Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[BigJake]

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

I also love this:

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

Yeah, unlike the original movie which took a chance on comic unknown Bill Murray, who was in no way popular at the time.

Like, are you even hearing yourself? Just read some of those sentences aloud.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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

And Locutus I was being a touch hyperbolic in my comments.

A touch? You were making leaps of logic that would qualify you for the Olympic long jump.

Why not sit back and wait until we get at least a trailer or something before you decide it's all a nefarious gimmick solely to reshoot the film with the dreaded womynz and not, you know, a genuine comedy film that happens to have a female lead cast?

If the theme song says "I ain't afraid of no gonads" and is being sung by Rayleen Parker Jr., the Ghostbusters logo is a pair of X Chromosomes crossing off a ghost with a penis, and Gozer takes the form of a marshmallow representation of the Patriarchy, maybe we can revisit their intentions and decide it was all just a gimmick about women. But until there's some evidence, just relax.

 

[Trekker4747]

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

Murray and Ramis worked together a lot and Akroyd had/was working on the script. They were three effective friends working together to make this movie. It's not like Columbia House had this script and thought, "Hey let's hire the most popular comedians we can find!"

This is a studio casting a movie they haven't written yet and casting actors they think will draw in audiences.

Two very different circumstances.

Why all of the hostility against people who have doubts about this movie? It's one thing to be against people with overt, strong, sexism against it, but many people just don't seem inspired by confidence this movie is being made with the best ideas in mind.

That's where I am. I don't care if it's an all female cast, I just am not inspired with confidence that that is the route they had to go because it seems they had the idea of an all female cast before they had a story or script in mind. They'll letting casting write the script, not the other way around.

And I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and this movie will be great.

But why is it okay to be all for this movie based on no information on it beyond the cast and crew but it's NOT okay to be against this movie on the same information?

Sexism isn't just about being against an all-female cast. It can be just as sexist to be all FOR the movie because of an all-female cast. Because it sort of implies women are special and it's a rarity for a movie to feature all women. (It isn't.)

One is more sexist than the other, true, but it seems like there are some people willing to be all for this movie just because of the route they're choosing to go based on no more information than the rest of us have.

I'll say it again. I don't care that it's an all female cast. I'm just not inspired with confidence that the movie is going to be any good because that seems to be the driving idea of the movie. "All female cast."

The driving idea of the original movie was "people who bust ghosts" and since the minds behind the movie were three male comedic actors who worked together, yeah, that's how the casting went.

I've just yet to see anything to get me excited about this movie. If/when I do, I'll eat my words and admit I was wrong, premature and ignorant in my early dismissal of the movie.

But what have others seen/heard to get them excited for the movie?

 

[Cyke101]

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

Sexism isn't just about being against an all-female cast. It can be just as sexist to be all FOR the movie because of an all-female cast. Because it sort of implies women are special and it's a rarity for a movie to feature all women. (It isn't.)

One is more sexist than the other, true, but it seems like there are some people willing to be all for this movie just because of the route they're choosing to go based on no more information than the rest of us have.

I'll say it again. I don't care that it's an all female cast. I'm just not inspired with confidence that the movie is going to be any good because that seems to be the driving idea of the movie. "All female cast."

...I don't think you know what sexism is. Or feminism, for that matter.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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

But why is it okay to be all for this movie based on no information on it beyond the cast and crew but it's NOT okay to be against this movie on the same information?

Who's all for it? Did I miss a bunch of posts saying that this was guaranteed to be a blockbuster and sweep the Academy Awards and that all criticism of it was banned indefinitely?

It could turn out to be total crap. But that doesn't mean you overreact to the bare minimum of information available and assess that it's already looking like it's gone off the rails when you have no clue what the story even is yet.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

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

I'm not a fan of Melissa McCarthy at all. I find her style of humor very repugnant all around; that movie she where she was an identity thief... just ugh. Ditto for Leslie Jones, though all I have to go on there is this season's SNL so far.

It doesn't leave me with much optimism if they're half of the cast. I do like Kate McKinnon and Kristen Weig though, so I dunno what to make of it.

 

[Timby]

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

Murray and Ramis worked together a lot and Akroyd had/was working on the script. They were three effective friends working together to make this movie. It's not like Columbia House had this script and thought, "Hey let's hire the most popular comedians we can find!"

This is a studio casting a movie they haven't written yet and casting actors they think will draw in audiences.

First off, Ghostbusters was originally intended as a vehicle for Aykroyd, John Belushi and John Candy -- it absolutely was a "hey, let's get some popular comedians together for a movie" project.

Second, this new movie is written. Drew McWeeny over at HitFix had a writeup about it posted yesterday until Sony hit him with a takedown notice.

But go on, keep on making leaps of logic that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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

I'm not a fan of Melissa McCarthy at all. I find her style of humor very repugnant all around; that movie she where she was an identity thief... just ugh. Ditto for Leslie Jones, though all I have to go on there is this season's SNL so far.

It doesn't leave me with much optimism if they're half of the cast. I do like Kate McKinnon and Kristen Weig though, so I dunno what to make of it.

McCarthy plays a more subdued, almost straight man role opposite Bill Murray in St. Vincent, and did a good job in that.

Likewise with Leslie Jones in a brief but funny role in Top Five (and I think when they essentially have her do her stand-up act on SNL during Weekend Update she's great).

So I think they can give decent performances outside what they're usually seen as or expected to play.

 

[ALF]

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

This film's been in development hell for what - two decades? There's bound to be some confusion and misinformation. Let's pretend no one knows anything and we'll go from there. Ghosts will be found and busted.... spoilers.

 

[Timby]

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

This film's been in development hell for what - two decades?

The Ghostbusters 3 that had been in development hell since 1992 died with Harold Ramis. This is an entirely new production that scrapped everything from that project, has a firm release date of July 22, 2016, and starts filming in I believe late April.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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

Second, this new movie is written.

Awesome.

 

[Servo]

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

This thread is proving to be an excellent distraction from work. Cheers all.

 

[Owain Taggart]

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

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.

Good point! This makes me actually excited, thinking it in that way

If the theme song says "I ain't afraid of no gonads" and is being sung by Rayleen Parker Jr., the Ghostbusters logo is a pair of X Chromosomes crossing off a ghost with a penis, and Gozer takes the form of a marshmallow representation of the Patriarchy, maybe we can revisit their intentions and decide it was all just a gimmick about women. But until there's some evidence, just relax.

Ok, now that made me laugh

You know, as big as a surprise it might be to someone, I haven't seen anything McCarthy's been in, so I don't really have any expectations based on past material, like some.

 

[Garak]

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

Those are 4 very, very funny women. Great casting, I'll definitely be checking it out.

 

[Amaris]

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

McCarthy plays a more subdued, almost straight man role opposite Bill Murray in St. Vincent, and did a good job in that.

Likewise with Leslie Jones in a brief but funny role in Top Five (and I think when they essentially have her do her stand-up act on SNL during Weekend Update she's great).

So I think they can give decent performances outside what they're usually seen as or expected to play.

I'll be able to rent St. Vincent next week, and can't wait to see it, and I didn't know who Leslie Jones was until I saw her name listed as one of the Ghostbusters. So I looked up some of her stand-up, and it had me in stitches. She is a truly funny, funny lady.

... Ghosts will be found and busted.... spoilers.

You bastard. I wait all this time to see the new movie, and you just blurt out everything. *throws chair*

 

[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

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

That's how I got tricked into seeing it.

"C'mon, Enrique, you'll like it! It's like Hangover with girls!"

NO. It was a chick flick with some Hangover sprinkled in. A chick flick is a chick flick.

Roger Ebert liked the movie, but even he said it was a chick flick. From Bridesmaids wiki page:

Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5 stars of out 4, and opined that Bridesmaids "seems to be a more or less deliberate attempt to cross the Chick Flick with the Raunch Comedy. It definitely proves that women are the equal of men in vulgarity, sexual frankness, lust, vulnerability, overdrinking and insecurity. . . . Love him or not, Judd Apatow is consistently involved with movies that connect with audiences."

Sorry, I don't like chick flicks. I'm just sorry I didn't read his review prior to watching the movie.

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.

First of all, it makes sense that we suspect it will be like Bridesmaids because it's the same director, same star, and they're going off a major hit. And it's a female cast, like Bridesmaids.

Second, I'm not bashing that it's all girls. I'm just being pessimistic that it's going to be a chick flick.

Third, I don't see nerd rage. Just people dreading what it's possibly going to become.

Fourth, there's no childhood ruined here. Ghostbusters 2 did a good job of that anyway.

 

[Awesome Possum]

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

Ebert also wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, so his judgement should be questioned at times.

Bridesmaids is raunchy comedy with women as the main characters, any trope it shares with chick flicks or tropes you'll see in most raunchy comedies. Unless there are other chick flicks where a character takes a shit in public while wearing a wedding dress.

 

[Aldo]

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

Nothing about Bridesmaids is even remotely a chick flick, lol.

 

[Admiral2]

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

Nothing about Bridesmaids is even remotely a chick flick, lol.

Nothing about Bridesmaids is even remotely funny. First movie in an age I walked out of the theater on. It was nothing but women being awkward over and over again.

If Kristen Wiig brings that to NuBusters, I'll wait for cable...

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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

That's how I got tricked into seeing it.

The more you talk about how you were tricked and lured into seeing this as if some great crime was committed against you because you had to see what you perceive to be a "chick flick" for two hours, the more ridiculous you sound. A Nigerian prince didn't take your life savings. You just saw a movie you didn't like.

"C'mon, Enrique, you'll like it! It's like Hangover with girls!"

NO. It was a chick flick with some Hangover sprinkled in. A chick flick is a chick flick.

Roger Ebert liked the movie, but even he said it was a chick flick. From Bridesmaids wiki page:

Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5 stars of out 4, and opined that Bridesmaids "seems to be a more or less deliberate attempt to cross the Chick Flick with the Raunch Comedy. It definitely proves that women are the equal of men in vulgarity, sexual frankness, lust, vulnerability, overdrinking and insecurity. . . . Love him or not, Judd Apatow is consistently involved with movies that connect with audiences."

Sorry, I don't like chick flicks. I'm just sorry I didn't read his review prior to watching the movie.

It's A LOT of The Hangover sprinkled in. A colorful group of some friends and some oddball acquaintances (including overgrown child, promiscuous asshole, and uptight professional) get into hijinks before one of them gets married; funny reactions to drugs and a trip to Vegas for a bachelor/ette party may be involved. Occasional Serious Bidness like Allen's drug habit or Annie's inability to find satisfaction in her personal life may intercede.

What is it about this movie that made it so vastly different from The Hangover that you like one but reject the other completely from its premise alone (other than it being all women)? What makes it so easily dismissible as the same as every other "chick flick" out there, or that it's such a uniform genre in itself that you should automatically dismiss everything in it?

Personally, I don't recall the time the March sisters from Little Women all had explosive diarrhea while waiting for their father to return from the war, Holly Golightly had awkward sex with her fuckbuddy before being kicked out in Breakfast at Tiffany's, or Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks got freaky in bed with a giant sub sandwich in Sleepless in Seattle, but okay.