Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 06:39:42 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Ghostbusters 3

Started by Shaky, August 04, 2014, 01:42:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on October 09, 2014, 03:29:50 PM
I'm calling it:  Kristen Wiig, Tina Fey and/or Amy Poehler and probably Melissa McCarthy.

Oh and it'll be shit, I reckon.



We're on the same page, guys.

A NEW PAGE (cunt)

Shaky

Feig's comments so far have all been pretty troubling. The guy seems to have no clue. And despite all his guff surely there's no way this will be a total reboot? Reitman, Aykroyd et al still own the rights, I believe, and the latter will definitely want to appear in it as Stantz.

Tiny Poster

Feig's the studio choice because his previous two movies were huge box office successes.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Tiny Poster on October 10, 2014, 10:56:04 AM
Feig's the studio choice because his previous two movies were huge box office successes.

Another that certainly wasn't a hit was My Fellow Americans and a certain Dan Aykroyd co-starred in that.

For the few of you, who haven't seen it, the film stars Jack Lemmon and James Garner star as two former Presidents of the United States, from opposing sides. Despite hating each other, they go on the run and have to work together after a botched attempt on their lives to try hide a scandal involving the current president – they're like the original odd couple!

It's a messy film, but there's some good stuff and the pairing of Garner and Lemmon works well. Oh, it features some of the worst CGI I've ever seen.

Tiny Poster

How was Feig in his role as Reporter #2?


I think the studio have been trying to keep Aykroyd as far away from the process as possible for ages now, what with his crazy pronouncements on the movie (and craziness in general). Rebooting it means they don't have to have him be part of the movie at all, just a Groening-style cheerleader.

Replies From View

Quote from: Tiny Poster on October 09, 2014, 10:20:33 PM
This'll wisely save them from having to awkwardly answer "where's Pete and Egon?" in the movie.

But they could resolve that anyway by just skipping forward a few years and saying Ghostbusters has become franchised by this point, and here are the antics of one of those teams.  No need for a reboot or any kind of contrived gimmick (which I'm sorry to say the "female cast" angle feels like because it doesn't seem to have come from anywhere organic).

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Tiny Poster on October 10, 2014, 11:36:35 AM
How was Feig in his role as Reporter #2?


I think the studio have been trying to keep Aykroyd as far away from the process as possible for ages now, what with his crazy pronouncements on the movie (and craziness in general). Rebooting it means they don't have to have him be part of the movie at all, just a Groening-style cheerleader.

You know, I can't remember.

Re: Aykroyd – IIRC, from the sounds of things, he had basically been sidelined at one point and two writers were brought in but after what they produced, he was brought into the fold once again. However, what is being mooted now is much more in keeping with how studios see IPs – something to reboot every so often – what was being mooted previously could have very much been a reboot, but linking to the previous films is very out of step with modern thinking.

Tiny Poster

Quote from: Replies From View on October 10, 2014, 11:54:52 AM
But they could resolve that anyway by just skipping forward a few years and saying Ghostbusters has become franchised by this point, and here are the antics of one of those teams.  No need for a reboot or any kind of contrived gimmick (which I'm sorry to say the "female cast" angle feels like because it doesn't seem to have come from anywhere organic).


Why is "all females" a gimmick but "all males" isn't?

Not to mention that rebooting in itself is a gimmick, and that the original two movies thrive on gimmickry.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Tiny Poster on October 10, 2014, 12:15:16 PM
Why is "all females" a gimmick but "all males" isn't?

Because no ideas are sold on the basis of it being "all males!"  This Feig fella basically said he wouldn't be interested unless it was an all female cast, at which point it becomes exciting.

What I reckon?  They realised they couldn't do a sequel with the original cast/director anymore, realised nobody would watch Judd Apatow trying to reboot it with Seth Rogen, James Franco and Danny McBride, so concocted a plan "just crazy enough that it might work!"  On that level, it does seem like a marketing gimmick.  It's got people's attention and they knew it would.  If the casting of females was inconsequential to them, why make that the press release?

The way every man involved is talking about it just seems really condescending, too:

Quote from: Bill Murray"Melissa would be a spectacular Ghostbuster," Murray told the Toronto Star. "And Kristen Wiig is so funny -- God, she's funny! I like this girl Linda Cardellini ("Mad Men") a lot. And Emma Stone is funny. There are some funny girls out there."

Well done girls, some of you are funny!

Tiny Poster

Paul Feig has a history of working with female casts, leads and writers - it's just as organic for him to choose women he likes/wants to work with as it was for Aykroyd et al to choose their mates from Second City and other things they'd worked on like SNL and Stripes.

Shaky

But lots of hot new Directors have big hits; this particular guy has just been selected as a honking great knee-jerk reaction to what's come before. "A team of men? Let's turn them into women!" It's got nothing at all to do with characters being "female" per se, it's the fact that it's less an organic process and more a textbook example of mindless executive spitballing.  "THERE ARE GOING TO BE WOMEN IN IT AND YOU THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MEN! WE HAVE ONLY JUST BEGUN TO CONFOUND YOU! " Like most remakes or reboots, though, a new Ghostbusters will still hedge it's bets and borderline plagiarise the original because it won't dare upset fans of the original.

It could work, it's just not an auspicious start. Say what you like about Aykroyd (and he is a bit of a tit now), but his original unfilmed "Ghostsmashers" script was by all accounts a unique and insane piece of work.

Replies From View

Quote from: Tiny Poster on October 10, 2014, 12:15:16 PM
Why is "all females" a gimmick but "all males" isn't?

Not to mention that rebooting in itself is a gimmick, and that the original two movies thrive on gimmickry.

"All males" would be a gimmick as well if it was contrived in the same way as this.  Just read the provided links for evidence of how the producers are thinking along these lines.

I wouldn't call rebooting a gimmick, but I don't think it's necessary for this.  There's no great mythology to sweep away (somebody already said this up thread), so set it in the same universe.  The original two movies don't feel gimmicky to me, even though they feature ghosts and gadgets.  You may need to elaborate on that point.

BPFHAY


Tiny Poster

Quote from: Replies From View on October 10, 2014, 03:40:39 PM
"All males" would be a gimmick as well if it was contrived in the same way as this.  Just read the provided links for evidence of how the producers are thinking along these lines.

I wouldn't call rebooting a gimmick, but I don't think it's necessary for this.  There's no great mythology to sweep away (somebody already said this up thread), so set it in the same universe.  The original two movies don't feel gimmicky to me, even though they feature ghosts and gadgets.  You may need to elaborate on that point.


"All males" isn't seen as a gimmick because that's unfortunately the default setting society has ingrained in us - and how are we to get to the stage where "all women" isn't seen as a novelty unless steps are taken to normalise it?


Seriously, if you don't think the Ghosbusters films aren't gimmicky (which isn't a criticism) then I'd love to live in your world.

Tiny Poster

#74
Quote from: Noodle Lizard on October 10, 2014, 12:50:31 PM

The way every man involved is talking about it just seems really condescending, too:

Well done girls, some of you are funny!


As if on cue, here's Ernie Hudson:


QuoteI heard it was going to be a total reboot, and that it would have nothing to do with the other two movies [...] if it has nothing to do with the other two movies, and it's all female, then why are you calling it Ghostbusters?
I love females. I hope that if they go that way at least they'll be funny, and if they're not funny at least hopefully it'll be sexy. I love the idea of including women, I think that's great.

Crabwalk

Prediction: they won't be scientists but CLEANING LADIES who accidentally suck up a ghost in their vacuum cleaner. They then decide to strap their Dysons onto their backs (logo prominent) and go about bustin' them ghouls all sassy, like.

Replies From View

Quote from: Tiny Poster on October 10, 2014, 03:48:59 PM
"All males" isn't seen as a gimmick because that's unfortunately the default setting society has ingrained in us - and how are we to get to the stage where "all women" isn't seen as a novelty unless steps are taken to normalise it?

I'm talking about how they are approaching this specific film, not female casts in general.  All the evidence suggests that having an all-female Ghostbusters 3 isn't for the purposes of normalising anything, and it won't contribute to any normalisation because gimmicks stay as gimmicks.


Quote from: Tiny Poster on October 10, 2014, 03:48:59 PM
Seriously, if you don't think the Ghosbusters films aren't gimmicky (which isn't a criticism) then I'd love to live in your world.

You will need to be more specific please, as I feel we're talking at cross purposes.  If the casting of Ghostbusters 1 and 2 isn't analogous to casting women in Ghostbusters 3 for the novelty of it then what would be a suitable comparison?

Replies From View


greenman

You could argue it need not be THAT gimmicky given that the original films weren't besides the romances specifically male. To me it feels less like a gimmick than execs going with what seems to be hot at the moment.

Honestly I can't say I'v watched any of Paul Feig's recent all female comedies but the impression I got of them was something much broader than the original Ghostbusters.

BPFHAY

It would be sad if the cast weren't a group with a rapport, for improvising etc.

Replies From View

Quote from: greenman on October 10, 2014, 06:11:38 PM
To me it feels less like a gimmick than execs going with what seems to be hot at the moment.

Seems almost the definition of gimmick to me.  Maybe it's the key to what makes a shit gimmick compared to the "good" gimmicks in the first films, though (presumably the special effects, although I'm still not really sure what the gimmicks in Ghostbusters 1 and 2 were).

Glebe

http://www.slashfilm.com/ernie-hudson-female-ghostbusters-reboot/

I mean, it's just NOT Ghostbuster 3... I actually think having the old gang involved and having the female leads be their daughters would be pretty cool, but the whole reboot idea seems a bit shit.

Crabwalk

If it's a reboot they won't even call it Ghostbusters 3 will they? It'll be 'Rise of the Ghostbuster Girls' or summat.

Thomas

Normalisation is grand, but I don't think the massive emphasis on 'all female' contributes to it. Calling it 'the female Ghostbusters' doesn't help.

Have an all female main cast, that's fine. Just let it happen. But every single article emphasising the phrase 'all female' just turns that potential normalisation into clickbait, as far as I can see. Bloody media. I think that's where this feeling of a gimmick can come from.

As for the rebooting, reboots are sometimes interesting to me. If you're rebooting a series without the original characters, and basic premise is pretty broad, why even give it the same title? It could just be a new film with an original title.

That, and the now presumably binned title 'Ghostbusters 3' has a nice ring to it.

Has an original franchise[nb]a sickening word.[/nb] ever continued 'around' a reboot, as it were?

Replies From View

Quote from: Crabwalk on October 10, 2014, 08:40:59 PM
If it's a reboot they won't even call it Ghostbusters 3 will they? It'll be 'Rise of the Ghostbuster Girls' or summat.

We can put that instead from now on if it helps.

Just found out this Feige fella was Mr Pool in Sabrina the Teenage Witch. So the whole time I was watching Bridesmaids, I was watching a film by Mr Pool from Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Makes the whole thing even worse somehow.

BritishHobo

I've been really baffled by the derision Feig's got across the internet, not just about this news, but generally. It seems to have overnight become accepted that he's some kind of enormous hack - but Freaks and Geeks are both really well-regarded online. Where has all the hate for Feig come from all of a sudden?

Also, no offence to people, but I'm already bored of the whole discussion about the all-female cast, and I only see it getting more and more irritating as production begins. The problem is that everyone is going in with their own spin based on nothing more than a few puff-piece quotes. It's seemingly already been maligned as a failed gimmick despite nobody actually knowing Feig's motivation, and it just feels like that inevitably has to be the way discussion goes these days. I'm happy just to wait and see how it looks, or at least get a better sense of the film before I decide what the casting of female leads means.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: BritishHobo on October 11, 2014, 11:27:55 AM
I've been really baffled by the derision Feig's got across the internet, not just about this news, but generally. It seems to have overnight become accepted that he's some kind of enormous hack - but Freaks and Geeks are both really well-regarded online. Where has all the hate for Feig come from all of a sudden?



I think Judd Apatow's a massive hack too, despite his involvement in Freaks & Geeks.  It also has some of my least favourite comic actors in it.  I think it's a good show in spite of this rather than as a result.

Paul Feig's "solo work", however, has been total shite from what I've seen of it.  Bridesmaids was one of the most bizarrely overpraised comedies ever.  The fact that it actually got Oscar nominated for Best Original Screenplay is something that completely baffles me to this day.  That, to me, is like The Wedding Crashers swooping up a Best Director award.

I saw about thirty minutes of The Heat before I realised I wasn't even watching it anymore.  I think I was replaying a better movie in my head from memory.  Just boring, unimaginative shite.  So while he might have once been able to blend in in functional roles among a larger team with Freaks & Geeks, I have no reason to rate him highly as either a writer or a director.  Admittedly he didn't write The Heat or Bridesmaids, but it shows where his interests lie.

QuoteAlso, no offence to people, but I'm already bored of the whole discussion about the all-female cast, and I only see it getting more and more irritating as production begins. The problem is that everyone is going in with their own spin based on nothing more than a few puff-piece quotes. It's seemingly already been maligned as a failed gimmick despite nobody actually knowing Feig's motivation, and it just feels like that inevitably has to be the way discussion goes these days. I'm happy just to wait and see how it looks, or at least get a better sense of the film before I decide what the casting of female leads means.

It's the exact reaction they wanted, I guarantee you that.  It was a similar case with the all-black reboot of Annie, the only difference being that very few people give a shit about Annie or its legacy.  Since Ghostbusters is highly revered by loads of people, they knew full well that a big change like this would generate an internet shitstorm.  If Feig had more honourable motivations, he should have disclosed them, because at the moment his primary motivation seems to be: "do it with girls, yes, I like that!"

Of course we can't judge the final product entirely accurately without seeing it, but even forgetting the all-female angle, there's very little about any of this that would instill much hope in anyone.  It seems like it's in the hands of very lazy and careless people.  If you don't think you can do the original series justice, just don't do it.

Tiny Poster

Was the "all female" thing a studio idea, or just Feig's preference which has been spun, though? He prefers to work with funny women, just as many directors have their repertories or preferred actors. As I've already pointed out, the original movie was made up of Second City alumni - some of whom were replacing original SC choices like John Candy and Belushi.

BritishHobo

This is what I mean - it's all based off not a lot, a couple of fairly vague quotes from Paul Feig about wanting to write for funny women. It just bugs me that the automatic assumption is that it definitely is tokenism, and so that's the angle we'll be sticking to.