Probe Droid
Master Member
Re: Ghostbusters 3
I won't be calling. Nope.
I won't be calling. Nope.
Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Satxer
Sr Member
Re: Ghostbusters 3
Best way to explain is a quote below:
The problem is, it will taint what is already in existance because they want to try and "top" it. You can't tell me they aren't. There are too many reboots out there that, while they make me appreciate the originals even more, that they make me cringe thinking this younger generation will look to these new ones vs the originals that were worth a damn.
Like Star Wars, know how many younger people I hear talking about the prequels or clone wars because they were introduced to them due to time of release? That is another argument for another time though.
Best way to explain is a quote below:
The problem is, it will taint what is already in existance because they want to try and "top" it. You can't tell me they aren't. There are too many reboots out there that, while they make me appreciate the originals even more, that they make me cringe thinking this younger generation will look to these new ones vs the originals that were worth a damn.
Like Star Wars, know how many younger people I hear talking about the prequels or clone wars because they were introduced to them due to time of release? That is another argument for another time though.
Laspector
Master Member
Re: Ghostbusters 3
I think a continuation could work. Just forget all the cartoons and all that stuff. You had the first two movies, the guys did their thing and then there just seemed to be no more ghosts around. Ghostbusters goes out of business and the guys go off into obscurity, no paranormal activity for thirty years. By this time the original stuff has become almost urban myth, mostly forgotten. Then something happens, ghosts start coming back and these gals pick up where the others left off. Maybe make one of them the daughter of one of the original members or something. Then you could have a good cameo by Murray, or Ackroyd, or Romanis, or even Weaver, and then just pick up from there.
I think a continuation could work. Just forget all the cartoons and all that stuff. You had the first two movies, the guys did their thing and then there just seemed to be no more ghosts around. Ghostbusters goes out of business and the guys go off into obscurity, no paranormal activity for thirty years. By this time the original stuff has become almost urban myth, mostly forgotten. Then something happens, ghosts start coming back and these gals pick up where the others left off. Maybe make one of them the daughter of one of the original members or something. Then you could have a good cameo by Murray, or Ackroyd, or Romanis, or even Weaver, and then just pick up from there.
Re: Ghostbusters 3
Sure, then they would be acknowledging the originals. I would be OK with that. You could go back to the original films and understand how it all started. Even if the new film was crap it wouldn't "invalidate" the old ones. But Feige and Co have stated that they are not doing a continuation, but an actual reboot from scratch. If any original cast members are in it, they will be as cameos in different roles.
Sure, then they would be acknowledging the originals. I would be OK with that. You could go back to the original films and understand how it all started. Even if the new film was crap it wouldn't "invalidate" the old ones. But Feige and Co have stated that they are not doing a continuation, but an actual reboot from scratch. If any original cast members are in it, they will be as cameos in different roles.
Re: Ghostbusters 3
IYou can't have a movie taint the original simply by existing. When I think of a movie tainting another, I think of Alien3 in how it changed the entire premise of the last act of ALIENS by dooming everyone the moment Ripley says "We're not leaving". A change that was obviously not the intent of ANYONE working on the film. That is tainting a film.
Or how about the Star Wars prequels in their effort to reshape and retell an already classically told story that works better without the prequels? No prophecy jargon, no over use of a fan popular character and you can take Obi-Wan's word that Anakin was a 'good friend' instead of an obnoxious overbearing jerk.
Each of these examples taint a franchise due to how they connect directly to them. Rebooting is not the same thing since it won't even acknowledge the events of the last two Ghostbusters movies. If you want a really strange perspective, watch "The Real Ghostbusters" cartoon. The "Real" in the title was meant to be taken literally since they establish that the live action movie was made based off the cartoon universe, not vice versa. So whenever I watch the original Ghostbusters movie, am I supposed to believe that what I'm seeing is actually based off the lives of the cartoon characters and is there for twice as fictional as before? That's just weird.
The only questionable reboot I've seen yet is The Amazing Spiderman reboot, and tainting the original movies never even crosses my mind. Heck, when I do a comparison between the two movies, there are areas that the reboot does way better than Sam Raimi's originals. I'm not just talking about how the reboot films tried to "top" the originals. I'm talking about the handling of the characters, the story and it's overall purpose. Now that doesn't mean that there aren't some areas that the Raimi's films do better, but at least the areas that annoyed the heck out of me were all but gone in the reboot, and they were better movies for it.
And that's what I think we'll get with this new Ghostbusters movie. Not something to replace, but something to compare.
IYou can't have a movie taint the original simply by existing. When I think of a movie tainting another, I think of Alien3 in how it changed the entire premise of the last act of ALIENS by dooming everyone the moment Ripley says "We're not leaving". A change that was obviously not the intent of ANYONE working on the film. That is tainting a film.
Or how about the Star Wars prequels in their effort to reshape and retell an already classically told story that works better without the prequels? No prophecy jargon, no over use of a fan popular character and you can take Obi-Wan's word that Anakin was a 'good friend' instead of an obnoxious overbearing jerk.
Each of these examples taint a franchise due to how they connect directly to them. Rebooting is not the same thing since it won't even acknowledge the events of the last two Ghostbusters movies. If you want a really strange perspective, watch "The Real Ghostbusters" cartoon. The "Real" in the title was meant to be taken literally since they establish that the live action movie was made based off the cartoon universe, not vice versa. So whenever I watch the original Ghostbusters movie, am I supposed to believe that what I'm seeing is actually based off the lives of the cartoon characters and is there for twice as fictional as before? That's just weird.
The only questionable reboot I've seen yet is The Amazing Spiderman reboot, and tainting the original movies never even crosses my mind. Heck, when I do a comparison between the two movies, there are areas that the reboot does way better than Sam Raimi's originals. I'm not just talking about how the reboot films tried to "top" the originals. I'm talking about the handling of the characters, the story and it's overall purpose. Now that doesn't mean that there aren't some areas that the Raimi's films do better, but at least the areas that annoyed the heck out of me were all but gone in the reboot, and they were better movies for it.
And that's what I think we'll get with this new Ghostbusters movie. Not something to replace, but something to compare.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Ghostbusters 3
Honestly, I think this is less of a problem caused by Hollywood, and more of a problem to which Hollywood contributes.
The reboot stuff is annoying for many reasons, but I think you kind of end up in a chicken vs. egg debate when you try to determine what's causing people to forget the older films and only watch the newer stuff. I'd say that a big contributor is parents who just...don't bother showing their kids anything old. Why would a kid have any appreciation of old stuff if all they've ever known is what's flashy and cool now? Why would you watch a black and white movie if you've never been exposed to that kind of film to see its merits, especially when you're younger and your mind is more open?
I count myself lucky that my folks exposed me to a ton of older stuff, and to more than just whatever was popular for kids when I was growing up. I still got plenty of the current stuff, but they made sure I was exposed to classics of all kinds across a wide range of entertainment forms, and my life is all the richer for it today. But if all your kids ever see is the latest, greatest, flashiest stuff...they'll miss out on the ability to appreciate a lot of older material. To me, that's a big, big part of why reboots work. Nobody is going to say "The original was better" because the new audience has never seen the original and only watches new stuff.
Honestly, I think this is less of a problem caused by Hollywood, and more of a problem to which Hollywood contributes.
The reboot stuff is annoying for many reasons, but I think you kind of end up in a chicken vs. egg debate when you try to determine what's causing people to forget the older films and only watch the newer stuff. I'd say that a big contributor is parents who just...don't bother showing their kids anything old. Why would a kid have any appreciation of old stuff if all they've ever known is what's flashy and cool now? Why would you watch a black and white movie if you've never been exposed to that kind of film to see its merits, especially when you're younger and your mind is more open?
I count myself lucky that my folks exposed me to a ton of older stuff, and to more than just whatever was popular for kids when I was growing up. I still got plenty of the current stuff, but they made sure I was exposed to classics of all kinds across a wide range of entertainment forms, and my life is all the richer for it today. But if all your kids ever see is the latest, greatest, flashiest stuff...they'll miss out on the ability to appreciate a lot of older material. To me, that's a big, big part of why reboots work. Nobody is going to say "The original was better" because the new audience has never seen the original and only watches new stuff.
Re: Ghostbusters 3
I think I'll wait for when it comes to the small screen...
I think I'll wait for when it comes to the small screen...
Re: Ghostbusters 3
@Satxer, don't know where that quote came from but yes, yes and more yes!!! This is a subject I have been frustrated with for a long while. Purposefully changing a character's race or sex isn't being progressive-minded. It is gimmicky at best but sadly, it really falls more into the category of being exploitative... all the while the sheep are cheering it on as being so forward-thinking and equality-minded. If these things were truly as progressive as they like to think they are, they wouldn't care what the sex or race of the character was, but when you go out specifically looking for one thing, that smacks of political correctness and exploitation.
Re: Ghostbusters 3
I agree with Art, it's not even being gimmicky it's political correctness out of control. What's worse is none of these women are funny, it's going to be a movie full of raunchy jokes that is an insult to the original and the actors. They could have worked an all female team in without a reboot: one of the comics features a female team that's the competition but then works with the Ghostbusters.
I agree with Art, it's not even being gimmicky it's political correctness out of control. What's worse is none of these women are funny, it's going to be a movie full of raunchy jokes that is an insult to the original and the actors. They could have worked an all female team in without a reboot: one of the comics features a female team that's the competition but then works with the Ghostbusters.
Satxer
Sr Member
Re: Ghostbusters 3
Art, the quote came from joatrash, was on the last page. My internet xploder isn't letting me multiquote correctly to have had his name.
But I agree, if I wanted to see "Bridesmaids 2 w/proton packs", I would go out and watch Bridesmaids 1. I see too much stupid humor that will be in the movie. I can't tolerate 75% of those actresses in anything, let alone a rehash of a classic that didn't need to be touched.
To be fair, taint was probably not the right word, it was early. I guess I just feel that some stuff should be left alone, and let the franchise end on a good note. Reboots are getting annoying anymore, where they even talk of rebooting The Naked Gun. The issue with comparing to the original, is that the current generation watching, will be more entertained by the toilet humor. Going back and watching GB, it didn't feel like it was going to be nothing but jokes. I see this "reboot" turning into just one big rolling joke, kicking ghosts in the nuts, and probably ghost poo.
Art, the quote came from joatrash, was on the last page. My internet xploder isn't letting me multiquote correctly to have had his name.
But I agree, if I wanted to see "Bridesmaids 2 w/proton packs", I would go out and watch Bridesmaids 1. I see too much stupid humor that will be in the movie. I can't tolerate 75% of those actresses in anything, let alone a rehash of a classic that didn't need to be touched.
To be fair, taint was probably not the right word, it was early. I guess I just feel that some stuff should be left alone, and let the franchise end on a good note. Reboots are getting annoying anymore, where they even talk of rebooting The Naked Gun. The issue with comparing to the original, is that the current generation watching, will be more entertained by the toilet humor. Going back and watching GB, it didn't feel like it was going to be nothing but jokes. I see this "reboot" turning into just one big rolling joke, kicking ghosts in the nuts, and probably ghost poo.
Re: Ghostbusters 3
I am going to reiterate part of Art's statement. If we are to consider we are all truly progressive then indeed why are some people so bothered with the notion of a female cast?
If somebody is opposed to the whole idea of Ghostbusters reboot itself, then I totally understand that and won't question it. But why does it matter if it's a female cast since it's not even the same characters?
There is nothing gimmicky nor political correctness about it other than the fact that the director likes to work with these female comedic actors. It's like saying, why does Scorsese work with Dicaprio as his leading man?
All new male cast reprising those four classic characters in a reboot is a bad decision all around. Maybe some would prefer all new male cast as four new characters instead, which I think could have worked too.
This is director Paul Feig's statement back in December 2014.
“A lot of people accused it of being a gimmick. I guess I can see the cynics’ view of it, but for me I just love working with funny women. People said, ‘Why don’t you do a mix?’ I’m just more interested in the idea of lady Ghostbusters. It’s the way my brain works. I want ours to be scarier than the original, to be quite honest. Katie Dipold and I are so focused on wanting to do scary comedy. We don’t want to hold back.”
I am going to reiterate part of Art's statement. If we are to consider we are all truly progressive then indeed why are some people so bothered with the notion of a female cast?
If somebody is opposed to the whole idea of Ghostbusters reboot itself, then I totally understand that and won't question it. But why does it matter if it's a female cast since it's not even the same characters?
There is nothing gimmicky nor political correctness about it other than the fact that the director likes to work with these female comedic actors. It's like saying, why does Scorsese work with Dicaprio as his leading man?
All new male cast reprising those four classic characters in a reboot is a bad decision all around. Maybe some would prefer all new male cast as four new characters instead, which I think could have worked too.
This is director Paul Feig's statement back in December 2014.
“A lot of people accused it of being a gimmick. I guess I can see the cynics’ view of it, but for me I just love working with funny women. People said, ‘Why don’t you do a mix?’ I’m just more interested in the idea of lady Ghostbusters. It’s the way my brain works. I want ours to be scarier than the original, to be quite honest. Katie Dipold and I are so focused on wanting to do scary comedy. We don’t want to hold back.”
Re: Ghostbusters 3
I'll quote myself from a few months ago, as it still seems like the best way to treat Ghostbusters going forward, apart from just letting it go.
--Jonah
I'll quote myself from a few months ago, as it still seems like the best way to treat Ghostbusters going forward, apart from just letting it go.
The idea that Ray and Winston might take blind applications or interviews, and put together a new team of mostly or all women could still factor into that -- but only if it wasn't commented on at all in the story. For it to be progressive casting/storytelling, their gender needs to not matter to Ray and Winston. ANd, further, I'd love to see Rick Moranis back as a permanent staff member of the team, even if he rarely goes out on calls. Rick Moranis said back in 2013 -- back when a sequel was looking to be an actual sequel, still -- that someone connected with Dan Ayroyd had called to ask if he'd be interested in coming back. He said he "wouldn't not do it, but it's got to be good". I hadn't thought of him at first because he's been amost entirely out of acting for over fifteen years, but the fact that he'd be interested in a good Ghostbusters sequel... *sigh* Well, this, to me, is yet another, borked opportunity for something really cool...
--Jonah
Re: Ghostbusters 3
Now that they've found the new Ghostbusters, what should audiences expect?
I have mentioned the partial plot synopsis in the spoiler tag below which I found on Collider, including another casting bit in the tag below. All this and more info was removed from the article upon Sony's request.
Here are the main excerpts from the HitFix article:
"According to the report filed today by Borys Kit, the central quartet will be played by Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon. Obviously Feig is comfortable with Wiig and McCarthy, so I'm not surprised to see the two of them as part of the team. I think it's awesome that Sony would be willing to cast Leslie Jones as a lead, since she's largely unproven as a lead, but has screen presence to burn. The same is true of McKinnon, and it feels like casting Wiig and McCarthy gives the studio room to try some actors who are right for the roles, even if they don't have guaranteed box office clout at this point.
One thing to keep in mind here is that they are not playing the characters from the original film. They're not meant to simply be female versions of Venkman, Spengler, Stantz, and Zeddmore. Instead, these are totally different characters in a similar type of situation. In the script, I think Wiig and McKinnon are playing...
[EDITOR'S NOTE: We originally had more plot and character details here. However, our good friends at Sony sent an actual ghost to the HitFix office this afternoon, and after several hours of being slimed repeatedly and being picked up and flown around upside down, we have come to believe that perhaps we would be better served by holding our description to broad strokes. Our apologies to anyone who missed the original report, and to Sony. Now please send someone to get this ghost out of here. Please? Seriously... please?]
If I was guessing, I'd bet Wiig is Erin, Jones is Abby, and McKinnon is Jillian. That's because I'm almost positive Patty, an MTA worker who stumbles across the main ghost in the film, is going to be McCarthy. Seems like a perfect fit for her, and I can see how all four of them will fit together as a team.
Ultimately, the reason the original Ghostbusters seemed to fit their roles so well is because the parts were literally tailored to them as the film came together. Peter Venkman is a perfect Bill Murray role. Egon Spengler fit Harold Ramis better than any other character he ever played. And I'm pretty sure Dan Aykroyd actually is Ray, the only difference being the name they're called. Dippold and Feig love these actors, and they're going to craft something for them that's not going to depend on the archetypes that the guys played in the original films.
There are some other major roles to cast, and based on conversations at Sony, it seems like they'e got some people in mind already. I'm curious to see if they land Peter Dinklage as the main bad guy, a creepy mechanical genius, but there's another role that, if they cast who they want, is going to be the most interesting part of the film. Like I said, these aren't direct one-to-one corollaries, but there is a character named Martin Heiss who is a professional supernatural debunker. When our new Ghostbusters post some videos of what they're doing online, Heiss becomes determined to prove that they are fakes, and he ends up at odds with the team for the whole film.
And who do they want to step into William Atherton's shoes?
[Again, I apologize, but the ghost just stole my pants and I'm afraid things are going to get really bad if I leave the name of the actor here.]
There's still a lot of work to be done by Katie Dippold and Paul Feig before they manage to start shooting, and I have a feeling what I saw was every early in the process. But it's clear that Fieg and Dippold have been given a very difficult task here. They've been asked to make something that is brand-new, but they also have to fold in the familiar iconography of the series, and it makes for something that feels very awkward. I don't necessarily need to see a major back story for the various elements that were part of the original film. Those things are great in the original film, but they weren't given this sort of weight, and it feels like they've shackled the filmmakers to things that they should be free to reinvent completely.
It'll certainly be interesting to see how the rest of the cast falls into place, and I certainly like Feig and Dippold and the cast. I'm just not sold yet on the idea of continuing this series in a way that tries to both play to nostalgia and do things differently. One or the other, folks, because trying to do both may be impossible."
Now that they've found the new Ghostbusters, what should audiences expect?
I have mentioned the partial plot synopsis in the spoiler tag below which I found on Collider, including another casting bit in the tag below. All this and more info was removed from the article upon Sony's request.
Here are the main excerpts from the HitFix article:
"According to the report filed today by Borys Kit, the central quartet will be played by Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon. Obviously Feig is comfortable with Wiig and McCarthy, so I'm not surprised to see the two of them as part of the team. I think it's awesome that Sony would be willing to cast Leslie Jones as a lead, since she's largely unproven as a lead, but has screen presence to burn. The same is true of McKinnon, and it feels like casting Wiig and McCarthy gives the studio room to try some actors who are right for the roles, even if they don't have guaranteed box office clout at this point.
One thing to keep in mind here is that they are not playing the characters from the original film. They're not meant to simply be female versions of Venkman, Spengler, Stantz, and Zeddmore. Instead, these are totally different characters in a similar type of situation. In the script, I think Wiig and McKinnon are playing...
[EDITOR'S NOTE: We originally had more plot and character details here. However, our good friends at Sony sent an actual ghost to the HitFix office this afternoon, and after several hours of being slimed repeatedly and being picked up and flown around upside down, we have come to believe that perhaps we would be better served by holding our description to broad strokes. Our apologies to anyone who missed the original report, and to Sony. Now please send someone to get this ghost out of here. Please? Seriously... please?]
Erin Gabler and Abby Bergman are the first two leads, and as the film begins, they are former colleagues. They co-wrote a book about the paranormal together, then went in different directions. Erin works for Columbia, and she’s getting close to tenure, while Abby is more involved in the pursuit of ghosts, with a new partner named Jillian. In a world where there are thirty different “Ghost Hunters” style TV shows out there, the set-up makes sense, and it sets up a tension between serious academic motives and mainstream pop parapsychology.
Ultimately, the reason the original Ghostbusters seemed to fit their roles so well is because the parts were literally tailored to them as the film came together. Peter Venkman is a perfect Bill Murray role. Egon Spengler fit Harold Ramis better than any other character he ever played. And I'm pretty sure Dan Aykroyd actually is Ray, the only difference being the name they're called. Dippold and Feig love these actors, and they're going to craft something for them that's not going to depend on the archetypes that the guys played in the original films.
There are some other major roles to cast, and based on conversations at Sony, it seems like they'e got some people in mind already. I'm curious to see if they land Peter Dinklage as the main bad guy, a creepy mechanical genius, but there's another role that, if they cast who they want, is going to be the most interesting part of the film. Like I said, these aren't direct one-to-one corollaries, but there is a character named Martin Heiss who is a professional supernatural debunker. When our new Ghostbusters post some videos of what they're doing online, Heiss becomes determined to prove that they are fakes, and he ends up at odds with the team for the whole film.
And who do they want to step into William Atherton's shoes?
[Again, I apologize, but the ghost just stole my pants and I'm afraid things are going to get really bad if I leave the name of the actor here.]
It's being speculated that Sony is looking for Bill Murray to play that role.
It'll certainly be interesting to see how the rest of the cast falls into place, and I certainly like Feig and Dippold and the cast. I'm just not sold yet on the idea of continuing this series in a way that tries to both play to nostalgia and do things differently. One or the other, folks, because trying to do both may be impossible."
Re: Ghostbusters 3
Or they could segway from the videogame since a the end of it they have Alyssa Milano's character and the new guy and mention opening franchises. There's a lot of ways this could have went without the flavor of the month female comedians and a reboot. Sony's just lazy. They may as well just get the hacks behind Bayformers and New Trek on board to guarantee a stinker.
Or they could segway from the videogame since a the end of it they have Alyssa Milano's character and the new guy and mention opening franchises. There's a lot of ways this could have went without the flavor of the month female comedians and a reboot. Sony's just lazy. They may as well just get the hacks behind Bayformers and New Trek on board to guarantee a stinker.
Riceball
Master Member
Re: Ghostbusters 3
I like the premise, with the popularity and number of paranormal shows on TV these days a slight retooling of the original Ghostbusters to fit the world of today isn't a bad thing and it would be funny to have cameos from either some of the Ghost Adventures people or Ghost Hunter. However, given the cast it seems like this movie will be like what others are saying, a crass comedy with little to no sophistication to it.
I like the premise, with the popularity and number of paranormal shows on TV these days a slight retooling of the original Ghostbusters to fit the world of today isn't a bad thing and it would be funny to have cameos from either some of the Ghost Adventures people or Ghost Hunter. However, given the cast it seems like this movie will be like what others are saying, a crass comedy with little to no sophistication to it.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Ghostbusters 3
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can certainly explain my own cynicism. Basically, my attitude is that many, many Hollywood decisions are based around marketing optics first, with story a distant second-if-considered-at-all. They're interested in selling you a brand, an image, something like that, rather than telling a solid story. And this colors so much of what happens in Hollywood these days, including which projects to greenlight, and how casting is done.
The very notion of a remake itself typically walks this nearly impossible line of "We want to make it the same, but different." This one is doubling down by also saying "...and we want to make it funny, but scary." I've said this before, but my issue with most remakes is that I automatically assume that the film's story...will suck, or at least be mediocre and unable to stand on its own feet. If it was so great, would it need the "brand" to sell it to the masses? Wouldn't its merits speak for themselves? And if it isn't so great and they're relying on the brand to sell tickets...then why bother? The simple answer is a cynical one: they know this crap makes money.
The same can be said when you're heavily focused on casting decisions and especially "controversial" choices like changing the race or sex of a character, but aren't talking much about the story. Moreover, the content of the discussion of casting can highlight how the role has been changed, which in turn reduces the actor to a one note figure, and makes you think they picked the character because they're different, and not because they're talented. Like, the decision is for the tokenist optics of casting a black Johnny Storm or all-female Ghostbusters first, and then it goes to "who's popular today?" rather than "Hey, who would be best for the role?"
With respect to the Ghostbusters, I actually have no problem at all with an all-female team. I mean, in some hypothetical future of that universe, sure, there's probably some franchise that's got all women. To me, what makes the choice a dubious one is how the attention seems to be focused on "The actors have vaginas!!" rather than "These are some seriously funny actors." It comes across as tokenist and exploitative. I mean, imagine if it were...an all gay team. Or an all black team. Would that really be progressive, or would it just be the studio saying "Let's make a black movie. What can we option?" Given how Hollywood seems to operate, I can't help but think it's the latter. And, I should note, it wouldn't matter if it was an all black team or whatever if the story was respectful about that, and if the pre-release hype wasn't focused on how the film has inverted expectations or the racial makeup of the team.
You want to sell me a Ghostbusters film? Sell me a compelling, funny story. Full stop. Sell me on how these actors are hilarious and how this story is gonna be awesome. Not because it's "OMG CHICKS" or whatever, but because the story sounds compelling. Merely telling me "It's all chicks" doesn't really tell me anything other than that you really, really want me to go because "it's chicks." And if that's all you've got going for your film (well, that and the GB logo), yeah...I'll pass. I've seen enough s***ty remakes at this point. Sell me on the story. If it happens to be a story about an all gay, black, female Ghostbusting crew, fine and dandy, but focus on the story not on the female black gayness of the characters.
I dunno. Maybe some of this is the pre-release hype machine at work, but again, that just brings out my cynical side, since it seems so focused on either generating controversy or focusing on stuff that...isn't the story really. Maybe that's because so many films have actually fairly crappy stories, especially when being adapted from established materials.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can certainly explain my own cynicism. Basically, my attitude is that many, many Hollywood decisions are based around marketing optics first, with story a distant second-if-considered-at-all. They're interested in selling you a brand, an image, something like that, rather than telling a solid story. And this colors so much of what happens in Hollywood these days, including which projects to greenlight, and how casting is done.
The very notion of a remake itself typically walks this nearly impossible line of "We want to make it the same, but different." This one is doubling down by also saying "...and we want to make it funny, but scary." I've said this before, but my issue with most remakes is that I automatically assume that the film's story...will suck, or at least be mediocre and unable to stand on its own feet. If it was so great, would it need the "brand" to sell it to the masses? Wouldn't its merits speak for themselves? And if it isn't so great and they're relying on the brand to sell tickets...then why bother? The simple answer is a cynical one: they know this crap makes money.
The same can be said when you're heavily focused on casting decisions and especially "controversial" choices like changing the race or sex of a character, but aren't talking much about the story. Moreover, the content of the discussion of casting can highlight how the role has been changed, which in turn reduces the actor to a one note figure, and makes you think they picked the character because they're different, and not because they're talented. Like, the decision is for the tokenist optics of casting a black Johnny Storm or all-female Ghostbusters first, and then it goes to "who's popular today?" rather than "Hey, who would be best for the role?"
With respect to the Ghostbusters, I actually have no problem at all with an all-female team. I mean, in some hypothetical future of that universe, sure, there's probably some franchise that's got all women. To me, what makes the choice a dubious one is how the attention seems to be focused on "The actors have vaginas!!" rather than "These are some seriously funny actors." It comes across as tokenist and exploitative. I mean, imagine if it were...an all gay team. Or an all black team. Would that really be progressive, or would it just be the studio saying "Let's make a black movie. What can we option?" Given how Hollywood seems to operate, I can't help but think it's the latter. And, I should note, it wouldn't matter if it was an all black team or whatever if the story was respectful about that, and if the pre-release hype wasn't focused on how the film has inverted expectations or the racial makeup of the team.
You want to sell me a Ghostbusters film? Sell me a compelling, funny story. Full stop. Sell me on how these actors are hilarious and how this story is gonna be awesome. Not because it's "OMG CHICKS" or whatever, but because the story sounds compelling. Merely telling me "It's all chicks" doesn't really tell me anything other than that you really, really want me to go because "it's chicks." And if that's all you've got going for your film (well, that and the GB logo), yeah...I'll pass. I've seen enough s***ty remakes at this point. Sell me on the story. If it happens to be a story about an all gay, black, female Ghostbusting crew, fine and dandy, but focus on the story not on the female black gayness of the characters.
I dunno. Maybe some of this is the pre-release hype machine at work, but again, that just brings out my cynical side, since it seems so focused on either generating controversy or focusing on stuff that...isn't the story really. Maybe that's because so many films have actually fairly crappy stories, especially when being adapted from established materials.
Re: Ghostbusters 3
Since when does being progressive about gender equality mean that gender doesn't matter? The only instance where gender shouldn't matter is when discrimination is brought upon a group specifically based on their gender alone. And that's what I'm seeing here. A lot of users don't like this new Ghostbusters because it's going with an all female team and you're coming up with lame excuses like "political correctness" and "exploitation" to instantly write it off.
And it's a ridiculous argument anyways since is no proof that the film's intent is to exploit the fact that the new cast is female. If you want to talk about that kind of exploitation, consider the proposed title to the all female "The Expendables" spinoff film "The ExpendaBelles". They altered the title to make it sound more femenine for no other reason than to announce the fact that the team is all female. The Asylum, a movie studio who's sole purpose is making movies that exploit box office hits called their all female "The Expendables" movie "Mercenaries". Yes. The Asylum is less exploitive than the official studios that make the movies they aim to exploit. And do you know how Sony, the studio that owns the Ghostbusters property is marketing the new Ghostbusters film as?
Where's the gender exploitation in that?
If these things were truly as progressive as they like to think they are, they wouldn't care what the sex or race of the character was, but when you go out specifically looking for one thing, that smacks of political correctness and exploitation.
Since when does being progressive about gender equality mean that gender doesn't matter? The only instance where gender shouldn't matter is when discrimination is brought upon a group specifically based on their gender alone. And that's what I'm seeing here. A lot of users don't like this new Ghostbusters because it's going with an all female team and you're coming up with lame excuses like "political correctness" and "exploitation" to instantly write it off.
And it's a ridiculous argument anyways since is no proof that the film's intent is to exploit the fact that the new cast is female. If you want to talk about that kind of exploitation, consider the proposed title to the all female "The Expendables" spinoff film "The ExpendaBelles". They altered the title to make it sound more femenine for no other reason than to announce the fact that the team is all female. The Asylum, a movie studio who's sole purpose is making movies that exploit box office hits called their all female "The Expendables" movie "Mercenaries". Yes. The Asylum is less exploitive than the official studios that make the movies they aim to exploit. And do you know how Sony, the studio that owns the Ghostbusters property is marketing the new Ghostbusters film as?
Where's the gender exploitation in that?
Re: Ghostbusters 3
Awww... come on... don't do that. You are bordering on a straw-man argument to make your point. I have seen very very few people who are upset about the team being only women but a LOT of people who feel like choice was based on grabbing heads lines by being "controversial" than about anything else and in that case, yeah, it is being exploitative.
Feels like you are doing this a little, but maybe that is just me.
Awww... come on... don't do that. You are bordering on a straw-man argument to make your point. I have seen very very few people who are upset about the team being only women but a LOT of people who feel like choice was based on grabbing heads lines by being "controversial" than about anything else and in that case, yeah, it is being exploitative.
Feels like you are doing this a little, but maybe that is just me.
Similar threads
