Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

[KrangPrime]

Cynical thought: Bill suggested a new crew and is happy with a reboot because it means people will stop bugging him to be in another GB.

bingo. I wouldn't be surprised if he suggested it just to get sony to start thinking about it. curious where that suggestion was in the timeline and when feig decided 'hey, if Ican do it with all women..'

 

[jlee562]

I fully admit that theres lots of room for interpretation with Murray's comments. I tend to think that there's something more here than him simply being gracious to the franchise and comedians that he likes. I don't think he would own the idea - to the extent of saying "it was my idea" - at this point after all the controversy, unless he wanted to. That's how I read the inflection in his voice. YMMV.

 

[batguy]

So Feig was already working on an all-female superhero movie and then he was pulled into doing GB instead, which became an all-female cast?

People can defend the possible merits of an all-female GB cast all day long. But this path of creative development still screams "insulting foul-up ahead!"

This pattern usually produces a new movie that does not work very well in anyone's eyes. It's too different (and disrespectful) from the original to please the diehards, and it's still too compromised from the creator's real wishes to work as well as it should have on its own. This is the kind of mindset that produces Superman movies where he never flies or wears the S-suit. Batman movies that are set in Tim-Burton-land instead of Gotham City. Ninja Turtle movies where the turtles are aliens. Green Hornet movies where it's really a Seth Rogen comedy. Star Trek movies that should have been Star Wars movies. Etc.

This still might turn out to be a good movie that pleases the old GB fans. But I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[KrangPrime]

People can defend the possible merits of an all-female GB cast all day long. But this path of creative development still screams "insulting foul-up ahead!"

careful.. you'll get branded as someone who whines too much if you bash things alot ;o)... based on a reply in another thread, I think I need to update my image to statler and waldorf ;o)...

and,for folks who like positive things. I actually have very high hopes for episode 7. I haven't seen anything from that that I haven't liked so far.
minus the ditching of EU continuity, but I guess that was to be expected ;o).
I so wanted to see a live action Jaina, Jacen and anakin. BB8 took a bit getting used to for the odd idea, but now i think it's awesome.

I also enjoyed all the marvel movies so far, minus hulk which I have yet to see. I expect the same enjoyment from Ant Man.

So, see folks, we can be positive. but so many things are updated, or changed, or put a stamp on by people who had nothing to od with the original property, sometimes just to be different, that it gets harder and harder to do ;o).

 

[Jeyl]

This pattern usually produces a new movie that does not work very well in anyone's eyes. It's too different (and disrespectful) from the original to please the diehards, and it's still too compromised from the creator's real wishes to work as well as it should have on its own.

That would only matter if it was a remake with the same characters and situations. This is a reboot that will still allow you and the die-hard fans to indulge themselves in a male-only Ghostbusters world that they want. Unless they make fun of the originals in some way (like your turtles being aliens being mocked in the actual movie), there's not much you can do to disrespect the originals. I think they'll survive.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Casting all women is actually insulting from a certain point of view.
Think about it.
Rather than go for something different and original with women characters in a fantasy genre comedy, it's hijack
the Ghostbusters and play it safe with the label the boys made a household word.

One or two female characters probably wouldn't have been a big deal at all.
All four is something else, gender stunt casting? Coupled with re-imagining = crapping on canon it creates the perfect fan storm.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

This is a reboot that will still allow you and the die-hard fans to indulge themselves in a male-only Ghostbusters world that they want.

It's starting to **** me off that people think that's why we have a problem with it. From my perspective they could all be transexuals for all I care, it's the reboot that's uncalled for. Not the casting.


Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

 

[jlee562]

It may or may not end up benefiting the franchise as a whole. I would tend to think that the continuity thing is much less an important issue to the general public at large.

I think the same thing is true about JJTrek. The movies were decently successful by critical and financial terms; but also rated the worst film by the Vegas trek con goers, and pretty well savaged here on the RPF.

One of the emails had mentioned something about doing like a "brand survey" (or some buzzwordy thing) about what fans expected from the franchise. I wonder if that ever happened; what the results were/might have been; how that finding conflicts or aligns with what seems to be mostly a thumbs down from folks here on the reboot continuity issue.

Even if the movie flops, I highly doubt it'll be the death knell for the franchise. But you know, I'm the glass half full guy.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Imagine if JJ Trek had flipped the sexes of Nu-Kirk,-Spock,-McCoy,-Scotty?
Even if given Nu-Names.

Hardcore Ghostbuster fans are really being slammed harder than what JJ Trek put purists through.

 

[jlee562]

I guess I'm just wired differently. I totally get what you're saying, but I still can't find it within me to get that upset by it.

I mean, if it flops and does hurt the brand, of course I'd be pissed. But the concept of a reboot in and of itself just doesn't get my blood boiling

 

[CessnaDriver]

All part of the magic of movies and story telling.
People can get really attached and emotionally invested.
We bond with this stuff for many reasons and it's part of our lives, so there
are going to be certain expectations. People can bend quite a bit though, but
there are limits.

 

[Westies14]

All part of the magic of movies and story telling.
People can get really attached and emotionally invested.
We bond with this stuff for many reasons and it's part of our lives, so there
are going to be certain expectations. People can bend quite a bit though, but
there are limits.

Yep. It's amazing that on THIS site of all places you can be told you're taking your stories too seriously. It's what makes us human - we pass on knowledge in a narrative form and through that, over tens of thousands of years, we elevated our species above the level of creatures of mere instinct. From the first people who stayed out of a cave due to the bear that Og ran into when he went in there to the greek myths to contemporary scientists building on what others have done, people have been hardwired to respect and consider stories.

By contrast, the idea that one corporate entity might own a story and put its singular destiny in the hands of its employees is just decades old. It's a baby industry. They're not consistently good at it yet, and humans are understandably put off by the willful derailment of a story they've taken on as one of their own. And Ghostbusters IS ours. Just like STAR WARS, or Lord of the Rings, or Cheers or Superman or the Greek Myths. They're passed down from parents to children; they're part of the social lexicon, woven into the fabric of our society. That's a natural mode for us. Respecting Sony's sovereignty over one of our stories simply because they acquired the film rights while buying Columbia/Tri-Star from Coca-Cola when they show zero respect for the story itself? That's a very new and unnatural mode for us.

Again, the RPF of all places. You'd think people would get that here, that stories can mean a bit more - that we could discuss them if we're unhappy with how they're developing not be so maligned for it.

 

[jlee562]

Was all the way with you Westies, until the very last sentence. Well, I disagree that Sony has "zero respect" for the property, but that's neither here nor there.

C'mon, you don't have a monopoly on loving movies. And you're not being maligned simply for expressing a contrary opinion or your unhappiness.

If you think it's a productive use of your energy to air your grievances in a public forum such as this: knock your socks off.

Just because I don't think that's a productive use of my energy to do so; that doesn't mean that I love Ghostbusters any less, nor that I don't understand the attachment people have to films. Only a different point of view on a reboot.

 

[KrangPrime]

nope. instead, you get told you **** and moan alot if you don't like something that's changed from what worked ;o).
reading some of the comments elsewhere on the web.. I also don't get this 'give women a chance to shine' comment. it's not like there havn't been leading women in the history of film for the last 90 years. why are people acting like this have never been done before? in tv or animation?
sigourney weaver and ripply might have something to say about that.

 

[Jeyl]

reading some of the comments elsewhere on the web.. I also don't get this 'give women a chance to shine' comment. it's not like there havn't been leading women in the history of film for the last 90 years. why are people acting like this have never been done before? in tv or animation?
sigourney weaver and ripply might have something to say about that.

It's not that it's never been done before, it's that it's not been done enough. The fact that writers, directors, audiences, critics ect. still have to label great characters as 'female' when they make an impact is an example of how accustomed everyone is to the notion that strong female characters are not the standard, but strong male characters are. I quote Joss Whedon,

"So why do you write these strong female characters? Because you're still asking me that question."

 

[JOATRASH FX]

It's starting to **** me off that people think that's why we have a problem with it. From my perspective they could all be transexuals for all I care, it's the reboot that's uncalled for. Not the casting.

Quoted because it apparently needs repeating ad-nauseum.

To me it feels some (some, not all) of the yay-sayers trying to push that argument are folks who don't care as much for the actual franchise as much as the gender-swapping fact, making them the sexists.

I've been thinking a lot about why I'm fine with some reboots but not others. For example:

Galactica:
Sure, a continuation could have been done but as much as I loved the original as a kid, it hasn't aged well at all. As much as it holds a special place in my heart (hearing the theme played live even made me tear up a bit) I can't watch it today without cringing. They could have made the continuation more "modern" thematically but then it would not have fit with the old ones and the audiance would have been so small it wouldn't have survived. The reboot was respectful of the original, made some very interesting changes (I really liked KS's take on Starbuck, which felt very believable) and it just fit so well with modern times.

JJ Trek:
If you want to do more stories (on the silver screen) with Kirk and co, there was no realistic option other than to recast. I thought the first two were "fun but dumb". Like overblown fan film homages. I don't really mind them beyond the fact that they really don't capture "Trek" that well.

Feigbusters:
Much the like the non-need for a new BTTF, the original film still holds up (for the most part)! The stories were set up in such a way that making a torch-passing movie would have been EASY, even if Feig was insistent on telling an origin story. (The daughter/niece of dearly Egon, either dearly departed or buried with work at CERN seeks out help from Uncle Ray and Winston to get help starting up a new branch because funny things are happening again. Was that really so difficult Mr Feig?) It's funny, because a European satellite network made a 5-minute short fan film last year that they showed at Comic Con Stockholm that DID THAT VERY THING. They cleverly spliced audio from the originals into newly filmed stuff with some guy that was supposed to be the nephew of one of the crew. (The film was pretty bad overall, but at least that part was clever.) So, rebooting it like this and feeding die-hard fans BS excuses ends up becoming rather insulting.

 

[KrangPrime]

some interesting click bait articles from the pros and cons of this reboot.
one done by sony, apparently. http://www.freep.com/story/entertai...busters-reboot-women-comedy-sequels/29976805/

and one that's a bit more tuned in..http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/07...me-cringing-3378019?lt_source=external,manual
that first comment on the above says it all. average movie goers probably don't even know this is a reboot. and either see it as GB 3 or just don't care.


as stated above, reading comments elsewhere, SOME people who are for the idea of gender bending roles just don't care about the franchise in general, or in some cases, are entirely new to it, and are only giving it a chance BECAUSE of the gender bending. why can't you make more films with women in leading roles that are ORIGINAL ideas, then? or do people think that the audience wouldn't notice as much unless it was shoe horned in to an existing property?

I'm still waiting for a wonder woman movie that is a light hearted action adventure romp. (something superman should have been...not dark and depressing like most dc movies these days) I don't need to see her being an amazon chopping heads off for the ' cool factor'. I want to see her being a hero saving people just like superman is supposed to do.

one of my favorite cartoons is Inspector Gadget. not because of the bumbling detective that is the lead role, but because of the smart lead role that is penny. If you edit gadget out of that show, and just had penny and brain battling dr.claw, it turns into a cool animated james bond.

but, I guess it's easier for hollywood to take the quick way out and reboot things.

 

[Jeyl]

as stated above, reading comments elsewhere, some people who are for the idea of gender bending roles just don't care about the franchise in general, or in some cases, are entirely new to it, and are only giving it a chance BECAUSE of the gender bending.

Totally.

 

[Solo4114]

So, is it the general consensus, that if this movie's story had the exact same director, exact same cast, exact same design, & exact same history at the studio, but was taking place 30 years later in a franchise branch set in another city, then most of the detractors would be on board?



As far as the sequel vs. reboot thing, I still say that we got a direct sequel, using the same actors, director, & creative team, & it wasn't that good.

That's not exactly my position. I'd still be less than enthused about the film based on the behind-the-scenes info about how it's coming into being, but I'd be a little less concerned.


I don't mind Feig being the director, or these women being cast. I don't get excited by it, but...eh...not a big deal in and of itself. The prop design I'd expect to change some from the last film, but most of the design differences can be explained away in-story, or just disregarded. I find the look of the props fairly underwhelming, as with most of the production design, but I could let it pass under the right circumstances, especially if there's an in-story reason for the difference.

Here are my major gripes about this film:

1. The process by which it was made was, to put it simply, atrocious. It smacks of all of the worst impulses of Hollywood-as-profit-maker coming at the expense of Hollywood-as-storyteller. My disdain for this film -- and for many other films -- is rooted in the belief that when Hollywood designs a movie primarily as a profit-making machine, it tends to come at the expense of telling a good story. I care...a lot...about good storytelling. What I've seen from this film in its preproduction and production phases suggests a whole lot of decisions where profit was the only concern, and story was a distant afterthought. The selection of Feig as director, the decision to ditch past continuity because...uh...Feig wanted it, the decision to trumpet the all-female cast as an all-female cast (as opposed to just announcing casting decisions and letting them speak for themselves), and all of the "the-same-but-different" aspects that we're seeing in the production of the film, all of it says "We don't really give a **** about the story. We're just assembling pieces to maximize profit." That paint-by-numbers approach hurts stories in most cases. Now, maybe this film will be fantastic and hysterical, and will stand alongside the titan that is the original film as a comedic masterwork. But more likely, it'll just be a remake of the original, only with female leads and a few design differences. Which brings me to my next point.

2. The decision to ditch the continuity actively hurts this film, I think. Moreso than a sequel, it invites invidious comparisons simply because it suggests that what came before is not worth preserving. Ok, that's fine if that's what you think. But if that's what you think, why are you trying so hard to preserve it? People here and elsewhere have come up with probably a gajillion different ways that the torch could be passed, or that this film could exist in the original film's continuity, as an evolution of that previous film, rather than as a hard reboot. But no, Feig apparently insisted that the film sever itself from the pre-existing continuity so that he could have a blank canvas on which to paint.....um......something that so far looks a hell of a lot like the original?

I get why reboots happen. As others have said, in some cases, you want to take the story in a very different direction. You want to explore different themes, tell the story in a different tone, jettison a cumbersome previous continuity, etc. When JJTrek wanted to dump the continuity that had existed for some 40-odd years, it made sense. I thought it was a waste, but I still understood the impulse. The Trek history is complicated, and they said they wanted to tell new stories (you know, recycled Khan notwithstanding...). When James Bond wanted to reboot, I totally understood and was all for it. The Brosnan era had been, at best, a mixed bag, and the final Brosnan film was nothing short of atrocious. The new tone was far more grounded, less cartoonish, and allowed Bond to be played very differently from how he had been portrayed for decades. That was a successful reboot.

What I think is a real problem, though, is when your reboot becomes a remake. By that, I mean not simply using the overall structure to tell a somewhat similar tale, but rather an exercise in telling essentially the exact same story, but with younger actors, updated F/X, and maybe a few minor differences, but which otherwise is basically the same damn film. When that happens, the remake is almost always inferior to the original. All it does is call into question "Why did you bother?" The closer it is to the original, the more pointless making a new version seems. The farther away from the original it is, the more it seems like all anyone wanted was the brand name, and otherwise they wanted to distance themselves from the original. Most remakes, in my opinion, are totally pointless. They tend to be uninspired cash-grabs that try to capitalize on "Who's hot" for their casting/direction and on "What's valuable" in terms of the IP they use. And that ties back to my objection with cash-at-the-expense-of-storytelling issues.

 

[JOATRASH FX]

That's not exactly my position. I'd still be less than enthused about the film based on the behind-the-scenes info about how it's coming into being, but I'd be a little less concerned.


I don't mind Feig being the director, or these women being cast. I don't get excited by it, but...eh...not a big deal in and of itself. The prop design I'd expect to change some from the last film, but most of the design differences can be explained away in-story, or just disregarded. I find the look of the props fairly underwhelming, as with most of the production design, but I could let it pass under the right circumstances, especially if there's an in-story reason for the difference.

Here are my major gripes about this film:...

Very well put. The second one is probably one of the main reasons I'm so against this particular remake. I think it's been called a reboot too much, when it is in fact a remake.