ghost busters reboot with female cast

[Havok]

OK, so I really thought you guys were talking about Jenny McCarthy. Who the fuck is Mellisa McCarthy?

[Flagg]

OK, so I really thought you guys were talking about Jenny McCarthy. Who the fuck is Mellisa McCarthy?

Obese "funny" acrtress who has been in Bridesmaids, Identity Theft, and a bunch of other pieces of crap. She's OUTRAGEOUS!

[Havok]

The fat chick that was in the movie with Bill Murray I wanted to watch?

[Elheru Aran]

The fat chick that was in the movie with Bill Murray I wanted to watch?

If you're talking about "St. Vincent", I understand that actually got reasonable reviews. Melissa McCarthy does have chops, but the problem is that she let her hair down in Bridesmaids and from that point on got stuck with 'outrageous overweight woman' roles in shitty comedies. She's like Will Ferrell-- she has somewhat surprising range, but tends to get typecast.

[Borgholio]

Bit of a necro, but new news about the movie. Chris Hemsworth (Thor) is replacing Janine as the receptionist.

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/chris ... 201512833/

[Lagmonster]

Paul's cinematic calling card is rapidly becoming "take a classic man movie/formula, then gender swap". I positively refuse to discuss my opinion on that at this hour in the morning.

[Borgholio]

First photos of the new cast in costume.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/06/19/gho ... sten-wiig/

[Borgholio]

Ecto-1 has been revealed. I like it. Very faithful to the original. I do like the new hood ornament!

https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/618605859241918465

[Lord Insanity]

Ouch. That is even worse than Ecto-1A. If there is one thing any Ghostbusters sequel should have kept it was the car. Then again I am still trying to figure out why they would bother with a reboot in the first place. It was mentioned earlier in this thread, the first movie set up unlimited sequels in the form of new Ghostbuster franchises. That would have given a good reason for the new car.

OK the new hood ornament is cool, though.

[Starglider]

Ouch. That is even worse than Ecto-1A. If there is one thing any Ghostbusters sequel should have kept it was the car.

On the contrary, the age of the original car at the time of filming is about the same as the age of this car at the time of filming (30 ish), so it is thematically appropriate.

[Joun_Lord]

Then again I am still trying to figure out why they would bother with a reboot in the first place.

This is about what I'm wondering, why the reboot? I'll admit I had my doubts about this and still do to a degree but ain't against the movie (the talent acting and directing, Melissa McCarthy is just not funny to me and Feig seems to take established male centric tropes and rule 63 it then stick McCarthy in it, Heat was a mismatched buddy cop movie WITH GURLS!!!, Spy was a spy movies WITH A GURL!!, and Ghostbusters is Ghostbusters WITH GURLS AND A BOY FOR THE SECRETARY!!!, pretty damn lazy). This movie could be fine but it could have worked just as well if not better to just still be set in the same universe as the older movies.

But like most movies they want to tell some origin story to build a new franchise and dick ride the name brand of a established series without conforming to the rules of that world. Its just laziness pure and simple.

Now just a continuation of a existing IP rather then shittin.....I mean reimagining on an existing IP doesn't always work either. A shit writer, a shit director, and a shit cast who all don't give a shit about the franchise they are sticking their tallywackers in isn't going to churn out gold, its going to churn out shit. Does not matter if its new shit, shit made from other shit, or reheated shit, its all still shit.

I'm just still wondering when they are going to reboot Back to the Future. Hell maybe in 10 years we'll have a reboot of the Matrix.

[Elheru Aran]

Robert Zemeckis recently said quite unequivocally that he's not going to remake Back to the Future. So it's probably going to happen once the rights pass out of his control, probably when he dies.

[Enigma]

Robert Zemeckis recently said quite unequivocally that he's not going to remake Back to the Future. So it's probably going to happen once the rights pass out of his control, probably when he dies.

Or if someone buys him off.

[Gandalf]

This movie could be fine but it could have worked just as well if not better to just still be set in the same universe as the older movies.

How so?

I'm just still wondering when they are going to reboot Back to the Future. Hell maybe in 10 years we'll have a reboot of the Matrix.

I think a remake of the Matrix could be pretty neat. That film looks weird and dated now.

[Joun_Lord]

This movie could be fine but it could have worked just as well if not better to just still be set in the same universe as the older movies.

How so?

Multiple reasons. From a story telling perspective setting in a universe where the Ghostbusters already exist, either retired, started a franchise, or buttfucked and nearly forgotten like they were after the 1st movie, there is less incentive to retread old ground. No real reason to have an origin story or tell the story of the team getting kicked out of their university job by intellectual snobs who don't believe in no ghosts. Its already happened, we've already seen it. We need it about as much as we need a 3rd Spiderman origin movie.

It also allows the movie to draw from its history, though hopefully not be bogged down in it like some sequels. They can bring back old actors, old locations, old tech, some man with no dick, to help shore up a shoddy story and pass the torch rather then pissing on it as many reboots do.

It can pay homage to the old movies even while doing its own thing, which is more likely to please older fans and maybe lead newer fans to checking out the older movies.

Reboots are just really bad at telling new stories. They should be free of constraints beyond having something to do with the name but too often are functionally identical to the original, don't do a damn thing new other then throw a shinier PG-13 paint job on it. Like the new Robocop for instance, it tried a little bit of new shit but was still stuck telling the origin story of Robertcop. We've already seen how Robocop gets made, we saw it better then the new movie did it. We already saw Robocop struggling to be human. We already saw Robocop kill the dude who killed him and it was done before far superior and not in the freaking dark. We already saw Robocop take on the evil corporate dude and its actually made sense before. if you got the IP do something freaking new with it!

The final reason is I just really fucking hate reboots. There is the occasional good ones, the new James Bond films, the new Trek movies, Dredd, but most are really terrible, really lazy, and really terrible pieces of dung.

[Gandalf]

How are "reboots bad at telling new stories," isn't that on the writers/directors of said reboots?

Nolan rebooted Batman with some acclaim, Uwe Boll would probably not have done as well. I get not liking Paul Feig, since not everything is for everyone, but blaming mediocrity on the idea of reboots puzzles me still.

[Terralthra]

The problem is mostly that statistically speaking, most movies aren't great. Remaking a great movie is likely to be worse than the original. See for reference Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, among many many others. If you remake a classic, you're just not likely to get a better one than the original. Even if your reboot is above par, it will fail in comparison to the original.

That's why James Cameron took Aliens in a completely different direction from Alien, explicitly. He said that making the sequel another claustrophobic horror movie would inevitably not be as good as the original, which was already as good as that movie could be. A sequel allowed him to inhabit and explore the universe created without having to redo the original and likely not as well.

[Joun_Lord]

How are "reboots bad at telling new stories," isn't that on the writers/directors of said reboots?

Nolan rebooted Batman with some acclaim, Uwe Boll would probably not have done as well. I get not liking Paul Feig, since not everything is for everyone, but blaming mediocrity on the idea of reboots puzzles me still.

Part of its the fault of the people in charge of it, yes. However just from the get go a reboot is a lazy affair that takes less talent to get into then a new idea. Its cribbing ideas already been tested, already been made. Even reboots from good directors, good writers, or good actors will be shite often enough, look at the Burton reboots as an example.

Beyond that it invites far too much pride from the people making it. Here's a classic movie but then the director or writer or studio think tank thinks they can do it better. They think their ideas, their "re-imaginings", their direction is superior to the original. Sometimes it might be, most of the time it isn't. People's ego and stupid hang-ups and just plain terrible writing fuck shit up.

It would be like if I had a few billion dollars and bought the rights to Star Wars and decided to remake the movies. This is me decided that I know better then George Lucas (me and a few millions more fans), that I can do better a classic story loved or atleast watched by 100s of millions of people or more. My own shit writing would get in the way, my love of Stormtroopers would color the story (white), my general lack of talent would turn back an effort that pales in comparison to the original. Just like most reboots.

The Nolan Bats worked, atleast the first and second though the 3rd didn't work not because its was a reboot, because it did its own thing. Yes like most reboots it told an origin story but surprisingly I don't think we've had a Bats origin story in any movie. The Keaton Batman movie he was already the Batmon. I think even in the animated series there wasn't an episode dedicated to telling his origin story. In both we got little bits of him all crying over his parents death and then he was Batman. The 2nd movie did something different with the Joker, kinda a origin story but not really, we show how he becomes Bats nemesis and took over crime in Gotham but not how he came to be but still different from what we've seen before. The 3rd was just meh but again that wasn't the fault of it being a reboot, just was kinda shitty in my opinion.

[biostem]

Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson are still around, (I'm excluding Bill Murray as he seems to be against acting in another GB movie). Have the premise be that they are going to California to help establish a west coast branch. It'd be an easy setup and a nice tie-in to the original movies. I don't see why you need to throw the originals out completely, when they were so good.

[Borgholio]

First photo of the cast suited up.



I...dunno. Not against it, but something seems off. This pic for some reason doesn't really excite me.

[Lagmonster]

I don't see why you need to throw the originals out completely, when they were so good.

No. Bill Murray in his prime was good. Bill Murray was so good, that even when they re-created the ENTIRE FORMULA (same cast, setting, premise, jokes), they couldn't make it work without Bill Murray giving a fuck.

It wasn't "Ghostbusters" that people loved. It was "Bill Murray being awesome in an otherwise B-level sci-fi comedy". That's a big load of the problem; up until now Paul has been trying to show how women can successfully represent genres of film dominated by men, but now he's gone and taken on the challenge of trying to represent iconic *actors*, which is...borderline retarded no matter what gender you're talking about.

Course, he's still going to get my money unless the critic reviews are in the toilet, because if I paid to see Ghostbusters II two times plus a DVD, I can't claim any high ground in not paying to see the reboot.

[Patroklos]

First photo of the cast suited up.

I...dunno. Not against it, but something seems off. This pic for some reason doesn't really excite me.

It looks to me like they are channeling the cartoon especially on the right. That could work but that's a completely different type of comedy than the originals. One easier to pull off but with a ceiling on overall quality.

[biostem]

I know it sounds dumb, but what annoys me in that picture is that the jumpsuits have horizontal lines, but the boots have vertical ones - The boots should have had a horizontal trim w/ the reflective material at the top and either around the ankle area or around the bottom/sole.

[Joun_Lord]

The photo ain't bad. I don't much care for the stripes and think half the cast is too pretty (thats not sexism probably, I said the same thing about the Channing Tatum possible reboot too, he was too pretty to play a Ghostbuster though for some strange reason I don't mind the women being too pretty compared to the men thus the probably). Despite the stripes I dig the boots. I really dig the hearse Echo-1.

I really don't like those stripes though. They are probably smart to have on as they look like high visibility strips but just look odd to me.

Still this ain't bad for a single photo and while I'm not going to base all my expectation on it, I will admit they capture enough of the look to make me a bit more excited.

[Kojiro]

I...dunno. Not against it, but something seems off. This pic for some reason doesn't really excite me.

I think what throws it off more than anything for me is they appear to be entirely too serious.