Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[Starbreaker]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

I can't wait until Melissa McCarthy is writing on the ground covered in ectoplasm while making fat jokes.

 

[Timby]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

I can't wait for the next year and change of people assuming they already know exactly what the movie's going to be.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

I wonder if Rose Byrne will sign on to play the Sigourney Weaver character

Who says there's going to be a Sigourney Weaver character?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

The cast is a little bit too old I think, especially if they were planning on making more than one.

McCarthy seems like a terrible pick. Aside from being a one trick pony, she just doesn't seem like the Ghostbuster type.

About gimmicks, I would say that reboots (spinoffs?) in general are gimmicky. Taking a job that would seem largely oriented toward men and casting it all with women though adds a whole other level to that gimmick. Maybe they can make it seem to work, but I have my doubts.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

Here we go again,

Nope.

I can't wait for the next year and change of people assuming they already know exactly what the movie's going to be.

I can't wait for the inevitable "I saw it because a friend paid for my ticket, because *I* won't be giving it my money, and it was just as awful as I said that I knew that I felt it was going to probably and definitely be. I bought it on DVD just so I could hate it more, but not with my money, with money I found on a street corner next to a homeless man who looked like Rob Ford."

 

[Timby]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

Taking a job that would seem largely oriented toward men

This is almost as insane as everyone who pissed and moaned about Laurence Fishburne playing Perry White.

For Christ's sake, people. News flash: Every movie has a fucking gimmick. Do you know what Ghostbusters' gimmick was? Three popular comedians got together and made a movie. But now Feig casts four popular comedians who happen to be female, and people are practically saying he's worse than Hitler.

Look, NuBusters might be great, like Star Trek '09. It might be an ambitious misfire that nails some things but never really comes together, like RoboCop '14. It might be nastier than the shit my cat puked on my bed this morning, like the Pink Panther remake. But Jesus goddamn Christ, the squalling and mewling over the past day is ridiculous. If you're that bent out of shape over women being Ghostbusters, you need to give yourself a check up from the neck up, because whether or not the main actors have testicles has no bearing on whether or not it's a funny script that comes together for a good movie.

 

[Mudd]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

Look, NuBusters might be great, like Star Trek '09.

Word.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

Taking a job that would seem largely oriented toward men and casting it all with women though adds a whole other level to that gimmick. Maybe they can make it seem to work, but I have my doubts.

I'm sorry, but I have to scratch my head at the idea that ghost-busting is "a job that would seem largely oriented toward men."

Um, because . . .?

Because in real life men are traditionally better at trapping ghosts in energy beams? Because there's a long history of ghost-busting being a male-dominated profession?

It's an imaginary career that doesn't actually exist. So what about the job that makes it geared towards men? Because there's slime and gadgets involved? Because they're scientists?

(Heck, in real life, spiritualists and mediums were traditionally female. Check out the seance scenes in pretty much any old movie.)

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

... because whether or not the main actors have testicles has no bearing on whether or not it's a funny script that comes together for a good movie.

 

[E-DUB]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

It's true. This cast has no dicks.


(Sorry someone beat me to that one upthread.)

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

Don't care about the chromosomes, but was kinda hoping the group would be a bit more ethnically diverese, like with Lucy Liu or Salma Hayek in the group...
Maybe they have a male chef/friend who isn't white or black?!?

I wonder if Rose Byrne will sign on to play the Sigourney Weaver character

Who says there's going to be a Sigourney Weaver character?

Y'know, I'd get a real kick if someone like Chris Pratt or Channing Tatum (the only time I'd willingly watch Tatum) be the Dana-type character, if there is one (in the loosest sense, a love interest for one of the heroes).

And with that said, as much as I get disappointed by GBII, I'm still really impressed with how strong Dana was in that movie. Maternal instincts kicked in and she stood up to a god. That's impressive. A man who needs saving by the women but is still strong in his own right would be good for the movie (and definitely provide more material than just being a hostage in distress).

The original Ghostbusters had a wonderful dynamic between the characters.

Have you seen Kate Mckinnon on SNL? She's actually really funny on the show, and that's why I think she'll be great in the movie.

I feel these two posts also go together. Aykroyd, Murray, and Ramis all had Second City experience working together (indeed, the school's philosophy is heavily dependent on teamwork and supporting each other). Aykroyd and Murray had SNL experience, and Ramis and Murray had Stripes and Caddyshack.

Which makes me glad that Wiig, Jones, and McKinnon are on board, because they have past experience with each other (or at least concentric circles of experience) all from SNL. I'm still iffy on McCarthy, but like Wiig she has Second City experience as well.

 

[Servo]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

I'll be honest, I haven't been thrilled about the whole thing. Not because of the cast, I just don't believe they'll be able to pull off anything that can come close to the original. Hell, even the sequel couldn't do that, and it had the benefit of having the same cast and writers - and I say that as one of the few who actually likes GB2. Mostly.

The original was lightning in a bottle, and I think it'll be very difficult to live up to it.

The casting hasn't done much to change my mind; not because they're female, but because of my ignorance of who most of them are. I am familiar with McCarthy, and honestly I'm not a fan. I think I've only seen Wiig in Paul and Anchorman 2 and I thought she was fine in both of those films, and the other two I don't recall seeing in anything. So it's fair to say they're not exactly blowing my skirt up.

Of course I'll watch it. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't going to. I'm an optimist, and hope to be proven wrong.

 

[Timby]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

The original was lightning in a bottle, and I think it'll be very difficult to live up to it.

This is absolutely correct, and it makes all the bellyaching even more asinine. "This isn't like the cast of the first movie!

"

No shit it isn't. The first movie already did its particular thing (some nuclear-powered hucksters save the world) as well as it could ever possibly do so, so if you're going to do a remake, you might as well just take the concept and do something different with it (which is exactly what Feig appears to be doing).

That's why my eyes start rolling at warp speed when I see people already pigeonholing people and characters. "So and so is obviously the Ray, so and so is the Peter, who's going to be Dana and Walter Peck?" Why the fuck would you even want that? That's how you wind up looking like a cheap imitation of the original.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

... because whether or not the main actors have testicles has no bearing on whether or not it's a funny script that comes together for a good movie.

^

 

[Servo]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

The original was lightning in a bottle, and I think it'll be very difficult to live up to it.

This is absolutely correct, and it makes all the bellyaching even more asinine. "This isn't like the cast of the first movie!

"

No shit it isn't. The first movie already did its particular thing (some nuclear-powered hucksters save the world) as well as it could ever possibly do so, so if you're going to do a remake, you might as well just take the concept and do something different with it (which is exactly what Feig appears to be doing).

That's why my eyes start rolling at warp speed when I see people already pigeonholing people and characters. "So and so is obviously the Ray, so and so is the Peter, who's going to be Dana and Walter Peck?" Why the fuck would you even want that? That's how you wind up looking like a cheap imitation of the original.

Comparisons to the original are inevitable, and some people are going to take this as an affront to their entire childhood, remake or not. That's par for the course when you're dealing with a new installment of a beloved franchise.

The cynic in me would be very surprised if the casting wasn't a ploy to drum up controversy and publicity on the internet, but the optimist in me is hoping they just have a good story to tell.

 

[Timby]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

The cynic in me would be very surprised if the casting wasn't a ploy to drum up controversy and publicity on the internet, but the optimist in me is hoping they just have a good story to tell.

I'll put it this way: I am infinitely more hopeful for what Feig and Dippold are going to put together than whatever dogshit Ramis, Aykroyd, Eisenberg, Stupnitsky and Cohen had come up with over the past fifteen years, because at least it's something new rather than trying to draw blood from a stone and desperately hoping Bill Murray would change his mind.

 

[Servo]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

The cynic in me would be very surprised if the casting wasn't a ploy to drum up controversy and publicity on the internet, but the optimist in me is hoping they just have a good story to tell.

I'll put it this way: I am infinitely more hopeful for what Feig and Dippold are going to put together than whatever dogshit Ramis, Aykroyd, Eisenberg, Stupnitsky and Cohen had come up with over the past fifteen years.

I've been firmly in the "leave it the fuck alone" camp for a long while now. I had no desire to see an aged cast try and recreate magic, and this news isn't doing much for me either, but I'm willing to see what they've go to offer before I make any firm judgments.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

The cynic in me would be very surprised if the casting wasn't a ploy to drum up controversy and publicity on the internet, but the optimist in me is hoping they just have a good story to tell.

Sony will most likely drop $150-200M on this movie. Feig has cast who he's cast because McCarthy and Wiig at least have some degree of name recognition/bankability, and because he thinks the two of them along with McKinnon and Jones will perform the best with the script that's been developed. Only an imbecile would cast people for their "trolling the fanboys" value.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

I'm sorry, but I have to scratch my head at the idea that ghost-busting is "a job that would seem largely oriented toward men."

Um, because . . .?

Because in real life men are traditionally better at trapping ghosts in energy beams? Because there's a long history of ghost-busting being a male-dominated profession?

It's an imaginary career that doesn't actually exist. So what about the job that makes it geared towards men? Because there's slime and gadgets involved? Because they're scientists?

(Heck, in real life, spiritualists and mediums were traditionally female. Check out the seance scenes in pretty much any old movie.)

Of course it's a fictional job, but it is analogous to other real world jobs that typically men gravitate to heavily and women don't. Jobs that involve lots of manual labor, pest control, technical know-how, etc. And just because a new job comes up doesn't mean that it will suddenly break a lot of gender barriers. It also doesn't have anything to do with skill or competency, but just desire to be in that field, which is likely a mix of nurture and nature. And that doesn't make it impossible or unwatchable, it just strengthens the gimmicky feeling. It would be the same if it were about an all male cast of nurses or other jobs that are primarily held by women. Gender role swapping just tends to feel that way. I could just see them continuing the trend by having their secretary be male. It might be an interesting comedic device if done right.

And that's not to say it's really that big a deal or that I'm "bent out of shape" about it. I think they should go ahead and do it, and I wish them all the success in the world. I hope it's good enough that I'll actually want to see it. But it's just one of several things about this movie that give me pause, and probably the most minor thing of the whole bunch.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe

Don't care about the chromosomes, but was kinda hoping the group would be a bit more ethnically diverese, like with Lucy Liu or Salma Hayek in the group...
Maybe they have a male chef/friend who isn't white or black?!?

Who says there's going to be a Sigourney Weaver character?

Y'know, I'd get a real kick if someone like Chris Pratt or Channing Tatum (the only time I'd willingly watch Tatum) be the Dana-type character, if there is one (in the loosest sense, a love interest for one of the heroes).

And with that said, as much as I get disappointed by GBII, I'm still really impressed with how strong Dana was in that movie. Maternal instincts kicked in and she stood up to a god. That's impressive. A man who needs saving by the women but is still strong in his own right would be good for the movie (and definitely provide more material than just being a hostage in distress).

The original Ghostbusters had a wonderful dynamic between the characters.

Have you seen Kate Mckinnon on SNL? She's actually really funny on the show, and that's why I think she'll be great in the movie.

I feel these two posts also go together. Aykroyd, Murray, and Ramis all had Second City experience working together (indeed, the school's philosophy is heavily dependent on teamwork and supporting each other). Aykroyd and Murray had SNL experience, and Ramis and Murray had Stripes and Caddyshack.

Which makes me glad that Wiig, Jones, and McKinnon are on board, because they have past experience with each other (or at least concentric circles of experience) all from SNL. I'm still iffy on McCarthy, but like Wiig she has Second City experience as well.

And McCarthy has also guest-hosted SNL a few times, and worked with Wiig on Bridesmaids as well.