Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

[Art Andrews]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Check out the comments in the last couple of posts we made here:

https://www.facebook.com/therpf

And in case you miss this gem...

 

[Jeyl]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

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.

How exactly does a studio tell the general populace that they're making a movie with a compelling story that's also funny? The only way to really know how good a movie is is to actually see the bloody thing. And even at that, Isn't the conclusion of whether or not the movie was any good a matter of individual tastes? I remember JJ Abrams declaring how brilliant the scripts were for his two Star Trek movies and those stories were anything but brilliant. Certainly not when you compare them to other movies that were released that same year.

The whole point in selling a movie is to not tell you everything about it, and all we have is that it's a reboot, the team is comprised of a female cast and it aims to be a bit more scarier than the originals. That's all I know at least and I'm certain we'll learn more down the line.

Also, for someone who has "no problem at all with an all-female team", you certainly like to throw the word "chicks" around when openly when describing it. Since neither Paul Feig or Sony are using the word "chicks" to promote this movie, you should probably consider using a less derogative term when you try to explain your so-called non-existant issues.

 

[niennumb1]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Melissa McCarthy is funny, but I'm tired of Hollywood and her playing the "Let's overplay the overweight cliche jokes" character thing.

I see no reason for this to get a reboot. They should just continue it and have the original cast doing a passing of the torch thing so at least they had some involvement. I just can't swallow this pill right now.

 

[Treadwell]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I can't stand Wiig and I REALLY can't stand McCarthy, so....yeah.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

How exactly does a studio tell the general populace that they're making a movie with a compelling story that's also funny? The only way to really know how good a movie is is to actually see the bloody thing. And even at that, Isn't the conclusion of whether or not the movie was any good a matter of individual tastes? I remember JJ Abrams declaring how brilliant the scripts were for his two Star Trek movies and those stories were anything but brilliant. Certainly not when you compare them to other movies that were released that same year.

Give me information about the story itself that suggests it's interesting. Right now, all we have are disparate rumors. Here are examples that might or might not suggest an interesting story:

- The bit in the quoted piece about the GBs being heavily influenced and in competition with the various "Ghost hunter" programs and such.
- A story where this is a franchise and that depicts how these GBs came together which sounds interesting.
- Information about the characters that makes them sound like actual characters rather than "And then [actor] does their thing for a while." If this were, say, a Bruce Willis film, if all you tell me/show me is Bruce Willis Bruce-Willising around for a while...eh...I've seen it. On the other hand, if you give me a sense that he's got more going on than just the usual, maybe I'm interested.

The whole point in selling a movie is to not tell you everything about it, and all we have is that it's a reboot, the team is comprised of a female cast and it aims to be a bit more scarier than the originals. That's all I know at least and I'm certain we'll learn more down the line.

Right, but my point is...that's all they're offering right now to entice me. Based on that, I'm not interested. Sounds like tokenism or a cynical cash grab by saying "It's Spooky Bridesmaids!" Like I said, some of the issue is how the pre-release hype machine works, but for me at least, the pre-release hype machine actually works to dull my interest in a film because it always seems to focus on the wrong things initially.

Also, for someone who has "no problem at all with an all-female team", you certainly like to throw the word "chicks" around when openly when describing it. Since neither Paul Feig or Sony are using the word "chicks" to promote this movie, you should probably consider using a less derogative term when you try to explain your so-called non-existant issues.

My use of the word "chicks" is to illustrate how I interpret what I see as a cynical cash-grab by promoting the all-female roster. As in, that's what I imagine the studio marketing guys are basically trying to tell me. "Go see it! It's Ghostbusters...ONLY THEY HAVE LADYPARTS!!!" This is how I think Hollywood works, basically, and how I think they see the viewing public: as morons to whom the dumbest marketing tactic will work.

I invite them to prove me wrong. I'd be delighted if a reboot actually turned out to be well done and led to a series of hilarious, equally well-done sequels. But based on what I'm seeing at the moment...sorry, it just strikes me as courting controversy and playing up tokenism, rather than in intent to tell a genuinely good story. Maybe that's just how Hollywood works now, and it's actually going to turn out great, but I've seen too many crappy films follow pre-release hype to not feel entirely justified in assuming the worst intentions of the film industry -- especially in the marketing aspects of the industry (even if the individuals working within it may be perfectly good and decent people).

 

[Paul Andrew]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

An interesting take on why it's not a gimmick to put women in the lead roles (a bit of a language warning):
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2014/10/09/why-four-women-playing-ghostbusters-is-not-a-gimmick/

 

[Jeyl]

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.

Perhaps, or maybe Paul Feig just wanted to have a new Ghostbusters team that was all female because that's something he wants to see. That line of thinking is totally possible because that's what "I" would like to see as well. We've got a year and a half before the film comes out and who knows? Maybe the marketing department will exploit that detail somehow.... but even if they did, wouldn't it be nice that the marketing department wasn't afraid to acknowledge that this film not only had a female cast, but also that they're the ones in charge? Heck, I'll even bet that having the team comprised solely of female characters would guarantee that they'd have to be merchandisable. Because when you do have a film that features a both male and female cast, guess which one is usually left out? Unless Sony doesn't want to merchandise this new movie, they're not going to get left out of this.

 

[tgreco]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Stunt casting and properties.... 2 things Hollywood loves.
It's a gimmick. It all just reeks of publicity stunt.
I'm sure there's a marketing team at Sony high-fiving his underlings, bragging about how much "buzz" this new ghostbusters is getting...

having read the leaked plot outline (that Sony asked to be pulled from several sites)... it just sounds.... stupid.
It's a lot of things, but it isn't Ghostbusters.

I look forward to the Voyager film, with the reimagined captain Charles Janeway.

 

[batguy]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Imagine a hypothetical classic comedy movie with an all-female ensemble cast. One is a medical receptionist, two others are child daycare workers, another is a dental hygenist, etc. The movie focuses on their professions.

What if they announced a remake, and the only real bit of info being circulated was that the leads would all be male this time?



See?

Putting aside the gender politics, it's simply bad for the movie. It really distracts from the believability.

Those are female-dominated professions. Switching even one or two of the leads to male actors would be a twist. Switching all of them, with no other explanation given, and fixating on that as the biggest selling point . . . it absolutely reeks of a gimmick.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Imagine a hypothetical classic comedy movie with an all-female ensemble cast. One is a medical receptionist, two others are child daycare workers, another is a dental hygenist, etc. The movie focuses on their professions.

What if they announced a remake, and the only real bit of info being circulated was that the leads would all be male this time?



See?

Putting aside the gender politics, it's simply bad for the movie. It really distracts from the believability.

Those are female-dominated professions. Switching even one or two of the leads to male actors would be a twist. Switching all of them, with no other explanation given, and fixating on that as the biggest selling point . . . it absolutely reeks of a gimmick.

In full agrreement.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Imagine a hypothetical classic comedy movie with an all-female ensemble cast. One is a medical receptionist, two others are child daycare workers, another is a dental hygenist, etc. The movie focuses on their professions.

What if they announced a remake, and the only real bit of info being circulated was that the leads would all be male this time?



See?

This isn't a remake.

 

[jlee562]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I think I'd get myself in trouble if I responded to too many of these comments. There's a lot of sexism here.

Let's just say I disagree with much of the sentiment here. I'm very much looking forward to it. I think all of these women are hilarious.

 

[jlee562]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Imagine a hypothetical classic comedy movie with an all-female ensemble cast. One is a medical receptionist, two others are child daycare workers, another is a dental hygenist, etc. The movie focuses on their professions.

What if they announced a remake, and the only real bit of info being circulated was that the leads would all be male this time?



See?

Putting aside the gender politics, it's simply bad for the movie. It really distracts from the believability.

Those are female-dominated professions. Switching even one or two of the leads to male actors would be a twist. Switching all of them, with no other explanation given, and fixating on that as the biggest selling point . . . it absolutely reeks of a gimmick.

Bad analogy. Leaving aside the inherent sexism in saying that certain professions are gendered, there's actually nothing in the NARRATIVE of the movies which FORCES the characters to be male. They're practicing academics.

 

[AJTaliesen]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

An interesting take on why it's not a gimmick to put women in the lead roles (a bit of a language warning):
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2014/10/09/why-four-women-playing-ghostbusters-is-not-a-gimmick/

Very early in the article he says

A gimmick is a trick, a ploy, a cheap contrivance or tactic designed to get people to buy the product

ah...bingo. And for everyone not listening, including the writer of that article: that is EXACTLY what this very obviously is.

 

[tgreco]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

from the article:

"if you say, women can’t be Ghostbusters, or The Doctor, or James Bond, you might really be saying, “These are my toys, go play with your own.”

It most definitely IS a gimmick.

Because the creators of those characters decided that the character was MALE. If he had wanted that person to be female, he would have.
The gimmick is "I'm going to put a different product in an existing package"

I can slap an apple on this:

but that don't make it an iPad

which begs the question... then why not create your own character?

"...the sad reality of present-day Hollywood is that it’s easier to make a movie if you have some pre-existing material to build off of."

and his answer is Established brands with Established audiences.
He as much as admits in his own article, the only way ANYONE would watch these items is because they are already attached to ESTABLISHED PROPERTIES.
If they weren't, they would most like fail.

They're not remaking it. They are fundamentally changing the nature of it, then slapping a recognized Label on it to put butts in seats. Because at the end of the day I didn't see anybody asking for a movie with 4 women characters who go looking for the supernatural, and it's a comedy. I saw people asking for a Ghostbusters 3 film.

If the movie was announced exactly as is, and it was called Supernatural Trapper Ladies no one would give a whiff.

He can dress it up in semantics anyway he would like, but it's a gimmick. A marketing gimmick.
The only reason anyone is talking about a movie staring these 4 women, that doesn't start shooting until this summer, is because they slapped the label Ghostbusters on it.

 

[Paul Andrew]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

The only reason anyone is bitching about a movie staring these 4 women, that doesn't start shooting until this summer, is because they slapped the label Ghostbusters on it.

Fixed that for you.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Well my wife just said... "I won't see it."

 

[tgreco]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Missed the point completely.

and I for you

 

[Jeyl]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

Dan Aykroyd: New 'Ghostbusters' Cast Is "Magnificent"

"The Aykroyd family is delighted by this inheritance of the Ghostbusters torch by these most magnificent women in comedy. My great grandfather, Dr. Sam Aykroyd, the original Ghostbuster, was a man who empowered women in his day, and this is a beautiful development in the legacy of our family business.”
- Dan Akroyd

 

[Paul Andrew]

Re: Ghostbusters 3

I don't think I missed your point at all. Your point clearly seems to be that it's a gimmick to put butts in seats and get your dollars.
In that case, every movie ever made and released in a theater is a gimmick. They're all for putting butts in seats and getting your dollars.

My point is that many of the people who have a problem with this only do so because it's a Ghostbusters movie staring women, as if there was some kind of natural law that prevented women from busting ghosts, or being funny in a movie. There is no reason it shouldn't happen, beyond the pouting of men who feel like their toys are going to be infected with cooties.

I can accept that some people won't find McCarthy funny, there are certainly people who don't think Bill Murray is funny. What I can't accept is the number of people who put blinders on and stick their fingers in their ears as soon as a woman shows up just because she is. Chicks are people - just like dudes - excepting that we routinely treat them as if they aren't.

So if they want to make a Ghostbusters film with an all female cast I say sure, go for it, and then hope to enjoy it just like any other movie I go see.