If it’s meant to be comedy, it’s comedy, whether it’s successful or not. As to your second sentence, surely you understand that’s complete nonsense? All comedy isn’t funny to every single person who watches it and it never has been. It may not be funny *to you,* but that doesn’t mean that’s categorically unfunny and I honestly have to believe that you didn’t mean to say that because what you said is so objectively untrue. I didn’t think There’s Something About Mary was funny at all but everyone else seemed to. So is it categorically unfunny because it didn’t appeal to me personally? “a few people actually being sexist”Yeah, then clearly like I said, you missed a whole lot. Again, you seem to have some idea that if you didn’t personally witness or experience it, it didn’t happen. If you didn’t think it was funny, it wasn’t funny. If you didn’t see all the sexism, then it was overblown. I encourage you to remove yourself from the center of the universe. The stars of the movie have literally
“As to your second sentence, surely you understand that’s complete nonsense?”Yeah, funny is subjective, you didn’t have to spend a bunch of sentences explaining that to me.
“Yeah, then clearly like I said, you missed a whole lot.”I don’t think I did but if you find some way to prove that there was anything more than a bare minority of people bitching about the film because of sexism then I’ll be happy to change my mind. You seem to think that the loud minority is bigger than it is, which is a common mistake, so I can’t blame you for it.
“Yeah, funny is subjective, you didn’t have to spend a bunch of sentences explaining that to me.”I mean…apparently I did? Since you thought it was?“I don’t think I did”I know you don’t, because as far as you’re concerned the universe of what you saw is the complete universe of what exists, and if no one wants to spend their time collecting from the internet everything you missed, then your belief is confirmed.“You seem to think that the loud minority is bigger than it is”There’s absolutely no way anything I said could be interpreted in this way.
You claim Murry Chang’s take is ill-informed because it’s based only on what they saw. You imply your take is better-informed, without evidence … you started to say something about the stars of the movie but it was cut off, so maybe all your evidence was there?
And yet, I doubt very much that Leslie Jones’ take is any better informed as to the actual statistics of people’s motivations for their criticisms. She is certainly aware of the death threats she’s received, and even one is awful… but I don’t think even she is claiming that’s from more than a tiny minority of global commentors on this movie.
Meanwhile, Murry can very easily point to cases of people, in these comments, seemingly assuming that the minority of shitty behaviour is evidence that the majority criticism comes from shitty motives. So it seems Murry has supported their position, and so far, you haven’t.
“You imply your take is better-informed”I didn’t give a take.“And yet, I doubt very much that Leslie Jones’ take is any better informed as to the actual statistics of people’s motivations for their criticisms”Of course you do.“So it seems Murry has supported their position, and so far, you haven’t.”Yes, what Murry has seen personally definitely counts as irrefutable. Thanks for your input!
“I mean…apparently I did? Since you thought it was?”No, you didn’t, I did not think that, I just didn’t state it directly because I didn’t think it was necessary to note that funny is subjective…didn’t want to waste time typing truisms that I figure people already know.
“if no one wants to spend their time collecting from the internet everything you missed, then your belief is confirmed.”So I make a statement and you say I’m wrong and that automatically makes you right? If you’re gonna challenge a statement you need to bring some kind of evidence. You haven’t done that. As the poster above me says, you’re assuming at least as much as I am, if not more.
“No, you didn’t, I did not think that”Right. Right right right.“So I make a statement and you say I’m wrong and that automatically makes you right?”Show me where I said that?
Good, glad we’re on the same page there!“I know you don’t, because as far as you’re concerned the universe of
what you saw is the complete universe of what exists, and if no one
wants to spend their time collecting from the internet everything you
missed, then your belief is confirmed.”I’m really not sure of any other way to take this than you saying ‘I’m right and you’re wrong, though I will not even try to prove it.’ Is that not what you meant to say? If not, I’m sorry for the misunderstanding, but that’s definitely what it seems like.
“Good, glad we’re on the same page there!”If that’s your interpretation of this conversation, sure.“Is that not what you meant to say?”Not only is it not what I meant to say. It’s not what I said. What I said was that your conclusion is based on the bare minimum of your personal experience, which is not enough to base a claim of “it was overblown” on. I don’t need to present evidence to that fact, since everything you said reiterated how your conclusion was based on your own personal perception. Furthermore, I don’t need to “present evidence” because, well, who the fuck are you? If you don’t agree with me you don’t, and I can live with that. I’m not about to pull footnotes as if I’m writing an appellate brief for your ass. If you want to draw broad conclusions based on your own personal limited perception, then have at it.
In my experience comedy is comedy independent of the gender of the person making it. If it’s funny it’s funny, if it’s not it’s not.Utter effing nonsense. Comedy is contextual as hell. There’s no such thing as “Either it’s funny or it’s not.” Hell, even comic greats of the past haven’t aged well (Jerry Lewis, etc.)—but at the time they were considered geniuses.
You’d be wrong. And rather defensive for something that isn’t about you, which is hard not to read as a tell.
I mean nobody has been able to show me a single shred of evidence that I’m wrong, you’re just stating it.“And rather defensive for something that isn’t about you, which is hard not to read as a tell.”Asking for any kind of proof is ‘defensive’, now, eh? Unless I automatically believe something this is some kind of ‘tell’? You want to just state what you’re implying outright?
Sure – your desire to express this opinion reads like you might have some personal feelings getting in the way of feeling okay that others might believe something you don’t. There, I said it. I didn’t say I think it’s true, I’m just saying it’s difficult not to read it that way.
And sorry, I’m not going to play the “produce the evidence” game. You don’t need evidence, you need evidence you don’t discount. Those are two different things. There’s a mountain load of the former. Cheers!
Ah ok, no that’s not the case, sorry if I came off like that.
“There’s a mountain load of the former.”The mountain load of evidence you just simply can’t produce in order to actually back up your supposition. You can type a lot of insinuation and a whole paragraph about what you think my feelings are, but hard evidence is just simply a bridge too far. I get it, I’ve been online for a long time and have seen plenty of people just give up when asked to produce receipts of any kind, so you’re not alone there.
Cheers!
Which, to be fair, is three times more than I laughed at “Afterlife”.
Whoopty fucking doo
I’m glad I’m not the only one who enjoyed it! It’s not a movie for the ages but I find it reliably funny and entertaining.
While I agree that all the leads are funny, I don’t think it really all came together as a funny movie. A joke doesn’t work just because it’s funny. It has to be in the right context to really land. Sure, there was lots of funny improvised stuff, but did it fit into the movie in the right place?I remember seeing a video on YouTube about the editing in Ghostbusters 2016, and it went through the scene where they get Ecto 1. Kate McKinnon says a really good (obviously improvised) line, a great button for the scene. The scene keeps going, though. Everyone gets in another quip. Are they funny lines? Definitely. Do they kill the momentum of the film and just sort of hang there at the end of the scene? Even more so.Paul Feig literally had more funny lines than he knew what to do with. I believe there was a good movie in there somewhere, but someone with a vision needed to do something with it. What we were left with had some laughs, but it was like sitting around a table at a punch up meeting with everyone just pitching jokes.
See, I believe the problem is the opposite – people wanted a new instalment of Ghostbusters, and we got a remake instead.To be fair, I also hated much of Afterlife for just redoing Ghostbusters again.
“Hell, there’s a supercut of McKinnen doing outtakes that are all improv and they’re all absolutely hilarious.”Wow and that performance was in the movie?Oh they’re out takes. How does that even relate to the rest of the movie?Oh it doesn’t.
Ok Leslie
What are your favorite jokes from the movie?Go ahead, quote them.
Afterlife was to me a heartless nostalgia bait cash in that mishandled the passing of a key individual in ghastly fashion. In some ways I kinda look down harder on Afterlife then the 2016, and I aggressively don’t like either. Also take a long look at the names involved during the “fan backlash” and tell me sexism wasn’t involved. Oh Breitbart is clearly fair and balanced…
I like Afterlife, except the ending battle.
What afterlife got for him that 2016 didn’t is that it is not a remake or reboot and it is not trying to replace the old movies. It’s a sequel with new characters that tries to continue the legacy of the franchise without erasing it.
I like that it is just different than the old ones so it doesn’t end up being compared to them. It was the smart thing to do.
Afterlife has the same villain as the first one, the villain has the same minions and the same plan, and the entire third act of the movie is a remake of the third act of the first one, to the point of having the old cast say the same old jokes. I find both films equally mid, but Afterlife is 10000 times more of a rethread than 2016.
i think ghostbusters 2016 is slightly better at being a ‘silly comedy’ than afterlife is at being a ‘spielberg homage’, but they’re both bad.
I can agree. They went hard on sentimentality for Afterlife which doesn’t jell with how cynical the original is and isn’t done well. 2016 was more SNL improv which kinda makes sense but also didn’t jell perfectly either. They both have terrible product placement although Afterlife pimping out Walmart was maybe the worse.
i also think the last name ‘grooberson’ is as hacky as any of the worst stuff in 2016. and it wasn’t even that they just went in on sentimentality, it was that the sentimentality itself was literally just like ‘here are some stacked books, which is a reference to the movie ghostbusters.’ if it was ‘for the fans’ you’d think they’d find some time to at least reference stuff from the second movie or cartoons! yknow, for the fans.also seeing the old guys in their suits just made me tremendously sad and embarrassed.
I’m betting the second Afterlife movie will be a 2 hour ‘memberberries for GB2.
safe bet.
That name was super hacky. Someone said lets pick a silly name and nobody thought it was lame.
Are you seriously denying the seismic involved in the release of that movie? Fragile masculinity is pretty funny
Eh, seeing how quasi-nihilistic crust chuds have continued to degrade in the years since, I’d go with “it’s both.”
Dude, listen closely: IT SUCKED AND THERE WAS A HUGE SEXIST BACKLASH.Damn, I hurt my throat SCREAMING AT YOU. I HOPE YOUR EARS ARE OKAY.
Leon has the right take.
My issue with the movie wasn’t the all female cast, OR the terrible bad guy, it was just that they tried HARD to squeeze a joke or gag in EVERY single scene. I am admittedly not a massive fan of Jones or McKinnon, nothing against them, but I don’t know it just didn’t feel “right” like it leaned way to heavy on the comedy side of things, more so than the OG movie, which while a comedy had to pretty scary shit in it, the library scene was pretty scary and the hell hounds, can’t remember their actual name, we pretty scary for 10 year old me.
“pretty scary for 10 year old me.” I read a twitter thread where someone suggested that this is the primary reason for all the vitriol spouted by persons disappointed by the latest reboot/sequel/remake: you’re not a kid anymore and the movies are never going to feel like that again.
Maybe it was to me at least, it was that the OG movie had some legit horror-lite elements with comedy, the reboot was comedy first “horror” a distant last. I don’t know it just felt “off” to me it was way to heavy on jokes and gags just for the sake of jokes and gags, it also didn’t help that the villian was TERRIBLE.
The wife and i enjoyed it a lot, but i agree that the “every scene must have a gag” feel is… a bit much.
Yeah I think honestly that’s what soured me on it more than anything. I Was fine with the female, even if a couple of the leads aren’t my favorite, and also I think Hemsworth was kind of wasted as well.
I love Chris Hemsworth (loooooooooove), and yeah he was somehow pretty wasted in the movie, I thought too. He’s a pretty funny guy and actor in general, but not in GB16*.*Did I make that up?
I think Ghostbusters 2016 is absolute garbage but you can’t deny the subtext of what Reitman Jr. said.The online shitstorm of misogynistic hatred and ugliness that coincided with GB 2016’s release was constantly wrapped up in “But we’re the REAL fans” bullshit. Reitman definitely knew that. Him saying that he was giving it back to the “fans” was an implicit statement that those assholes were “right.”It’s the same way all of JJ Abrams’ comments about The Force Awakens using *PRACTICAL* sets were an implicit agreement with people who hated the all-digital look of the prequels. If half of those people who hated those movies had also organized online hate campaigns, Abrams comments would have been pretty gross. That’s what Reitman was doing.Again, I’m saying this as someone who would rather drill out my own eyes than watch GB 2016 again (or GB: Afterlife for that matter). As much as I could talk anyone’s ear off about the failings of that movie, I would never make a criticism that implied I agreed with the incels who hated it just for featuring women. If I know not to do that, the director of the franchise’s next entry certainly should.Reitman’s comment gave those assholes a win and that’s a gross thing to do.
I thought it was funny.
Yeah it was sexism you dumb shit. You been living on the moon?
It’s so weird how internet trolls can spend months and months complaining that the remake is all female, and then after the release be like “actually, what really bugged me was that it wasn’t a good movie.”
I guess if you haunt 4chan, maybe?
Most of the vitriol happened before the movie came out. People were review bombing it without seeing a frame. And critics were middling on it. The movie was bad and the reaction to it was far worse.
It didn’t feel like a Ghostbusters movie aside from maybe one or two jokes, but I got more enjoyment out of it than the snoozefest that was the latest movie, for what it’s worth.
Ghostbusters 2016 was a bad movie and a few deleted scenes would not have changed that.
How about if they added a hilarious dance routine or two?
A lot of whats being described as being cut like the dance bit was restored in I believe an extended cut. Movie was not improved for it its still a mess. My condolences to Leslie Jones however, the reactionary assholes did not stop and probably still say shit to this day and that comment Reitman said was pretty bad.
I was gonna talk some shit about Jones, but you know something? Ghostbusters 2016 was pretty funny. Afterlife was the definition of a soulless cash grab.
Die bitch
Man, people can’t let go of this movie. Every time I visit my brother in-law he has a new YouTube video to show me about how it was definitely bad and how it has nothing to do with it being the lady ghostbusters movie.
It was probably the first time that people were called sexists for not liking a movie.
People are more pissed about that than at the movie itself.
Insulting people because they don’t like your movie is a dumb strategy.
So your argument is that people didn’t say those racist, sexist things to Leslie Jones?
No, the argument is that it was a convenient excuse for the cast and director to dismiss any valid criticism of the movie as sexism.Btw Ghostbusters 2016 was pretty good, and Afterlife was a cynical cash grab.
Die bitch
Except that a lot of the criticism lobbed at the movie was sexist, and a lot of the criticism lobbed at Jones was racist, and to pretend that neither of those are legitimate arguments against some critics of the movie is easily disproven.
So your argument is making up things I did not say?
Love the self own.
No, my argument was you made a bad and unclear argument, and I was giving you the opportunity to clarify, which seems to be your larger goal. Curious that here rather than expand your argument, you’d like to double down.
I’ll take her at her word that they did. But it’s a separate issue from people not liking the movie, or implying that the reason you don’t is you are a bad human being.
It’s an overlapping issue though. And given how loud the racists and sexists were about why they didn’t like the movie, it behooves people with legitimate criticisms, should they care about not being lumped in with the racists and sexists, about the actual issues they had with the movie.
Wow, woketards are gettin dumber
Show me a video clip of anyone saying anything racist to Leslie Jones about Ghostbusters. You can’t. Only online anonymous racist accounts said those things. The only reason Leslie focuses on online trolls is she knows the movie sucks and her performance sucked. Whining about anonymous online racists is a pretty common tactic shitty people do to distract from their failures. It’s annoying idiots like you are still falling for it.
Where on earth did you get THAT from his comment??? It’s as if there’s a section of the internet that is incapable of discussing movies without strictly focusing on whatever victimization was milked to death by a handful of bad bloggers…
Thing is, a lot of people were being reactionary sexists about it, review bombing and such without even seeing it. We all dislike stuff for legitimate reasons which other people dislike for spurious ones. It’s just interesting that, seven years later, people are still fixated on justifying their opinion rather than forgetting about it.
A lot of people doesn’t equate to “everybody”.
“It’s just interesting that, seven years later, people are still fixated on justifying their opinion rather than forgetting about it.”
It’s interesting to me that everybody who worked on that movie and the media are still trying to peddle the idea that if you didn’t like the movie you should be put in the same category as people who didn’t like the movie because they are sexists or racists. Until they stop this bullshit, you’ll have people saying “No I didn’t like it because I thought it was bad.”
you keep warping “people disliked it for sexist reasons” into “everybody who disliked it was sexist,” and it’s telling.
It’s telling what?
Keep digging. This is entertaining.
Some of us just enjoy shittin on anythin woketards like
It was probably the first time that people were called sexists for not liking a movie.
People are more pissed about that than at the movie itself.
Insulting people because they don’t like your movie is a dumb strategy.Or, maybe Mr. Thin Skinned, they weren’t talking about you. Go into any Ghostbusters online group and, whenever the movie comes up, the responses get incredibly misogynistic, super-fast.The fact that you, personally, aren’t in the He Man Women Haters Club, but it takes only a few moments looking around to find a ton of misogyny leveled toward the movie and the cast.
You wanna actually discuss the movie or just try to make an anonymous person you don’t even know into a boogeyman that doesn’t exist? The movie sucked. Get over it… None of the cast is going to sleep with you.
People didn’t like the movie before it even came out.
I’m not sure why one of the stars discussing a movie in her memoir means people can’t let go of a movie. Your brother-in-law sounds a tad obsessed if it’s still a regular topic of conversation years later.
To me it seems like it’s the people who claim the movie actually wasn’t that bad are the ones who insist on constantly re-litigating it. That’s what this article is about, after all.Most people who didn’t like it are perfectly happy to forget the resoundingly mediocre movie it was, and move on with their lives.
There is no accepting these kind of hate, especially towards an individual. I can’t imagine what it feels like to receive that kind of messages, if I was a celebrity, first thing I would do is hire someone to manage my social media.
That being said, I disagree with her comment about Jason Reitman. It’s been 7 years, and she still can’t see that at least 90% of the people who didn’t like the movie weren’t motivated by racist or sexist agendas.
You’re not going to get any love from Ghostbusters fans by lumping everybody who didn’t like the 2016 version with racists and sexists.
You got a different shovel for the same hole?
I got a shovel for yo hole bitch
Die bitch
“It’s been 7 years, and she still can’t see that at least 90% of the people who didn’t like the movie weren’t motivated by racist or sexist agendas.
SHE. GOT. DEATH. THREATS.
How are you so fucking thick that you don’t understand this?
You didn’t like the movie, FINE. BUT PEOPLE SENT HER DEATH THREATS OVER THE MOVIE.Jesus, you are the stupidest person I’ve encountered in at least a few days.
Yeah, the umbrage at Reitman’s comment seems unfair. It’d be one thing if there was some big, or even very vocal, contingent of GB fans who really liked the 2016 movie. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, unless they’re out there and I’m not seeing them.
GB:A wasn’t much better of a movie, but it certainly had the fans in mind. Possibly to its detriment. From what I remember of my single viewing of GB16, there was little if any real attempts to stick to what made the Ghostbusters concept work and last, at least beyond grabbing SNL alums and having them chase ghosts.
The cast was the best part of the movie and they deserved better than their treatment and the film we all got.
If the cast was any good the movie would have been good. It was comedy built around their comedic talents. They all shit the bed.
Oh horseshit. There’s this thing called a script. Not to mention a director.
They are doing improv. They sucked. Comedies like that are built around the comedic talents of the actor, not the script.
No, you can improvise on top of a great script and add quality to something that was good on the page. Assuming improv will cover the cracks in a weak script is madness.
That’s what happens in every successful comedy. Comedy comes from the talent and charm of the performers.
“Comedies like that are built around the comedic talents of the actor, not the script.”
Keep revealing that you know nothing about filmmaking or comedy.
Keep it up, stupid.
Eat shit
“If the cast was any good the movie would have been good.”
Good point. No movie review has ever said that a great cast was wasted on a bad story.
You know nothing. Literally nothing.
Seriously, what a stupid, stupid, stupid, ignorant, moronic, stupid thing to say.
Eat a brick
Okay Jan!
The cast was the best thing about the movie. They are all very talented and the chemistry was there. It was conceptually flawed and then the director failed to execute.
Whatever you need to tell yourself. If the cast did a good job the movie would have been a hit. That’s how comedy works.
I’ve seen the theatrical version, and I’ve seen the extended version. The cuts did not make an already bad movie worse. The extended version doesn’t add anything except running time.
My problem with Ghostbusters 2016 is not the cast. It’s just a bad movie. It’s a bad movie that also happens to have a female cast. It would’ve been a bad movie if it had a male cast. It’s a bad movie, from a director whose most famous movies are rip-offs. And when people told Feig that it was a bad movie, he pretty much said that if you didn’t like the movie, you were a misogynist.
“It was like a really funny, weird version of ‘Thriller,’” she writes.
“The day of that taping we were so excited because we figured that when
people saw this, they were going to lose it.”I saw the dance sequence, and it was stupid.
You Should Be Dancing by the Bee Gees is pretty far removed from the best choice for a crowd dance number.
But it is fantastic for trolling:
I will concede this to be true.
A) Spy is fucking fantastic.B) Freaks and Geeks.C) GB 2016 was not good.
these four women and paul feig could have made a great movie. or at least a good movie. too bad it had to be this one.
“I’ve seen the theatrical version, and I’ve seen the extended version. The cuts did not make an already bad movie worse. The extended version doesn’t add anything except running time.
Hey genius, the extended version is not the director’s cut. They cut scenes for BUDGET reasons. Do you honestly think they spent that money on finishing those scenes to put them in the extended cut?
Give your head a shake.
Ghostbusters (2016) was bad. Studio interference could have made it worse. It probably wouldn’t have made much of a difference. Fan hatred for it was definitely over the top because it was an all female cast. Leslie Jones got the brunt of the hate because she’s a black actress who is not conventionally attractive. Afterlife is bad and “giving it back to the fans” did placate the worst people who didn’t like the 2016 movie. All of these things can be true at once.
The CG final battle completely ruined any enjoyment I had from it.
The CGI was terrible. The movie would have been better if it tried to do less and just be funny.
All of this strife for one of the most “mid” movies I’ve ever seen in my life.
Movies like this one are exhausting because the conversation gets wrapped up in culture war bullshit instead of assessing quality on its own merits.
Movie was shit, but Leslie still deserved better.
It was definitely one of those culture war footballs before it became nearly a yearly occurrence during the Trump years. Its only gotten dumber with stuff like Barbie somehow becoming stuck with the culture war label. Ghostbusters 2016 definitely feels like 2016 in all the bad ways.
Woketards keep gettin dumber. No limit to their stoopidity
Was it “mid” or was it “shit”?
Middling.
Sexist!
Stupid!
Must be a slow news day, but I’ll bite. Ghostbusters 2016 was an okay movie. Not the world’s greatest, but not the childhood-destroying bogeyman that some make it out to be.There have been plenty of legacyquels (I hate that word) that just don’t live up to the original. No one I knows goes running around screaming about how Rob Zombie’s Halloween destroyed their childhood. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was pretty bad and South Park made some jokes about it, but no one was sending Shia LaBoeuf death threats. The house divided that is SW fans collectively agree not to discuss RotS and just moved on with their lives. But Ghostbusters 2016 received so much hate and I have to believe a big part of that was the misogyny.ETA: I know Rob Zombie’s Halloween was a remake, but same difference. Ghostbusters 2016 heavily implies it takes place in an alternate universe.
The fact that anyone’s childhood can be destroyed by a reboot of anything is laughable. Honestly, grow the fuck up people. I think most of the Star Wars movies made after the original trilogy are trash. This doesn’t ruin my childhood, or the enjoyment of those first three movies.
I think the general reaction to Ghostbusters 2016 was first, why? Second, this is not good. Third, yes most everyone forgot about it. You also can’t remake a beloved stone classic and not expect people to have opinions. But Crystal Skull was reviled for many of the same reasons, and LeBoeuf has taken unrelenting shit for years for being a delusional weirdo. And you sure can’t tell me Star Wars fans were level-headed about any of the prequel or sequel movies. Of much of anything, really.
“You also can’t remake a beloved stone classic and not expect people to have opinions.”
Right, you should EXPECT that people will have made up their minds about the movie before ever seeing it.
That’s reasonable, right?
I think you’re right that sexism was a huge factor in the death threats and sheer ugliness of some reactions. The trouble I have with even conceding that is that others jump from “there is a sexist fringe that sends death threats” to “this proves that any man criticizing this movie is doing if from sexist motives”, which we see quite a bit in these threads.
And then Leslie Jones ascribing racist motives to her salary offer … as if her “successful career” up to this point made her anything like the box office draw of McCarthy or Wiig, or even McKinnon. It’s a symptom of the same problem … acknowledging that sexism & racism are a problem does not give license to dimiss all opposition as sexist or racist.
Woketards have made all words meaningless
The trouble I have with even conceding that is that others jump from “there is a sexist fringe that sends death threats” to “this proves that any man criticizing this movie is doing if from sexist motives”, which we see quite a bit in these threads.Complete fucking horseshit. Most of the people in this thread criticising the death threats also criticised the movie.
“I think you’re right that sexism was a huge factor in the death threats and sheer ugliness of some reactions. The trouble I have with even conceding that is that others jump from “there is a sexist fringe that sends death threats” to “this proves that any man criticizing this movie is doing if from sexist motives”, which we see quite a bit in these threads.”
Jesus Christ, you’re fucking fragile.
Lol Star Wars fans did not just move on from ROTS and not send any vitriol Daisy Ridley’s way. Eventually they calmed down after the SW shows distracted their primate brains. But some SW Fans are among the very worst on the internet
SW absolutely lost it over TFA and TLJ with opinions I don’t care to re-hash. But by the time RotS came out, I think everyone was kind of collectively over it. It was awful, everyone knew it was awful. People sending Kelly Marie Tran shitty messages after TLJ were not resuming those attacks because of RotS, nor were new people going after her. My point being that it was a bad movie that everyone ignores. TLJ is a different story, but people showed the capacity to ignore dumb stuff with RotS.
I was with you until you seemed to give the SW fandom a pass by skipping over the absolute shitstorm that erupts anytime anyone talks about TLJ.
Part of the problem with the 2016 movie is that they decided to tell more or less the same story as the original, with several of the same story beats. Doing that with a beloved original is a recipe for disaster – another example of that is Star Trek Into Darkness, which was both worse and an even more baffling decision.I’m sure some (if not most) of the reactionary garbage takes would’ve still happened if they’d made it a sequel or told an entirely different origin story, but it could potentially have forestalled at least some of the inevitable comparisons to the original film.
Is there any reason that Leslie Jones would expect to make the same salary as Kristen Wiig or even Melissa McCarthy? A big part of anyone’s salary for their new job is based on their past work and is there anything that she had done in the past that was as big of a hit as Bridesmaids?
Yeah, I’d be mad on her behalf if she was making less than Kate MacKinnon, but the other two are the box-office draw. At that point in her career, she was not.
Racists like you are disgusting.
Eat shit
Feel like “that” and “was” are the wrong word choices, here
The annoying thing is that it is not clear if Leslie Jones is pissed about not making as much as Wiig or McCarthy or if that is something the article writer just sort of added.
She’s just pissed at being offered what amounts to peanuts to appear in every scene of a blockbuster motion picture.
You are a racist. Shame on you.
Fuck off
Feel like this should read “Melissa McCarthy or even Kristen Wiig,” haha – McCarthy’s a much more accomplished actor than Wiig…and a much bigger office draw as well.
Nobody’s saying she should have made Wiig / McCarthy money, but to offer the fourth-billed co-lead of your $144 million picture a fee of $67,000 is unforgivable unless they’re a child or the dog from Frasier.
The way she was abused and threatened by so many is absolutely awful and inexcusable. As far as the pay, could she not have just said no if it wasn’t enough? I’m nobody and I’ve turned down job offers because I found them to be unsatisfactory.
Nonsense. It was perfectly understandable why regular people rejected the latest untalented hack hoisted on them by the woketards
Die bitch die
smell ma poot slut
What movies did you turn down that could make your entire career?
I’m not an actor. I have turned down jobs that would have been good for my career advancement.
A lead role in a big budget movie is different from any other job.
The article quotes her as saying she already had a successful career at that point. It is not a huge jump to assume she didn’t feel she needed the exposure. If the pay was too low she should have said no.
Wow. You really broke your brain coming up with that nugget of wisdom.
Imagine getting so spun up over a Ghostbusters movie that you sent someone a death threat. How terrible is your life?That being said, every Ghostbusters movie since the first one is completely inessential.
The Root has apparently turn off comments because there are just people out there who think it’s funny to post the most hateful things they can conceive. The difference is social media lets them do it anonymously AND publicly at the same time. I feel bad for Jones having to deal with that crowd.
Yup, rayciss blacks keep shittin on every other minority especially Asians. So Da Poot shut down the comments!
Die bitch die
There were more comments about how the articles were just flat out wrong than just being hateful, so it wasn’t just the hateful comments that made them turn them off.
Fair point. There were plenty with factual misses or positions that were so convoluted in efforts to arrive at the “right” conclusion that commenters were calling out. Not a whole lot of credibility left.
It is funny to watch them rapid fire articles now knowing that people can’t just prove outright lies/hypocrisy in the comments. I wonder how much it will affect traffic, I know it didn’t do any good for Deadspin on that front.
Odd part is the Deadspin content has actually improved a lot. I guess they don’t want to pay mods in order to reopen comments.
ETA: This is up now. Now much fun could the comments to this article have been? Pure ridiculousness. The subtitle is divine.
Candace has to love the fact they turned off comments since her article’s comment sections were always full of people dunking on her nonstop grammatical/factual errors and just absurdity like this.
This. I’m sure there have been racist shitheels flooding the greys on The Root since the first day they added comments. That hasn’t changed – what is new is even regular commenters calling out the wrongheaded, poorly researched, low quality articles.
It’s not the Ghostbusters movie they’re spun up over. It’s the Black person in the movie. Especially a Black woman who has the gall to happily exist in a body that doesn’t try to meet traditional standards of beauty for them to look at.These aren’t loser nerds. They’re racists. I mean they’re both, but it’s important that you don’t lose the racist part in the description. If they were that annoyed by just the movie itself, then the other cast members would have been getting the same treatment.
You realize that Ernie Hudson was in the first two Ghostbusters movies and no one had the slightest problem, right?
That’s true. I should have clarified they were already mad about the remake and then especially mad about this particular Black woman. I’m betting if a “prettier” Black woman had the role she wouldn’t have gotten nearly as much vitriol.
Ernie Hudson (a Black person) was in the first two Ghostbusters movies and literally nobody had a problem with it, so the whole “racists don’t want black people in Ghostbusters” argument doesn’t really hold much water.
True, though I did specify that there were particular issues with this particular Black woman. I said “it’s the Black person in the movie,” which is Leslie Jones, and I explained why this particular Black person was problematic for them.
There would be fewer death threats for sure, but if that movie’s cast instead contained ones of the Chrises, Paul Rudd, Jack Black and Kevin Hart but kept the same scenes, story, and special effects, it would also still be absolute garbage.
But Ghostbuster 2016 already has one of the Chrises!
It’s a real chicken or the egg question because Lady Ghostbusters based their entire marketing campaign on insulting people who like to send anonymous death threats. Seems like any movie that does that will get a lot of anonymous death threats.
Jones tweeted something in 2016 about “Y’all just mad we have vaginas” and when I responded “I don’t mind your vagina, I just don’t find the four of y’all to be very funny” I got lit the fuck up by her fans
Bein lit up by dumbfucks is always entertainin. Only reason I come to Da AV Club
Die bitch die
Smell ma poot slut
They would be so much hotter and funnier if they had big, juicy, cocks.
Good.
Good
Smell ma poot slut
I loved the ladies anyway, but the gift Ghostbusters (2016) gave was the revelation that was Chris Hemsworth doing comedy. Fuck the juvenile losers who don’t get it.
Something that has always rubbed me the wrong way is how in general certain groups of people (and you know who im talking about) seem to give her hate for existing. They did it with her stint on SNL (every clip she’s on has a racist comment and comments on every mistake- even minor ones); they did it with this movie; i think they did when she was tweeting about the olympics, and some even did it when she hosted Supermarket Sweep (and just to add, they did the same with Liza Koshy for Double Dare and Elizabeth Banks for PYL). Its just sad, but the stuff posted above makes me so, so angry.
If hearing about the rich actress who reads racist comments online makes you mad wait until you hear about George Floyd.
Shut up
Of course. Part of bein a woketard is claimin that you’re important enough to get death threats while telling everyone who disagrees with you to Die. Dumbfuck Marge Madness incoming!
Despite a few good ideas, Ghostbusters Answer the Call was ultimately a bad movie. Despite a few good ideas, Ghostbusters Afterlife is also ultimately a bad movie. With that said, nobody deserves the kind of shit that was sent Leslie Jones’ way. Well, except maybe the people that sent that shit to begin with. They deserve to taste their own medicine.
How depressing to go through so much for such an empty, charmless movie. She was probably the only funny thing in it.
Remember when IMDB had a message board? No? When this movie came out if not around the time it came out they eliminated it cause of all the sexist meanspirited posts.‘”, and a whole dance sequence for Chris Hemsworth’s character choreographed by the late Michael K. Williams. “It was like a really funny, weird version of ‘Thriller,’” she writes. “’I seem to remember them keeping at least a portion of Chris Hemsworth’s dancing and having it interact with the credits as they scrolled. Which was… interesting.
Again, fyi, we have some grey racist refugees from The Root’s comments closure here. They’ll “play nice” for a moment, but always are looking to establish themselves a little more so that they can go full troll-tard.Like this one:
“What was left on the cutting room floor? […] a lot of improv”Jesus like half that movie was improv how much more do you need?
GB 2016 was absolute dog shit. Fuck anyone who defends it for any reason, in any way.
Go crawl up your own ass
Get fucked and die, moron.
No
Smell ma poot slut
Smell ma poot slut
Finally broke down and saw “Afterlife”.Between that and the sixteen day long cut of “Justice League: Jacking It for the Incels” this should be the nail in the coffin of ever listening to the Neckbeard Lobby again.Boring, pointless, absolutely unfunny, biggest waste of Paul Rudd that could possibly be imagined, anyone involved with it should send bags of fecal waste to the writers/director on the anniversary of it’s release.Yeah. I’d say objectively “Answer the Call” was a better written and performed movie with actual attempts at jokes as opposed to something that looked like it was scraped off a seventy five year old incel’s GB wankbook.
Lol delusional
If I have a neckbeard am I automatically part of the neckbeard lobby? Who organized it and are there dues?
Speaking of Chris Hemsworth, he was paid $150 000 for Thor and he was the lead, bet that’s sexist to…
Shut up
Smell ma poot slut
I liked the 2016 Ghostbusters. Thought it was funny. Then the one with the ghost of Harold Ramis came out and I liked the 2016 Ghostbusters more, and thought it was funnier.
I was 13 when the original was released and it is, of course, my favorite of the 4 movies so far. My 13 year-old daughter saw and loved the original when she was very young, but then saw the 2016 version when it was released. Ghostbusters 2016 is now her favorite, and she gets excited when she sees the cast members in other shows and films, Jones included. She just saw “Barbie” recently and loved that “Holzman” was in it. She doesn’t know much about SNL, but that’s ok.I love and understand that this was the movie that spoke to her and that she still appreciates the others as I appreciate all of them too, even if I have a different favorite. I personally think a tremendously talented cast and director could have come up with something funnier/edgier, but it was an attempt to take the story in a different direction, and honestly if there’s ever a decision to merge the two “universes,” despite the original actors playing different characters in 2016, I’m all for it.
What’s crazy about the Ghostbusters shit is that it’s fucking GHOSTBUSTERS. It’s a better-than-it-has-any-right-to-be high-concept comedy which already destroyed its OWN legacy with an awful, reviled sequel and a family-friendly cartoon. Was there even a rabid fanbase? Like who was going around in the 2010s identifying as a Ghostbusters fan the same way they would with Marvel or Star Wars? It’s so clearly misogyny because it wasn’t even a real franchise! The proto-incels just jumped on the movie because it was 4 women. And quality of the movie has zero to do with the story here, which is that this person was getting death threats for a stupid fucking comedy reboot. Can you imagine Ed Helms getting death threats because he was going to ruin Chevy Chase’s legacy in new Vacation (except maybe from Chevy Chase)? It wasn’t good, but at least it tried to be a comedy, rather than a Stranger Things ripoff (which is so funny since Stranger Things is itself a hodgepodge of 80s influences). Afterlife made me much madder that it pretended Ghostbusters was some sacred cow and forgot it’s a movie where Dan Aykroyd gets a bj from a ghost.
“which already destroyed its OWN legacy with an awful, reviled sequel and a family-friendly cartoon” Lol no
Supporting actors have been getting less money for years now. In the 90s, supporting film actors could make bank. It’s less so now. I think I’ve heard it being described as like, the industry took a buzz saw to that pay.
Jones got offered 67k which is low, but which they bumped up. Jonah Hill got I think 80k for Moneyball and was much more recognizable than her at the time.
I get that Jones was successful as a writer/standup but she is not conventionally attractive, was not well-known as an actress, got hired by SNL basically because Twitter bullied them into it, and would freeze up during sketches at times. So like…I don’t know. If I was a producer, I don’t know if I’d think that she actually deserved money on the level of McKinnon and McCarthy, who were FAR more established as actresses at the time.
To her, it’s “I had DECADES of success!” To producers it’s, “Well not really, not in front of the camera.”
The movie was garbage, Jason Reitman’s quote was right on, but also yeah a lot of piece of shit chuds hated on the movie for their insane racist reasons and nobody deserved the abuse Jones got.