Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Kane_Steel, Jan 16, 2019.
Well, bow ties are cool....
As are fezzes.
But Jimmy is not.
Nope .For me it was more of a turn off. I was more interested in Captain Kirk and Luke Skywalker than I was the Goonies. If my first experience with Star Wars had been TPM instead of ANH I would have never become a Star Wars fan. Like you, I was more interested in becoming an adult than staying a kid. So I wanted to see movies with grown ups in them, particularly ones with beautiful women
Different strokes for different folks I guess. Ive just never been into movies centered around kids even when I was one. I only got into Harry Potter after a friend dragged me into The Order of the Phoenix. Then I got into it and enjoyed the franchise.
My two cents:
1. Ideally III should have been done when Harold Ramis was still alive
2. The 2016 debacle could have been III (as well as being a better scripted movie)
3. As much as 2016's movie is rotten, it's not due to the actors having to act out that script. If I was an actor in that movie, I'd probably have some reservations and ad-lib to improve it as well. And as much as ad-libbing was allowed, they were also working on top of a main script to ad-lib for. It might be an example of where breaking the fourth wall might be okay, but then comes that "I lost my glasses! Oh wait, they're in my hand!" Kids would probably like that one
4.GB-III might be an interesting way to deftly write in a connection... I wasn't a big fan of the Star Wars prequels (and they haven't been well-remembered by many and their supporters even point out those prequels' flaws) -- but anything with the Star Wars name is going to sell big unless there's a very huge blunder and the prequels have been winked at ever so vaguely in TLJ so there's no reason GB2016 can't be referenced. There are a few creative ways they can merge the franchises. Then again, does anybody want any of the movies to pay homage to the 1975 superstoned supershow of the same name? That's an far worse incarnation overall, even if I laughed at one of Countess Dracula's jokes and that one wasn't aimed at the kids... I'd still say to include it.
5. GB1 and GB2's style of comedy is different to GB2016. Younger audiences might not care for the style 1&2 had, regardless on their take of GB2016. It's not easy trying to figure out audiences, especially when trying to cater to wide ranges... then again, how many kids understood the "you got a car!" Oprah parody scene? (A scene that was a little dated but nowhere near atrocious, most 30-something and older would appreciate it and there's more than one demographic than the 10-20 year-olds. I guess.)
6. There is no such thing as "Doctor Who season 37", the classic series is officially denoted differently by the BBC.
Disclaimer: I've not seen GB2016 but I saw several clips, many those in the teaser but a few others as well. None of them were terribly funny, some were as tactlessly crude as on Family Guy (another style that today's younger audiences seem to like, but a couple made me giggle and I felt the cast were doing a legitimate effort to improve on a mediocre script and i've seen a lot better come from Feig in the past, so how did this movie flop?)
I'm also often of the Jay Sherman school of though that says "Just watch the original instead" but have seen worthy remakes, albeit few capture anything approaching the spirit of the original while making it their own (e.g. TNG, BSG).
They're downright more professional sounding than so-called "Geeks + Gamers", who comes off as being a bit fake... certainly more than "Overlord DVD" - even though I think he's got a more legitimate feel despite blending in a decidedly TVMA style... (They're not always right but I'm not going to take a video and hyper-analyze it, though for all the criticisms of canon, where was he when 90s Trek was killing Kirk un-heroically, making Spock and Scotty look like dunderheads (and Scotty being played into cheap ageist stereotype) and abandoning Chekov and the others to fizzle out? ) Unsure on the Nerdrotic channel... But they all do seem to agree on some issues, if everyone says the same things then it's how they say it that gets people to stick around. The one thing I do agree with is that the new shows seem to be so nondescript that they can write in anything on a whim... as opposed to having something more formally set up before writing even the premiere episode and being locked in should they want to do something they then cannot do because charatcer x can't do it. Troi in "Nemesis" had a similar problem except the writers gave her given shiny new abilities, some 15 years after she told everyone outright she couldn't send thoughts to others. Either way it's tacky. May as well have Commander Data open a hatch on top of his head and a helicopter rotor spins out and say "go go gadget chopper" and everyone will obviously squee with delight just because. And like the SW prequels, I don't remember many of the character names, much less what attributes (personality details, hobbies, etc) the new Trek crew have. Apart from hyper Tilley but to be fair, but who's not going to remember that? She's like Neelix on crack but without any good origins episode.
Does anyone think besides other reasons, Bill Murray didn't want to be in GB 3 because he was angry with Harold Ramis over Groundhog Day for years and didn't try to put it behind him until he found out Ramis was dying and spoke to him again only just weeks before he died.
And I have sources. Unusual for me.
From the last article:
There were also reports by friends and co-workers that Murray had grown to dislike the idea that Ramis was responsible for Murray's career highlights, but even upon Groundhog Day's release and subsequent commercial and critical success, Murray remained steadfast on the idea of not working with or speaking to Ramis again.
So that sounds like it wasn't just GB 2 was bad, he didn't want to work with Harold again. Main reason I'm pointing this out, other than I just read about it myself recently, is some people were saying "Why would Bill now?" Maybe this is why, or partly? It's more of a reason that we get for a lot of things.
I'm sure that was part of it. GB2 wasn't all that great, I can see Murray thinking, why would I want to do GB3. He's not getting along with Ramis, he's in the middle of changing the direction of his career, he doesn't need the money, etc.
I'm sure all of that fed into his decision.
I think it's hard for us on the outside to understand why actors make certain choices. The movie might be something we love, but, for the actor it was a job. IE, Harrison Ford and Star Wars.
Character breakdowns have popped up for the four kids who will be the main characters.
There aren't a lot of details there, but they do give us some idea of what to expect. I'm really hoping they go for kind of an '80s kids adventure movie kind of vibe for this.
Still no idea how exactly this will connect to the original movies.
After making such a big deal about this being in the original movies' universe in the first announcement, I'm kind of surprised we haven't gotten at least some kind of clue as to how this is connected to them.
At least two of those kids sound like they are casting for children of the originals. Maybe.
One sounds like Ray and another sounds like Egon.
Perhaps (if Murray gets his wish and Venkman is killed off), then Venkman will leave his and Dana's old suburban house to Oscar and his teenage son/daughter where some thing strange is going on. Something wrong. Gloom in the room. Outside is a storm. Sorry, couldn't resist
Or, possibly, it's Ray's parents' house. You know, the one with three mortgages at nineteen percent
Separate names with a comma.