Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[The Nth Doctor]

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

Not mad that they are women, more mad that the rumor is that it will be set prior to the original and not a follow up

I would just operate on the assumption that this is a whole new continuity and not worry about how it connects to the original, which was, after all, thirty years ago.

To put that in perspective, that's two years longer than the amount of time between the 1958 version of THE FLY (with Vincent Price) and the 1986 remake with Jeff Goldblum.

And, you know, I don't remembering anybody complaining that the 1986 FLY wasn't set in the same continuity as the original movies and didn't pick up where CURSE OF THE FLY left off in 1965 . . . .

To be fair, that's only because the Internet didn't exist back then. If it did, many people would've been complaining about all sorts of pedestrian outrages.

 

[Relayer1]

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

Really couldn't care less about this. Wouldn't have felt much different if it was the original cast...

 

[Rincewiend]

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

Well, I don't watch Saturday Night Live so I have no idea what to expect from the cast, but I am familiar with Melissa McCarthy's increasingly tiresome schtick and I am familiar with Feig's chick-flick sensibilities.

For me, it's not that it's a female cast, it's that I have a strong feeling it's going to be chick-flicky. I love all kinds of movies, but chick flicks is probably the only exception. I hate chick flicks.

I hope McCarthy plays a different character. She driving that persona into the ground. It's like Johnny Depp playing weirdos. Enough already! Play a normal character for once, just to change it up! You'd think after 5 flops in a row that he'd take a hint and realize people want to see him do something different!

McCarthy is headed that way at the rate she's going.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Watch Steel Magnolias...

 

[EnriqueH]

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

What does that even mean? Bridesmaids was a funny movie that happened to star women. I'm not even sure where the chick flick sensibilities would come in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_flick

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chick+flick

My wife HATES Star Trek.

I feel sorry for you!

You have no idea!

All kidding aside, she's a great sport about it and we have it worked out pretty well. I give her space to watch her girlie shows on Lifetime and Hallmark Network and she gives me space to watch Star Trek.

Oh no! These women are going to get their estrogen all over the proton packs! This can't be allowed! I can't conceive of the notion that four women would willingly do this project for any other reason than they want to push their breasts into our faces! No other reason! No other reason! I am the put-upon male!

 

[EnriqueH]

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

My biggest problem with the concept is that it's an unusual and somewhat worrying approach to say, "We're doing Ghostbusters but with all women!" is an odd way to start your movie-making venture. It just reeks of trying to capitalize or otherwise pander in some manner or other.

It's not like they come out and say "we're making a movie with all male leads" or when it comes to many other movies with female leads to say, "we're doing The Hangover but with all women!"

They just make the movie and but it out there and the audiences, reviewers, whoever say "It's like The Hangover but with women!"

It just reeks of "trying too hard" to make the movie "bold" and "exciting" and "thinking outside of the box!" It'd be something else entirely if they just made the movie without making the big announcement they're going with an all-female cast and that that's just how the writing and casting process turned out.

It reeks of a gimmick when the movie is being pretty much being sold as a gimmick from its very inception.

I just as of yet remain unconvinced the movie is being made with any intent behind it to try to be anything more than a cash-grab.

This one came out of the gate by going, "Look! We're being different by using all women in the lead roles! You were expecting men, weren't you?"

The movie made an all-female cast the issue, not the fans or followers of the movie. If casting and making the movie turned out that way things would be different, for me at least, but this one decided to announce itself to the world by declaring how "different" it was being.

Pretty much how I feel, but this movie came out of the gate going, "they're going to be women!"

What a wondrous gift you have to read all of that information from a Tweet by the director with only four pictures of the cast and literally no descriptive text. I mean you have quotes and exclamation points galore that you obviously must have read in the metadata of the photos; or maybe they're some MagicEye posters with a hidden message, because I could never see those no matter how hard I stared.

No really, here's the Tweet in its entirety:

Please, share your gift of insight and tell us where the quotes with the director or the movie making a huge deal about the all-female cast to the exclusion of all else came from other than your own imagination, Trekker.

I've no problem with a cast of women, it's just that the way this production is going at this point (granted, which is not far) doesn't feel like it's got the best of intentions behind it.

You clearly do, since you've manufactured a justification for opposing it that wasn't there, pretending that it's all about the "gimmick" and that they don't have good intentions behind it (what does that even mean?) and don't want to make a good movie first and foremost.

Past history can be indicative of future performance.

Bridesmaids is likely the model because it was successful at the boxoffice and has some of the same talent, INCLUDING the director.

So clearly, the detractors are expecting Ghostbusters: Bridesmaids Style.

So if you didn't like Bridesmaids, and you're seeing that happen to Ghostbusters, that's why people are upset.

 

[Sindatur]

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

Trekker, help me out here. How do you make Ghostbusters with a female cast, announce the Actresses playing in it, and not announce you are doing it with a female cast? Announcing the cast, kinda lets the cat outta the bag, without even trying to make a big deal about it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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

Past history can be indicative of future performance.

Bridesmaids is likely the model because it was successful at the boxoffice and has some of the same talent, INCLUDING the director.

So clearly, the detractors are expecting Ghostbusters: Bridesmaids Style.

So if you didn't like Bridesmaids, and you're seeing that happen to Ghostbusters, that's why people are upset.

But what does any of that have to do with my post, which was about all the imaginary things Trekker was projecting onto the director based on his own (irrational and over-the-top, IMO) concerns, versus the reality of what the director actually tweeted, which was just a picture of the four actresses?

Trekker is making a supposition that this is all about making Ghostbusters with women as if the whole concept begins and ends there, and there's no intention of telling a fully formed story or making a successful comedy beyond that one descriptor, which he terms a gimmick. Then he starts rambling about how things aren't being done with the best intentions, like there's some duplicitous plot going on behind the scenes.

 

[Saul]

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

Where is the rumor about this is being set prior to the 80s movie coming from? I like the idea.

If you did, then you'd see that I mentioned earlier: Feig's Bridesmaids had chick-flick sensibilities and I don't like chick flicks.

Is that a crime?

Some people would have you think it was the way they go on about it. But they are the same ones who wouldn't get off their asses when a real crime is going on. Suffice to say I doubt we'll see them on the street fighting for women's rights. The real war is on the internet don't you know.

My wife HATES Star Trek.

Now that is a crime. People who hate Star Trek have kept so many Trekkers in the closest. You're a brave man to come out as a Star Trek fan to her.

She preferred watching The Notebook. Does that make her anti-male?

No, just Anti-good quality movies.

 

[SPCTRE]

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

"You know you guys, I'm not sexist, but-..."

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

What does that even mean? Bridesmaids was a funny movie that happened to star women. I'm not even sure where the chick flick sensibilities would come in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_flick

Hmmm. I thought The Bridesmaids had more in common with the Hangover than something like Maid In Manhattan.

 

[Trekker4747]

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

Trekker, help me out here. How do you make Ghostbusters with a female cast, announce the Actresses playing in it, and not announce you are doing it with a female cast? Announcing the cast, kinda lets the cat outta the bag, without even trying to make a big deal about it.

They were making a big deal out of a whole female cast BEFORE they started casting. They went into this project with that goal in mind and were patting themselves on the back for it.

It's different to go, "We're making a new Ghostbusters movie."
:months later:
"Well, we've got a cast of four female leads."

Than it is to go:
"We're making a new Ghostbusters movie and we're going with an all female cast!"

I dunno, it just seems like two completely different approaches to making a movie. Saying a movie is going to be made and just ending up with a female cast is a bit different than going into a project announcing that is your very intent from the get-go.

And Locutus I was being a touch hyperbolic in my comments. The announcements made months ago have a very strong air of the movie producers thinking they were being awesome and this was going to be great and different because: female cast!

It strikes me as casting before writing which can't be a good way to make a movie because it means the script has to be written to fit the cast rather than the other way around.

I don't principally have a problem with an all female cast it's just that the approach the studio is taking doesn't strike me it's being for the sake of good faith or trying to produce a quality product. It seems more to be just trying to throw something out there without really caring.

Remember, this is Sony we're talking about here. Have they really done anything lately with a property as far as casting, scripting and such that shows they're not just throwing whatever on the wall to see what sticks? ASM-2 anyone?

They went with the easy route and cast Melissa McCarthy because she's "popular" right now.

It doesn't inspire much confidence.

Again, I've no problem with a female cast. And I'll give Sony an ounce of credit here for their casting choice being not just a cast of young, Hollywood-hot, women. A cast of beautiful, talented, ladies, for sure. But you know somewhere in their minds they were wanting to hire a cast of very young, very hot, women and dress them in spandex.

The route this project is taking just doesn't inspire me with confidence. It's early, I admit, so it could turn out to be very different. And if it pans out that way and I end up liking the movie and it turns out to be a huge success (Have they asked North Korea if it's okay to make this movie) I'll eat my words.

 

[ALF]

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

"You know you guys, I'm not sexist, but-..."

Exactly.

Not sure about the rest of you, but the intial 24 hours of smart assed quips about the Ghostbusters being all women was amusing. But it faded quickly... now I'm finding all the 'clever' shit just irritating (cross the streams = syncing the periods, etc). Are we going to endure 17 straight months of this until release?

 

[Servo]

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

"You know you guys, I'm not sexist, but-..."

Some of my closest friends are female, but still...

 

[Timby]

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

Bridesmaids is likely the model because it was successful at the boxoffice and has some of the same talent, INCLUDING the director.

See, this is part of the goddamn problem. People are latching onto Bridesmaids as though that's the only thing Paul Feig has ever done. The guy created Freaks and Geeks, for heaven's sake, and directed some of the very best episodes of The Office and Arrested Development. I think at this point he's proven that he has legitimate comedy chops.

I'm personally open to the idea that Ghostbusters can be for McCarthy what 21 Jump Street was for Channing Tatum.

But all this nerd rage is just profoundly depressing. Ghostbusters is a feel-good, large scale comedy and this uproar about it -- whether it's because of those slutty dirty ruinous WOMEN or "my childhood" -- is baffling and point-missing.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

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

I don't like the cast... The one token black person is just a gimmick!!!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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

It strikes me as casting before writing which can't be a good way to make a movie because it means the script has to be written to fit the cast rather than the other way around.

I've read that many screenwriters write at least some characters with particular actors in mind, regardless of whether those actors will end up playing the parts. Seems like knowing the cast would generally be an advantage, but I'll defer to your knowledge of how to write screenplays.

In television, they have to do it the other way, though, because for a series that's underway, the main cast is generally known. Same with movie sequels. This can't be a good way to make STXIII.

 

[Sindatur]

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

Trekker, help me out here. How do you make Ghostbusters with a female cast, announce the Actresses playing in it, and not announce you are doing it with a female cast? Announcing the cast, kinda lets the cat outta the bag, without even trying to make a big deal about it.

They were making a big deal out of a whole female cast BEFORE they started casting. They went into this project with that goal in mind and were patting themselves on the back for it.

It's different to go, "We're making a new Ghostbusters movie."
:months later:
"Well, we've got a cast of four female leads."

Than it is to go:
"We're making a new Ghostbusters movie and we're going with an all female cast!"

I dunno, it just seems like two completely different approaches to making a movie. Saying a movie is going to be made and just ending up with a female cast is a bit different than going into a project announcing that is your very intent from the get-go.

And Locutus I was being a touch hyperbolic in my comments. The announcements made months ago have a very strong air of the movie producers thinking they were being awesome and this was going to be great and different because: female cast!

It strikes me as casting before writing which can't be a good way to make a movie because it means the script has to be written to fit the cast rather than the other way around.

I don't principally have a problem with an all female cast it's just that the approach the studio is taking doesn't strike me it's being for the sake of good faith or trying to produce a quality product. It seems more to be just trying to throw something out there without really caring.

Remember, this is Sony we're talking about here. Have they really done anything lately with a property as far as casting, scripting and such that shows they're not just throwing whatever on the wall to see what sticks? ASM-2 anyone?

They went with the easy route and cast Melissa McCarthy because she's "popular" right now.

It doesn't inspire much confidence.

Again, I've no problem with a female cast. And I'll give Sony an ounce of credit here for their casting choice being not just a cast of young, Hollywood-hot, women. A cast of beautiful, talented, ladies, for sure. But you know somewhere in their minds they were wanting to hire a cast of very young, very hot, women and dress them in spandex.

The route this project is taking just doesn't inspire me with confidence. It's early, I admit, so it could turn out to be very different. And if it pans out that way and I end up liking the movie and it turns out to be a huge success (Have they asked North Korea if it's okay to make this movie) I'll eat my words.

But, why does that have to be something sinister? Why can't it be that they had a great story idea, that would distance them from the original (which was already the cream of the crop, and couldn't be topped by copying)?

 

[Timby]

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

But, why does that have to be something sinister? Why can't it be that they had a great story idea, that would distance them from the original (which was already the cream of the crop, and couldn't be topped by copying)?

You don't understand, if they're gonna remake Ghostbusters it should be three white guys and one black guy with the exact same script and basically the only thing you're allowed to change is that it takes place during 2015 and they have to use the same car and the same proton packs and the same traps and the same costumes and Slimer needs to be there and Egon needs to talk about a Twinkie and and and...

*after the film*

I don't understand why they made that, it's basically the exact same as Ghostbusters 1. This is the worst movie ever.

 

[BigJake]

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

"You know you guys, I'm not sexist, but-..."

Got it in one.

If the all-female cast is a gimmick, it's a welcome one. I wouldn't be particularly interested in watching a bunch of guys try to reproduce the chemistry that the original cast achieved on their first outing (even those guys couldn't replicate the magic on their second) -- a female cast at least potentially means some fresh perspectives and fresh jokes. (I mean, just look at this thread! They've already delivered a ton of them just by being announced; the one about ladies not being suited for a "serious profession" like ghostbusting had me in stitches! )

 

[Trekker4747]

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

But, why does that have to be something sinister? Why can't it be that they had a great story idea, that would distance them from the original (which was already the cream of the crop, and couldn't be topped by copying)?

That could be very well the case. I just don't trust that it *is* the case.