Characters being female need a story-related reason behind it, but characters being male is normal.
That's not what I said in the slightest.
In 1984, four characters hailing from that particular trade and demographic being male was "normal".
In 2014, four characters hailing from that particular trade and demographic being female still isn't "normal".
Where "normal" in each case is based on anecdotal observation of the current state of society, and where the "judgment" I'm making, if I'm making one at all, is that it's kinda fucked up that it's still not normal.
I'll just say the majority of my problems with the movie comes from McCarthy. I just don't find her funny.
You need to watch Gilmore Girls, and then weep that she's not been willing or able to do more intelligent comedy like that lately. A hyper-perfectionist neurotic like Sookie St. James would be an amazing Ghostbuster.
+3
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
Leslie Jones does seem a bit weird, she's a fairly new SNL cast member and while she's been in some funny skits, she's not exactly setting the world on fire to the best of my knowledge. Jessica Williams, or Aisha Tyler I think would fit better in the "we have to have a black ghost buster" role.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon
Ugh.
Yeah. It's all kinds of terrible that they got a cast with really great comedic chops and a few who have proven themselves as serious dramatic actors.
Damn them.
Damn them all.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I don't think it's going to work because the first ghostbusters was basically also story in the service of casting: it was made like Clerks and was basically friends screwing around with each other in their element; and the chemistry and amateur quality you got really made it what it was. The movie was their baby, and they put so much effort into it that audiences loved it even before the special effects were recorded.
Making a new ghostbusters movie is just a misguided nerd cash grab, women or no women. It would be like making a new Caddyshack.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
You can say that about two of them, but these other two just seem to have been on SNL or SNL type shows, and SNL hasn't been a reliable barometer for comedic talent in a good while (85-93 fo life, yo).
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
McCarthy has proven herself, and Wiig did some great stuff in Bridesmaids and Skeleton twins but I think she's still more writer than actor.
I love McKinnon and Jones, but they're pretty much SNL only at this point.
I don't care if the Ghostbusters are all women, I just thought the casting process should be "The four funniest actors we can afford" and I don't know that they did that.
However, they did pick 4 people who have worked together and will probably play well off each other.
I just didn't want a new Ghostbusters movie, period. No matter who starred in it.
When Harold Ramis died, so did the Ghostbusters franchise in my mind, because the four original actors are the original Ghostbusters and I'm just not interested to see anyone else in those roles.
Plus, the all-female cast being the first thing that was announced just comes off as the director going "Ooooh look at how progressive I am!" instead of staying true to the franchise, being funny and just a plain good movie.
It might still be a decent film (though it has no chance of being as good as the originals) but it's just a movie that didn't need to exist.
Why do people keep writing Frasier when they mean Fraser? I swear it's like 90% of the time people make that mistake.
Autocorrect, in this case.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
In other movie news divergent is a bad movie, this is news.
The article is fine but its thesis is really weird. I can't tell whether the problem for the writer is:
-visual motifs are great but this is an obvious one that the film overuses
-this visual motif wouldn't be a problem if the movie didn't suck around it
-films shouldn't have visual motifs
--
In other news, the new film thread will be up as soon as I get home from work.
Re: Indiana Pratt - I'm open to being pleasantly surprised, but I don't know if anyone working in Hollywood today could pull off Indy. Even way back then, in his younger days, Harrison Ford was able to bring a sense of authenticity, a worn and experienced world traveler with a dash of roguish charm. Who these days can bring both these elements together? Pratt's a great rogue, but I dunno if he can pull off the rough and worn part. But, again, who can? I can't think of anyone right now.
Nobody in Hollywood today can pull off Ford's Indiana Jones. Which is why they shouldn't try.
Similarly, nobody in Hollywood can pull off Sean Connery's James Bond. But Daniel Craig gave us a great Daniel Craig's James Bond, and Chris Pratt could give us a great Chris Pratt's Indiana Jones.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I can get behind Pratt as Indy if they're doing more of a reimagining of the series rather than some sort of direct continuity. Pratt would be perfect for the kind of role that Frasier played in The Mummy, which was effectively a slightly more comedic take on the Indy franchise.
Give it to Pratt, let him make it his own, and I think it could be amazing.
It's too big a franchise to give anyone creative control or freedom to 'do it's own thing'.
Eh not really? I mean Crystal Skull winged the franchise and if another movie never got made its not like the world would come to an end. But come on its a throwback to old serials its not some kind of cultural touch stone like the Red Shoe Diaries.
They've been trying to get a sequel off the ground for a while with old man Ford. I'd take a reboot over that, Ford's Indy movies should have ended with the trilogy.
I do agree Indy should be American (won't let Bond be American? Fuck you we keep Indy, you Superman thiefs), I just wonder if Pratt can do it.
If Jurassic World turns out to be a terrible movie but Pratt at least is convincing as a more serious dude, that will help. Even in Zero Dark Thirty I was like "oh hey Andy is killing Bin Laden" and in Moneyball he was more mopey mopes.
I'd actually like to see him show up in a Indy-ish movie like The Mummy as mentioned, or even National Treasure.
Also, the cynic in me is saying that a shitload of people are going to write "All Female Ghostbusters" off as a gimmick before they even start filming.
To be fair to the shitload of people, the way the director announced the movie a few months back and even discussed in this thread was that it would be an all female movie, as opposed to a new movie that just happens to be females. He was setting it up himself like it was some big groundbreaking pat on the back yay girl power that came across less about a good script first, but stunt casting first.
It will be the first all-female Ghostbusters so maybe he wasn't talking out of his ass about it. It may have been overblown, but it's Hollywood they'd have sold the shit out the original team being back too. How many all-female super-hero teams in movies do you know about? Because I know zero. Also, in the comics by IDW they had female Ghostbusting teams so this isn't a new idea.
I just didn't want a new Ghostbusters movie, period. No matter who starred in it.
When Harold Ramis died, so did the Ghostbusters franchise in my mind, because the four original actors are the original Ghostbusters and I'm just not interested to see anyone else in those roles.
Plus, the all-female cast being the first thing that was announced just comes off as the director going "Ooooh look at how progressive I am!" instead of staying true to the franchise, being funny and just a plain good movie.
It might still be a decent film (though it has no chance of being as good as the originals) but it's just a movie that didn't need to exist.
It's a good gimmick to get eyeballs since the old GB weren't going to be in as their original characters. It is a progressive move and one I applaud, how can a female cast be a bad thing for a movie? In 2015. The original Ghostbusters had their time in the spotlight and blew their opportunity for a third sequel. The chances were slim it was going to be a sequel with the old guys anyway, especially with Bill Murray shredding any scripts they sent his way and not replying to their messages. You'd think they'd get a hint he wasn't interested. I would like a rebooted tv show about the Ghostbusters, though. Make it in an international organization like in the comics and expand the female cast so they're equals to the original four.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
the Powerpuff Girls they had a movie, boom, scoreboard
the Powerpuff Girls they had a movie, boom, scoreboard
Wasn't live action.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
"Okay, so why don't you tell us about your new movie?"
"Oh, man, it's gonna be awesome! It's gonna have ghosts which will be busted, and we have talented writers chained to desks crafting a screenplay that's got a real story and heart to it and is also the funniest goddamn thing--we're going for the Oscar with this one. And we haven't cast it yet, but I promise you we're gonna have four great people who are fantastic at comedy. You're gonna be all, 'Bill who?' I kid, I kid, we love him and we take our responsibility to the original films very seriously--but we're not gonna let that stop us from making the best movie we can possibly make with this premise."
"Good, good, I like yoir enthusiasm. But when you do the real interview, don't try and sell them on the movie by telling them how good it's going to be. Stick to the script."
"Fine..."
(Later)
"So, tell us about Ghostbusters 3."
"More like Girlsbusters, am I right? Yes I am right because we're casting four women. No audition process necessary, the first four vaginas in the door get the part, and if you can pass, we'll let the vagina part slide. Because when you think "sequel to one of the best comedies ever made," the number one thing I know fans are looking for are a gimmicky embrace of progressive politics designed to paper over possibly justified concerns about our commitment to quality in the process of making this naked cash grab."
I said it before but I think all female ghostbusters will probably be bad because its a remake, ghostbusters doesn't work as well in modern NYC, and there was a pre existing relationship with the leads that made it pop that's difficult to find in the wild
if it works, that will be great, but it's probably going to be another total recall etc
Re: Indiana Pratt - I'm open to being pleasantly surprised, but I don't know if anyone working in Hollywood today could pull off Indy. Even way back then, in his younger days, Harrison Ford was able to bring a sense of authenticity, a worn and experienced world traveler with a dash of roguish charm. Who these days can bring both these elements together? Pratt's a great rogue, but I dunno if he can pull off the rough and worn part. But, again, who can? I can't think of anyone right now.
Nobody in Hollywood today can pull off Ford's Indiana Jones. Which is why they shouldn't try.
Similarly, nobody in Hollywood can pull off Sean Connery's James Bond. But Daniel Craig gave us a great Daniel Craig's James Bond, and Chris Pratt could give us a great Chris Pratt's Indiana Jones.
Somehow Zachary Quinto pulls off Spock as... Spock. It could totally be time-travel Leonard Nimoy and you'd almost believe it. Kinda creepy.
Maybe it needs to not be in New York. I mean, the Akroid and Ramis always thought it would be interesting to have Ghostbusters (in movie) branch out into a franchise. Why are all the ghosts in New York, anyway? How about ghosts in Detroit?
"Okay, so why don't you tell us about your new movie?"
"Oh, man, it's gonna be awesome! It's gonna have ghosts which will be busted, and we have talented writers chained to desks crafting a screenplay that's got a real story and heart to it and is also the funniest goddamn thing--we're going for the Oscar with this one. And we haven't cast it yet, but I promise you we're gonna have four great people who are fantastic at comedy. You're gonna be all, 'Bill who?' I kid, I kid, we love him and we take our responsibility to the original films very seriously--but we're not gonna let that stop us from making the best movie we can possibly make with this premise."
"Good, good, I like yoir enthusiasm. But when you do the real interview, don't try and sell them on the movie by telling them how good it's going to be. Stick to the script."
"Fine..."
(Later)
"So, tell us about Ghostbusters 3."
"More like Girlsbusters, am I right? Yes I am right because we're casting four women. No audition process necessary, the first four vaginas in the door get the part, and if you can pass, we'll let the vagina part slide. Because when you think "sequel to one of the best comedies ever made," the number one thing I know fans are looking for are a gimmicky embrace of progressive politics designed to paper over possibly justified concerns about our commitment to quality in the process of making this naked cash grab."
You realize when they talked to the press about it being an all-female team it was very, very early in the development process - GB 3 had silently been killed recently. And they finished casting their main leads this week. Did the original four Ghostbuster actors have to audition? Weren't they all friends of each other, and two were the director and writer. Would you be this cynical if this reboot had four male actors in the original roles instead, because that was a possibility. What's the big deal about a Hollywood movies actually concerned about pushing progressive politics*? Isn't it a good thing for actresses getting lead roles in a big franchise like this? Doesn't it make sense that women have a greater role to play in a movie where it is set in 2015 rather than 1984?
* I say this when we barely know anything about the movie since all a movie needs to be labeled progressive if to have female characters in it
edit: I apologize in advance in case this post was satire
I never even saw Ghostbusters for the first time until last year, but even then I found myself wondering "why exactly did they wait until halfway through the movie to bring in the fourth guy?"
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The problem isn't the casting, the problem is the perception that stunt casting is a primary concern on the part of the filmmakers--that it's a gimmick, a dodge. If they said "This movie is gonna be fucking awesome, you'll see" and then later announced these four actresses' names, I'd be totally fine with it. The world should work that way. But when you tout your "progressivism" as a selling point, that's just tokenism.
I'll just say the majority of my problems with the movie comes from McCarthy. I just don't find her funny.
You need to watch Gilmore Girls, and then weep that she's not been willing or able to do more intelligent comedy like that lately. A hyper-perfectionist neurotic like Sookie St. James would be an amazing Ghostbuster.
I had only seen her over the top stuff and hated it and thought I didn't like her....then I watched St Vincent....she's fantastic in that.
there's already been an all woman Animal House right
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The major complaint I heard from people when the GB reboot was first announced was that they were going to completely ignore the first two movies, and just reboot it with a all female cast.
If they had set it up so that the women involved had gone in on a franchise opportunity, where they could give a nod to the fans of the original by having the gear delivered and installed in a cameo by Stantz and Zeddmore, I don't think there would have been nearly as much blowback.
Posts
There's probably a good story reason behind it.
They want to take selfies with the ghosts.
That's not what I said in the slightest.
In 1984, four characters hailing from that particular trade and demographic being male was "normal".
In 2014, four characters hailing from that particular trade and demographic being female still isn't "normal".
Where "normal" in each case is based on anecdotal observation of the current state of society, and where the "judgment" I'm making, if I'm making one at all, is that it's kinda fucked up that it's still not normal.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You need to watch Gilmore Girls, and then weep that she's not been willing or able to do more intelligent comedy like that lately. A hyper-perfectionist neurotic like Sookie St. James would be an amazing Ghostbuster.
I don't see Jessica Williams on that cast list. I am unhappy about this.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah. It's all kinds of terrible that they got a cast with really great comedic chops and a few who have proven themselves as serious dramatic actors.
Damn them.
Damn them all.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Why do people keep writing Frasier when they mean Fraser? I swear it's like 90% of the time people make that mistake.
Making a new ghostbusters movie is just a misguided nerd cash grab, women or no women. It would be like making a new Caddyshack.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
pleasepaypreacher.net
SHHHH THEY CAN HEAR YOU!
In other movie news divergent is a bad movie, this is news.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I love McKinnon and Jones, but they're pretty much SNL only at this point.
I don't care if the Ghostbusters are all women, I just thought the casting process should be "The four funniest actors we can afford" and I don't know that they did that.
However, they did pick 4 people who have worked together and will probably play well off each other.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
And no Dan ackroyd is still crazy is not enough of a reason
Who knows, maybe they'll set it in that time period to better realize the true tone of the originals.
pleasepaypreacher.net
When Harold Ramis died, so did the Ghostbusters franchise in my mind, because the four original actors are the original Ghostbusters and I'm just not interested to see anyone else in those roles.
Plus, the all-female cast being the first thing that was announced just comes off as the director going "Ooooh look at how progressive I am!" instead of staying true to the franchise, being funny and just a plain good movie.
It might still be a decent film (though it has no chance of being as good as the originals) but it's just a movie that didn't need to exist.
Autocorrect, in this case.
The article is fine but its thesis is really weird. I can't tell whether the problem for the writer is:
-visual motifs are great but this is an obvious one that the film overuses
-this visual motif wouldn't be a problem if the movie didn't suck around it
-films shouldn't have visual motifs
--
In other news, the new film thread will be up as soon as I get home from work.
Nobody in Hollywood today can pull off Ford's Indiana Jones. Which is why they shouldn't try.
Similarly, nobody in Hollywood can pull off Sean Connery's James Bond. But Daniel Craig gave us a great Daniel Craig's James Bond, and Chris Pratt could give us a great Chris Pratt's Indiana Jones.
They've been trying to get a sequel off the ground for a while with old man Ford. I'd take a reboot over that, Ford's Indy movies should have ended with the trilogy.
Has GOTG taught you nothing about Chris Pratt?
It will be the first all-female Ghostbusters so maybe he wasn't talking out of his ass about it. It may have been overblown, but it's Hollywood they'd have sold the shit out the original team being back too. How many all-female super-hero teams in movies do you know about? Because I know zero. Also, in the comics by IDW they had female Ghostbusting teams so this isn't a new idea.
This would be pretty cool. Charlie's even a gender neutral name.
It's a good gimmick to get eyeballs since the old GB weren't going to be in as their original characters. It is a progressive move and one I applaud, how can a female cast be a bad thing for a movie? In 2015. The original Ghostbusters had their time in the spotlight and blew their opportunity for a third sequel. The chances were slim it was going to be a sequel with the old guys anyway, especially with Bill Murray shredding any scripts they sent his way and not replying to their messages. You'd think they'd get a hint he wasn't interested. I would like a rebooted tv show about the Ghostbusters, though. Make it in an international organization like in the comics and expand the female cast so they're equals to the original four.
Wasn't live action.
"Oh, man, it's gonna be awesome! It's gonna have ghosts which will be busted, and we have talented writers chained to desks crafting a screenplay that's got a real story and heart to it and is also the funniest goddamn thing--we're going for the Oscar with this one. And we haven't cast it yet, but I promise you we're gonna have four great people who are fantastic at comedy. You're gonna be all, 'Bill who?' I kid, I kid, we love him and we take our responsibility to the original films very seriously--but we're not gonna let that stop us from making the best movie we can possibly make with this premise."
"Good, good, I like yoir enthusiasm. But when you do the real interview, don't try and sell them on the movie by telling them how good it's going to be. Stick to the script."
"Fine..."
(Later)
"So, tell us about Ghostbusters 3."
"More like Girlsbusters, am I right? Yes I am right because we're casting four women. No audition process necessary, the first four vaginas in the door get the part, and if you can pass, we'll let the vagina part slide. Because when you think "sequel to one of the best comedies ever made," the number one thing I know fans are looking for are a gimmicky embrace of progressive politics designed to paper over possibly justified concerns about our commitment to quality in the process of making this naked cash grab."
if it works, that will be great, but it's probably going to be another total recall etc
Somehow Zachary Quinto pulls off Spock as... Spock. It could totally be time-travel Leonard Nimoy and you'd almost believe it. Kinda creepy.
Or in front of the Today Show studios! (or Good Morning America, whoever pays more!)
Hell, they'll rip off Big by making a big piano joke at Toys R Us this time!
And they can find ghosts in a crowd by looking through the ghost detector app on their new Samsung Galaxy 6!
....I type that in jest but I think there will be at least two of them in the movie.
You realize when they talked to the press about it being an all-female team it was very, very early in the development process - GB 3 had silently been killed recently. And they finished casting their main leads this week. Did the original four Ghostbuster actors have to audition? Weren't they all friends of each other, and two were the director and writer. Would you be this cynical if this reboot had four male actors in the original roles instead, because that was a possibility. What's the big deal about a Hollywood movies actually concerned about pushing progressive politics*? Isn't it a good thing for actresses getting lead roles in a big franchise like this? Doesn't it make sense that women have a greater role to play in a movie where it is set in 2015 rather than 1984?
* I say this when we barely know anything about the movie since all a movie needs to be labeled progressive if to have female characters in it
edit: I apologize in advance in case this post was satire
And he was pretty disappointed to find out that his part was severely reduced without him knowing until after filming started.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
He was my favorite character as a kid. I loved the deadpan way he said "That's a big twinkie"
I had only seen her over the top stuff and hated it and thought I didn't like her....then I watched St Vincent....she's fantastic in that.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If they had set it up so that the women involved had gone in on a franchise opportunity, where they could give a nod to the fans of the original by having the gear delivered and installed in a cameo by Stantz and Zeddmore, I don't think there would have been nearly as much blowback.