Re: Ghostbusters 3
Did you really just suggest that women don't go into scientific fields is because they didn't see it in the movies?
By that same rationale, should I conclude that you believe that violence in movies makes the audience more violent?
It's not exactly connected the way violence is. There have been some studies discussed recently about how there's a background influence on women not getting into STEM fields partially because men are the ones (A) most commonly depicted in the fields, and (B) most commonly lauded/talked about.
I think a more apt analogy would be that the same way women don't see themselves depicted in popular culture in STEM fields may influence women not getting into STEM fields in real life, men don't feel comfortable displaying "female" emotional traits (e.g. crying at a wider range of things they find sad, being affectionate, etc.) because they don't see other men doing that in pop culture.
In other words, pop culture both arises from general cultural attitudes, and reinforces them by providing archetypes to which the sexes aspire and from which they draw cues as far as how to behave. Obviously, none of this is destiny, but it can create a kind of mental dissonance if, for example, a woman has the impulse to go into STEM but feels like she's likely to meet a lot of resistance because "that's not what girls do," or a man is emotional and passionate in a more full range than what's commonly depicted, and feels like he's not "being a man" the way Hollywood shows men to be.
Anyway, on the subject of Total Recall or Robocop, both films, I would argue, had interesting ideas hiding inside them. But neither film was courageous enough or inventive enough to take those ideas and move them away from their labels far enough to stand on their own.
Consider, for a second, that Robocop (1987) shares a LOT of similarity with, for example, 8Man. And yet, Robocop, with its social satire, strikingly different visual design, and over-the-top violence, not to mention its cracking action, was able to stand on its own without having to be "American 8Man." Granted, the value of the 8Man brand here in the states is probably nil, but even as a somewhat derivative story, the story is still capable of standing on its own. The new Robocop had some really interesting things to say in terms of social satire, with respect to drone usage, media influence, and corporate culture, and it did some really terrific stuff with the depiction of the main character's loss of humanity when it showcased him taken apart and really being little more than a face, some organs, and a hand. Likewise, it had some really interesting things to say about personal choice, and the impact of emotions. All solid sci-fi fare, but I think it actually hampered itself by tying itself too closely to, well, Robocop. Once they're "Robocop" instead of just picking any horribly injured/killed-and-resurrected character, they were almost "required" to follow certain plot points, and yet, they also had to distinguish themselves.
Really, I think reboots/remakes are a devil's bargain. You have to strike a balance between updating the material and keeping it fresh, while harkening back to the old material enough that it still resonates. At one end of the spectrum, you have a lazy shot-for-shot remake like Psycho; at the other, you have any number of films that basically have only the thinnest veneer of the original IP shoehorned in, and the rest otherwise disregarded.
To be honest, when remakes/reboots work, I think they work
in spite of their connection to the previous material, not because of it. Look at, for example, the first POTC film. That's clearly a "branded" property, and arguably ushered in the era of "Let's just grab anything" branded-property films. But why did it work? Was it because of the brand?
Hell no. The brand provided the thinnest sliver of context/familiarity for audiences. But they liked the movie
because it was an entertaining movie. Then, of course, Hollywood -- lazy as it is -- figured that it had a formula and you could just slap some loose IP on to any old turd and call it gold. Didn't work so well for, say, Battleship, which you would
think would suggest that this marketing strategy actually isn't as foolproof as Hollywood seems to think it is. And yet, they keep returning to it. Again, and again, and again. Then they wonder why ticket sales are down.
Do you know why Marvel's films have been kicking ass? Why other successful superhero films have been doing well? It's surely not just because they'er comic book films. In the last 15 years, there've been plenty of crappy comic book movies to prove that "comic book film" != boffo box office. These films have succeeded because the underlying stories are good, and they're told well.
I said,
because the underlying stories are good, and they're told well.
Kinda makes you think that a well-told story would, you know, actually succeed at the box office
regardless of its brand connection, don't it?
.
