Movies you've seen recently

[Amentep]

I can imagine the cast being in a completely separate movie that shares themes with ghostbusters.

Which will lead to everyone saying "I don't understand why they just didn't make it a Ghostbusters movie!"

 

I have to say I don't really see the problem with sequels, reboots or remakes as so many others seem to. Its not like Disney, et al, snuck into my house, knocked me unconsious and stole my copy of the original movies and then made sure I could never, ever see them again.

 

The idea that it "spoils" the earlier film is just maddeningly confusing to me. Does Robert Downey Jr or Benedict Cumberbatch playing Sherlock Holmes suddenly make one forget Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone? Does remaking Psycho invalidate Hitch****'s original (or similarly, did the sequels)? Did rebooting Bond invalidate Connery, et al?

 

If you don't want to see it, don't see it. If its good or bad though it doesn't reflect on anything else but itself.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Amentep

[Tale]

Let's go fullout with this:

 

- Alien remake starring Alexander Skarsgaard

- Sex & City starring white men

 

...and so on, or is this proposition not in touch with the youth?

I'd hate a remake of Alien starring anyone. The interesting thing about Alien is that it was written entirely gender neutral, but because of the casting choices and what followed, it's become a bit of a feminist icon.

 

I don't think Ghostbusters ever held quite the same position.

 

 

Which will lead to everyone saying "I don't understand why they just didn't make it a Ghostbusters movie!"

 

I've never seen that sentiment expressed. Were there people saying Die Hard 3 should have been a Lethal Weapon movie? Or did we all just think it was fun trivia that it started that way?

 

Were there people going around saying that Disturbia should have been Rear Window 2?

[Amentep]

Let's go fullout with this:

 

- Alien remake starring Alexander Skarsgaard

- Sex & City starring white men

 

...and so on, or is this proposition not in touch with the youth?

I'd argue that SEX AND THE CITY only works conceptially with a specific gender because its so specific to the relationships of women. Ghostbusters doesn't strike me as an inherently gendered concept, I don't see how you couldn't make those relationships the same with different gendered characters. YMMV.

 

Regarding Aliens, since the Sigourny Weaver part was written as male originally, I wouldn't have a problem with casting a guy as Ripley (or another woman). Similarly I wouldn't have problem if you changed Dallas to a woman or Lambert as a man. I don't think that any of the parts are gender specific (although I do think casting Kane as a woman would bring a lot of additional/different baggage to the storyline).

 

 

Which will lead to everyone saying "I don't understand why they just didn't make it a Ghostbusters movie!"

I've never seen that sentiment expressed. Were there people saying Die Hard 3 should have been a Lethal Weapon movie? Or did we all just think it was fun trivia that it started that way?

 

Were there people going around saying that Disturbia should have been Rear Window 2?

 

I don't think Disturbia or Die Hard 3 ended up being their source materials in all but name, which is how I took your implication of making a Ghostbusters film but calling it something else.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Amentep

[Meshugger]

 

Let's go fullout with this:

 

- Alien remake starring Alexander Skarsgaard

- Sex & City starring white men

 

...and so on, or is this proposition not in touch with the youth?

I'd argue that SEX AND THE CITY only works conceptially with a specific gender because its so specific to the relationships of women. Ghostbusters doesn't strike me as an inherently gendered concept, I don't see how you couldn't make those relationships the same with different gendered characters. YMMV.

 

Regarding Aliens, since the Sigourny Weaver part was written as male originally, I wouldn't have a problem with casting a guy as Ripley (or another woman). Similarly I wouldn't have problem if you changed Dallas to a woman or Lambert as a man. I don't think that any of the parts are gender specific (although I do think casting Kane as a woman would bring a lot of additional/different baggage to the storyline).

 

One of the main themes of Ghostbusters was about four guys in academia that tried to work as blue collar workers in the private sector. It simply does not make sense with four women. 

 

I do have problem with Ripley being a man, because Ripley was a woman.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Meshugger

[Amentep]

One of the main themes of Ghostbusters was about four guys in academia that tried to work as blue collar workers in the private sector. It simply does not make sense with four women.

I don't see anything in the plot of Ghostbusters that said the four people had to be guys. What inherently about being thrown out of academia and creating a blue collar business in the private sector implies you're a man? I don't get it. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Meshugger]

 

One of the main themes of Ghostbusters was about four guys in academia that tried to work as blue collar workers in the private sector. It simply does not make sense with four women.

I don't see anything in the plot of Ghostbusters that said the four people had to be guys. What inherently about being thrown out of academia and creating a blue collar business in the private sector implies you're a man? I don't get it. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

 

Because they were four guys and the dynamics between them played to the male archetype of whimsical university professors and blue collar workers? But if you do not have a problem with that being changed, then we will just leave it there.

 

Btw, about Eraserhead. I think that the nightmarish imagery were supposed to to hit the viewer on subjective level, as in it plays on the same fears that most guys have to marriage and companionship. Maybe i simply do not share the same fears or have them manifested on that level *shrugs*

Edited January 28, 2015 by Meshugger

[Hurlshort]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a few films that were basically just male versions of Sex in the City.  Putting 4 friends together and having them deal with comical relationships isn't exactly an untapped template.  

 

That being said, it is time to reboot Ghostbusters.  It isn't exactly a thriving property.

[Meshugger]

Actually, i think that they will make more money by simply re-releasing the original movie on the big screen again in HD. 

Edited January 28, 2015 by Meshugger

[Blarghagh]

They're rebooting it because making a sequel isn't viable. Ernie Hudson and Sigourney Weaver are cool, but Dan Aykroyd isn't funny anymore, Bill Murray refuses to come back because he hated making the sequel, Harold Ramis is dead and Rick Moranis retired from acting. They could either do a straight reboot and be boring and retell the same thing with the same character but just worse, or they could do something interesting with it. I'm down with the idea of an all-ladies Ghostbusters, it's a good hook to get people interested. I'm tired of reboots just being the same as the original but without any of the charm.

[Raithe]

Since we have the Ghostbuster talk here..

 

[Amentep]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a few films that were basically just male versions of Sex in the City.  Putting 4 friends together and having them deal with comical relationships isn't exactly an untapped template.

I agree that putting 4 friends together + comic relationships isn't inherently gendered. I'm not sure that's all SitC is, but as I've never seen it, I can't really assume one way or the other about it.

[Malcador]

Hm, have seen nothing with these women in it, so have no idea if they are funny. Though with current people marked as such I am sure they are not.

[Hurlshort]

Hm, have seen nothing with these women in it, so have no idea if they are funny. Though with current people marked as such I am sure they are not.

 

Do you live in a cave?  Melissa McCarthy has been in everything lately, and Kristen Wiig is everywhere too.  The other two are SNL alums, Kate McKinnon is the best cast member currently on it.

 

http://youtu.be/OXvo6ksBHnI

 

Honestly I don't know how you can have a problem with the cast being women.  I can't think of any 4 males that would be a better fit than who they went with, and it adds a new hook.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Malcador]

Nope I don't, I just don't watch SNL or TV for the most part. I suppose that is a requisite thing for someone, to you ? Am rather surprised to see SNL is still a source for humour since I last watched it ~'99 or so, heh.

 

Also, when did I have a problem with the case being women ? If they chose Samberg or Rogan I'd still be unimpressed (though in that case I am aware those two are not funny).

 

 

Ah, wait, McCarthy was in that cop movie, "The Heat", I recall her now.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Malcador

[Raithe]

Plus, I have to point out SNL really doesn't travel outside of the US.

 

We don't get re-showings of it, and half the time, any SNL clips are "Unavailable in your country" until about 6 months after the fact when someone puts it up on youtube...

And of course, if you do see those clips, they don't actually include the names of the SNL cast. So unless it's someone known for something beyond that.. the odds of being recognised is pretty damn small.

[Volourn]

Most of those women are friggin' ugly and at least one of them is vastly overrated. If they wanted a funny 'overweight' white wioman at least pick Roseanne as she is actually awesome.

 

The movie itself is sexist. Why 4 women? Why not 2 women/2men?

 

\I can also think of 4 more worthy women. Kristen Wigg is okay. McCarthy is garbage. The other 2 I'm not really familiar with.

 

The other 3 are gonna need their A+ game to carry that horrible one note actress.

 

 

  "I can't think of any 4 males that would be a better fit than who they went with, and it adds a new hook."

 

Forget men. I can think of at least 100 women who would make this movie worthwhile. They picked 4 of the worst.  Jeniffer Lawrence, Sophie Turner, Rutina Wesley, and Roseeana Barr 9as I mentioned above) are all vastly superior choices.

 

And, the fact you can't think of even 4 males just reveals YOUR sexism.

 

McCarthy is AWFUL in EVERYTHING she does that I've bothered to watch.

[Valsuelm]

Plus, I have to point out SNL really doesn't travel outside of the US.

 

We don't get re-showings of it, and half the time, any SNL clips are "Unavailable in your country" until about 6 months after the fact when someone puts it up on youtube...

And of course, if you do see those clips, they don't actually include the names of the SNL cast. So unless it's someone known for something beyond that.. the odds of being recognised is pretty damn small.

 

You're not missing much of anything. SNL hasn't been a good show in well over 20 years. Occasionally there are good skits, but they are few and far between, and they will generally get attention outside of the show so one need not watch the show to see them.  The cast, is and has been for a long time now, mostly forgettable.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

They're rebooting it because making a sequel isn't viable. Ernie Hudson and Sigourney Weaver are cool, but Dan Aykroyd isn't funny anymore, Bill Murray refuses to come back because he hated making the sequel, Harold Ramis is dead and Rick Moranis retired from acting. They could either do a straight reboot and be boring and retell the same thing with the same character but just worse, or they could do something interesting with it. I'm down with the idea of an all-ladies Ghostbusters, it's a good hook to get people interested. I'm tired of reboots just being the same as the original but without any of the charm.

 

That anything is being done with Ghostbusters at all is largely due to Dan Aykroyd. He's been trying to get another Ghostbusters made for a very long time now. After failing repeatedly to coax Bill back, and getting lukewarm at best for the most part interest from the other principles from the original movie, he began to push for a 'reboot'.

 

The whole reboot or sequel thing is just in poor taste. Given Dan's resume over the last ~20 years, that's pretty much par for the course though.

 

My money is on a colossal flop, with maybe a moderate success at most, and a mostly forgotten movie not long after. As huge a success as Ghostbusters was in the 80s, it didn't franchise well in the long run (no doubt in large part to the massive stink of a sequel), it's not going to start franchising well now after most if not all of the genius behind it is no longer behind it.

[Volourn]

Nah. It's gonna do fine money wise.

[Blarghagh]

Most of those women are friggin' ugly and at least one of them is vastly overrated. If they wanted a funny 'overweight' white wioman at least pick Roseanne as she is actually awesome.

 

The movie itself is sexist. Why 4 women? Why not 2 women/2men?

 

\I can also think of 4 more worthy women. Kristen Wigg is okay. McCarthy is garbage. The other 2 I'm not really familiar with.

 

The other 3 are gonna need their A+ game to carry that horrible one note actress.

 

 

  "I can't think of any 4 males that would be a better fit than who they went with, and it adds a new hook."

 

Forget men. I can think of at least 100 women who would make this movie worthwhile. They picked 4 of the worst.  Jeniffer Lawrence, Sophie Turner, Rutina Wesley, and Roseeana Barr 9as I mentioned above) are all vastly superior choices.

 

And, the fact you can't think of even 4 males just reveals YOUR sexism.

 

McCarthy is AWFUL in EVERYTHING she does that I've bothered to watch.

 

I don't know if being ugly has anything to do with it. I'm not a dude, but I doubt women consider Murray, Ramis or Aykroyd attractive and I don't think they should be judged on that either if they fit the part.

 

You argument about "4 women is sexist" could easily be turned around to "4 men is sexist", I don't think either are true. "Equal representation is required" is nonsense. It's an argument best left to "Nazi SJWs" you hate so much when they whine about wanting more women in movies. You're literally being the same as those "Nazis". You can have movies with all-male casts and with all-female casts. If "equal representation" is a requirement, the fact that there's no asians in any of these movies is horribly racist, for example. It's lunacy.

 

You have a point about McCarthy, though. I'm not familiar with the other two and while I really like Wiig, McCarthy is hellishly annoying. But she had a couple of box office hits so I guess some people like her. I would have much rather seen Amy Poehler or Kulap Vilaysack or Kirsten Schaal or Heather Anna Campbell or any female comedian that is actually funny.

 

 

They're rebooting it because making a sequel isn't viable. Ernie Hudson and Sigourney Weaver are cool, but Dan Aykroyd isn't funny anymore, Bill Murray refuses to come back because he hated making the sequel, Harold Ramis is dead and Rick Moranis retired from acting. They could either do a straight reboot and be boring and retell the same thing with the same character but just worse, or they could do something interesting with it. I'm down with the idea of an all-ladies Ghostbusters, it's a good hook to get people interested. I'm tired of reboots just being the same as the original but without any of the charm.

 

That anything is being done with Ghostbusters at all is largely due to Dan Aykroyd. He's been trying to get another Ghostbusters made for a very long time now. After failing repeatedly to coax Bill back, and getting lukewarm at best for the most part interest from the other principles from the original movie, he began to push for a 'reboot'.

 

The whole reboot or sequel thing is just in poor taste. Given Dan's resume over the last ~20 years, that's pretty much par for the course though.

 

My money is on a colossal flop, with maybe a moderate success at most, and a mostly forgotten movie not long after. As huge a success as Ghostbusters was in the 80s, it didn't franchise well in the long run (no doubt in large part to the massive stink of a sequel), it's not going to start franchising well now after most if not all of the genius behind it is no longer behind it.

 

 

That's concerning, I hope he wont play much of a part in the creative process. He's been increasingly insane and unfunny.

Edited January 28, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[sorophx]

wow, I guess in the minority here, but I love McCarthy. she's really really really really good. She's the actual star in that whole cast. Kristen Wiig was really good in Bridesmaids (that's her first big role I've seen her in), and overall I'm very excited about this. I would prefer someone like Jennifer Aniston alongside them since I have no idea what SNL looks like.

[Blarghagh]

Fair enough, she grates on my nerves something fierce but it's not like my opinion is law.

 

On another note, anyone see that Fantastic Four trailer yet? Bunch of shots of actors just sitting or standing or looking at something set to epic music and dramatic yet entirely generic voice over. I thought it was bloody hilarious. It's like they didn't have enough interesting material to make a trailer with and just gave up.

[Volourn]

"I don't know if being ugly has anything to do with it. I'm not a dude, but I doubt women consider Murray, Ramis or Aykroyd attractive and I don't think they should be judged on that either if they fit the part."

 

Women can find whoever they want attractive. But, attractivity does matter.

 

 

"You argument about "4 women is sexist" could easily be turned around to "4 men is sexist", I don't think either are true. "Equal representation is required" is nonsense. It's an argument best left to "Nazi SJWs" you hate so much when they whine about wanting more women in movies. You're literally being the same as those "Nazis". You can have movies with all-male casts and with all-female casts. If "equal representation" is a requirement, the fact that there's no asians in any of these movies is horribly racist, for example. It's lunacy."

 

What's lunacy is this aprt of our post. It makes no sense. I already said my biggest beef  is they picked the wrong 4 women. Plus, there's no logical reason for the movie to have 4 female leads other than SJWness.  I don't mind 'all women movies per se' or 'female leads' if it's logical, make sense, and the female leads are actually good.

 

But, McCarthy? DISGUSTING.

 

Roseanne > McCarthy

[Blarghagh]

That part was in response to:

 

"The movie itself is sexist. Why 4 women? Why not 2 women/2men?"

 

That made it seem that you did object to it. Must have misunderstood. Either way, I don't think that making a version of the Ghostbusters with all women is sexist by itself.

[sorophx]

Fair enough, she grates on my nerves something fierce but it's not like my opinion is law.

I just find it bizarre that so many people here dislike her or find her "annoying" etc. I understand feeling indifference towards an actor, but to be actually annoying... maybe that says something good about her acting too