Yep I am an opinionated middle aged male, with a fondness for the original.
And I like opinionated middle age women (but not Roseanne Barr types), who are real man-loving women, not liberals, feminists, and libertarians :-) If these four women are of that sort all the better, I don't really know anything about any of them.
The first film's appeal was that it was an underdogs storyline in many respects, and it was designed as a vehicle for Murray, and to be conclusive, not a franchise- yes the business was a franchise in the film, but the film makers and actors resisted making a sequel. It became a franchise (if two movies in 30 years is a franchise). This one should be conclusive again if they make it like the first.
And the first one just unfolded, developed around their growing success. No big bad dude lurking in the manner of other films, they were finding out about something that happened 100 years earlier. Totally against formula the way they did it. So maybe they can make something of it. But I can't stand films based on gender politics if they follow that theme.
But heres the thing humour works because you can get it, or its incongruent, not because its sophisticated or subtle, or flippant, so IMO - humour which relies on things women only understand would make this fail, or merely making fun of men. The old jokes are always the best. So if they revive the best of the old jokes and have it both uplifting and scary. It will have something of the ingredients of the original. There is no reason why three or four women ghostbusters could not work, but it be funnier to have a man too. Billy Murray : "Hey I may work with the chicks but that doesn't mean..." line from Scrooged anyone?
Everyone says "its brave using an all women cast" - why, that just makes it a film about something else.
The original had a mix of unabashedly childlike and innocent humour, and some a bit more grown-up that just went right over kids heads. But its humour was gentle, self-deprecatory, and motivational : "Suck in the guts guys, we're the Ghostbusters." :lol:
If its based round gender politics it will be crap. But if they make it as much that they are underdogs and not taken seriously in the film by both men and other women perhaps it could work. But if its just an "equality" message - it will be crap, tiring and old, for women already run the world. :smile:
The three/ four original ghostbusters, were not underdogs because of gender, they were underdogs because nobody at that time took the notion of ghosts very seriously. Is someone going to tell me it is easier now for men to be taken seriously?
They might have a hope if they avoid feminist themes , like a beartrap. And protray them as real man loving (not devouring) mamas.
Not saying this will be bad if they go on with it, there just needs to be a why for making it, other than women can be ghostbusters too.
Tbh, it'd be like remaking John Carpenters 1982 classic The Thing.
With an ensemble cast of women.
And the alien isn't an alien. It's a shapeshifting kitten, that assimilates care bears, that came to Earth on a rainbow...
(And no, i'm not sexist, just indicating the ridiculousness of the premise - taking something that worked so well and changing it into something different.)
(And I agree dmsmith, I just wasn't going to quote an entire essay :p)
It's not going to work, the first one was the best and will NEVER be beaten.
What about Star Trek II...IV and VI?
I am more hopeful now than when I first seen the thread (just my fondness for the first film, but they might be able to do it).
It could be almost up to the original if they do it right with the same mostly innocous humour. If its politically correct it will be crap. Good chance to restore some sanity with it.
But I am not going to think about it till it comes out, if it comes out.
(And I agree dmsmith, I just wasn't going to quote an entire essay :razz:)
No I am changing my view a little after early skepticism - it could be good - Bill Murray should still be in it leading the Ghostbusters. Or as the dad or uncle of one of them. It was always his film.
Tbh, it'd be like remaking John Carpenters 1982 classic The Thing.
With an ensemble cast of women.
And the alien isn't an alien. It's a shapeshifting kitten, that assimilates care bears, that came to Earth on a rainbow...
(And no, i'm not sexist, just indicating the ridiculousness of the premise - taking something that worked so well and changing it into something different.)
(And I agree dmsmith, I just wasn't going to quote an entire essay :p)
They did make another 'thing' with a female lead. Don't remember the shape shifting kitten though. :-D
And the alien isn't an alien. It's a shapeshifting kitten, that assimilates care bears, that came to Earth on a rainbow...
This is good where are you getting this :-)
That would be just the right sort of thing (minus the care bears), funny but yet scary - a giant kitten with electric sparks coming from its eyes. They should watch The Goodies for ideas I reckon.
In fact the end should be in London at the Telecom Tower but at night, and they have to take the Ghostbusters car across by boat.
And just before that happens they could be up against Bryan Ferry as a sort of male Gozer with a hooded falcon, that they have to exorcise.
This will only succeed by being crazy yet incredibly sane.
"Viggy, Viggy, Viggy. you have been a bad monkey!!" :lol:
And the alien isn't an alien. It's a shapeshifting kitten, that assimilates care bears, that came to Earth on a rainbow...
That'd be a terrible idea for The Thing, but it might just work with Ghostbusters. At least it's right up there with the Marshmallow Man as destroyer of the universe.
This is quite a depressing thread, middle aged men tutting dismissively with little snips of cynicism.
Cynicism based on past experience, sadly. How often is a film reboot, or a sequel made twenty-five years after the last one in the series, or a comedy film based around women any good?
Chances are this film won't be top drawer. Few are. Quite possibly the director will cock up a franchise some here have a strong nostalgic buzz about.
But lets hope he doesn't and lets hope that the teens get a film they like as much as many on here liked the first film as teenagers.
The all female cast is a brave move, no reason why it won't work because of gender (heck their lines might even be scripted by a man, so rest easy ewgf),
No, you're missing the point. If the writers were women then I wouldn't be so critical, but women performers mostly just aren't funny. Granted there aren't many comedy films whose stars are entirely or mainly women, but there are some, and there are lots more films where a woman/women play a large part in the otherwise male comedy, but how many of these films are regarded as good, let alone classics. How many famous comedy scenes from films can you even remember where at least half of the funny bits were peformed by women?
Women almost entirely work in comedy only when they are the straight 'man' (you know what I mean) to the incompetent or stupid or deluded etc comedy male. There are some great exceptions, but they really are exceptions rather than the rule.
and if some directors don't give female comic actors a chance in a major movie then you'll never know... It is refreshing to see women being given a central role in a film that isn't dependent on how they look.
I agree that few women have made it in comedy but perhaps that's not all to do with talent and may be something to do with the safety first approach many commissioning parties take because they fear the backlash of middle aged men.
Of course you may all be proven right. This film may be a disaster. But I for one hope that it won't be and hope that the people it is aimed at will enjoy it.
I'm certainly not hoping it will be a disaster, but I think it will be.
I did read that Joan Rivers investigated why there are so few women comedians, and she came to the conclusion that most women don't like being laughed at.
They did make another 'thing' with a female lead. Don't remember the shape shifting kitten though. :-D
I know, but it was one woman, not a cast of women, and actually (I may be alone here) I thought it was rather good... Effects were a tad ropey compared to Rob Bottins from the 1982 one, but yep... pretty good...
Bet they won't be smoking as much as the original:-
Smoking doesn't really bother me in films at all, though I don't smoke myself. But some of the health fanatics today would even be against Twinkies :lol:
women performers mostly just aren't funny. Granted there aren't many comedy films whose stars are entirely or mainly women, but there are some, and there are lots more films where a woman/women play a large part in the otherwise male comedy, but how many of these films are regarded as good, let alone classics. How many famous comedy scenes from films can you even remember where at least half of the funny bits were peformed by women?
Women almost entirely work in comedy only when they are the straight 'man' (you know what I mean) to the incompetent or stupid or deluded etc comedy male. There are some great exceptions, but they really are exceptions rather than the rule.
I want to disagree with you tbh, but you might have a point. However for me there's hardly any funny male comedians about now either. any comedy that is actually funny is an exception rather than the rule these days. since 2000 I can think of hardly any comedy movies that genuinely made me laugh. Meet The Parents did, A Mighty Wind did, and the recent Alan Partridge movie did. struggling to name any more. US pumps out woeful dreck like the Hangover/American Pie/Horrible Bosses kind of semi-gross out, semi-'buddy flick' type movies most featuring the same line ups that are just not funny. I don't think it's just women it's everyone. :)
edit. Coen Bros make funny movies when they want to I suppose. they seem to have the ability to make any actors they work with appear funny though.
No, you're missing the point. If the writers were women then I wouldn't be so critical, but women performers mostly just aren't funny. Granted there aren't many comedy films whose stars are entirely or mainly women, but there are some, and there are lots more films where a woman/women play a large part in the otherwise male comedy, but how many of these films are regarded as good, let alone classics. How many famous comedy scenes from films can you even remember where at least half of the funny bits were peformed by women?
I don't find Bill Murray or many stands up all that funny. But Bill Murray is funny in films (for the most part) And the same could be true of women stand-up commediennes. This film is after all about larger than life events, and so the humour is in that and the script and the set pieces, as well as a vein of sanity and seriousness.
I really think "darker and grittier" as said earlier would be totally the wrong direction. They should return to the manner of humour of the first variously a bit oddball, and gently self-deprecatory.
No, you're missing the point. If the writers were women then I wouldn't be so critical, but women performers mostly just aren't funny. Granted there aren't many comedy films whose stars are entirely or mainly women, but there are some, and there are lots more films where a woman/women play a large part in the otherwise male comedy, but how many of these films are regarded as good, let alone classics. How many famous comedy scenes from films can you even remember where at least half of the funny bits were performed by women?
Women almost entirely work in comedy only when they are the straight 'man' (you know what I mean) to the incompetent or stupid or deluded etc comedy male. There are some great exceptions, but they really are exceptions rather than the rule.
.
I'm not really keen to get drawn into a big debate here BUT the issue is the writing and the culture, not the performers. I'm sure it may surprise you but women can act, even a comic role! But we are culturally dominated by white men writing funny stuff that they have worked on for their male mates to perform. It is created in cosy pubchatty environments and often the work of mates like Curtis and Elton, Pete n Dud, Skinner and Baddiel or your favourites, Edmondson and Mayall.
I know lots of naturally funny women socially, perhaps you do too.
Give good actresses enough chances and they'll go box office.
Many badly written roles for women in comedy films are the result of Hollywood insistence on eye candy or romance.
There are, happily, many examples of good looking women whose funny side was under wraps until someone had the imagination to offer them the right script - Meg Ryan, Joanna Lumley, Frances Mcdormand, Cameron Diaz, Felicity Kendall, Miranda Richardson...
I'll stick my hand up and say that I find Melissa McCarthy genuinely funny.
Still, humour is a fickle thing, and I'd think that if someone's decided that there are no funny women then there'll be no dissuading them. You might as well try to convince a UKIP voter that some Muslims aren't terrorists, or a radical feminist that it's possible for a man not to be a sexist prick. It's not going to happen.
If its based round gender politics it will be crap. But if they make it as much that they are underdogs and not taken seriously in the film by both men and other women perhaps it could work. But if its just an "equality" message - it will be crap, tiring and old, for women already run the world. :smile:
They are all women, so will be cast as underdogs. Always women are the underclass in hollywood films. If it was made by Quentin Tarantino it would be interesting, but its not, and is going to be a pure effort on appealing to women only I bet. They (hollywood) look for what creates the biggest divide between people and make a film around it. Whatever creates the biggest reaction, a bigger portion of that 'type' will go to watch it.
Its going to be a feminist take on the original I reckon. With women playing/taking over the masculine roles.
Edit:
Hollywood and the film industry are run by jews, as are all countries currencies except Iran, North Korea and Cuba (As of 2015). So its always going to have females as second class. Only 3 countries left from being owned by the Rothschild empire......
This is quite a depressing thread, middle aged men tutting dismissively with little snips of cynicism.
Chances are this film won't be top drawer. Few are. Quite possibly the director will cock up a franchise some here have a strong nostalgic buzz about.
back in t'good olde days haha.. it's all about pleasing the venture capitalist's and money men backing the film... oh and if a dose of nostalgia gets more folk in , then even better.
there is a saying everyone here probably has heard, hollywood ran out of idea's years ago and is doing a lot of recycling. more is fighting for our attention = less funds for big films etc. and a lot of the reboots / remakes just play safe.
and the big problem , as we have seen so many films.. so much comedy etc.. we are a far harder audience to please
Comments
You could capture Harold Ramis and have him help write a decent film. ;)
It was ok, had good moments, but it had a lot to live up to, and came about 4 years too late...
Didn't they screw up enough with Crystal Skull...
I don't like this world anymore :-(
I can't say what went through my head when I saw this.....
....It's very very politically incorrect :lol:
And I like opinionated middle age women (but not Roseanne Barr types), who are real man-loving women, not liberals, feminists, and libertarians :-) If these four women are of that sort all the better, I don't really know anything about any of them.
The first film's appeal was that it was an underdogs storyline in many respects, and it was designed as a vehicle for Murray, and to be conclusive, not a franchise- yes the business was a franchise in the film, but the film makers and actors resisted making a sequel. It became a franchise (if two movies in 30 years is a franchise). This one should be conclusive again if they make it like the first.
And the first one just unfolded, developed around their growing success. No big bad dude lurking in the manner of other films, they were finding out about something that happened 100 years earlier. Totally against formula the way they did it. So maybe they can make something of it. But I can't stand films based on gender politics if they follow that theme.
But heres the thing humour works because you can get it, or its incongruent, not because its sophisticated or subtle, or flippant, so IMO - humour which relies on things women only understand would make this fail, or merely making fun of men. The old jokes are always the best. So if they revive the best of the old jokes and have it both uplifting and scary. It will have something of the ingredients of the original. There is no reason why three or four women ghostbusters could not work, but it be funnier to have a man too. Billy Murray : "Hey I may work with the chicks but that doesn't mean..." line from Scrooged anyone?
Everyone says "its brave using an all women cast" - why, that just makes it a film about something else.
The original had a mix of unabashedly childlike and innocent humour, and some a bit more grown-up that just went right over kids heads. But its humour was gentle, self-deprecatory, and motivational : "Suck in the guts guys, we're the Ghostbusters." :lol:
If its based round gender politics it will be crap. But if they make it as much that they are underdogs and not taken seriously in the film by both men and other women perhaps it could work. But if its just an "equality" message - it will be crap, tiring and old, for women already run the world. :smile:
The three/ four original ghostbusters, were not underdogs because of gender, they were underdogs because nobody at that time took the notion of ghosts very seriously. Is someone going to tell me it is easier now for men to be taken seriously?
They might have a hope if they avoid feminist themes , like a beartrap. And protray them as real man loving (not devouring) mamas.
Not saying this will be bad if they go on with it, there just needs to be a why for making it, other than women can be ghostbusters too.
With an ensemble cast of women.
And the alien isn't an alien. It's a shapeshifting kitten, that assimilates care bears, that came to Earth on a rainbow...
(And no, i'm not sexist, just indicating the ridiculousness of the premise - taking something that worked so well and changing it into something different.)
(And I agree dmsmith, I just wasn't going to quote an entire essay :p)
What about Star Trek II...IV and VI?
I am more hopeful now than when I first seen the thread (just my fondness for the first film, but they might be able to do it).
It could be almost up to the original if they do it right with the same mostly innocous humour. If its politically correct it will be crap. Good chance to restore some sanity with it.
But I am not going to think about it till it comes out, if it comes out.
Well see, they weren't technically sequels to Ghostbusters now were they :p
:lol:
They did make another 'thing' with a female lead. Don't remember the shape shifting kitten though. :-D
I do but it wasn't a movie it was a sh*t game for the PS2 and XBOX :D
Originally Posted by Saboteur
Jugding by the comments i'm in a minority, but quite like gb 2.
I tried to like it and liked the music, and at times it was bidding to be almost as good.
That would be just the right sort of thing (minus the care bears), funny but yet scary - a giant kitten with electric sparks coming from its eyes. They should watch The Goodies for ideas I reckon.
In fact the end should be in London at the Telecom Tower but at night, and they have to take the Ghostbusters car across by boat.
And just before that happens they could be up against Bryan Ferry as a sort of male Gozer with a hooded falcon, that they have to exorcise.
This will only succeed by being crazy yet incredibly sane.
"Viggy, Viggy, Viggy. you have been a bad monkey!!" :lol:
That'd be a terrible idea for The Thing, but it might just work with Ghostbusters. At least it's right up there with the Marshmallow Man as destroyer of the universe.
Cynicism based on past experience, sadly. How often is a film reboot, or a sequel made twenty-five years after the last one in the series, or a comedy film based around women any good?
No, you're missing the point. If the writers were women then I wouldn't be so critical, but women performers mostly just aren't funny. Granted there aren't many comedy films whose stars are entirely or mainly women, but there are some, and there are lots more films where a woman/women play a large part in the otherwise male comedy, but how many of these films are regarded as good, let alone classics. How many famous comedy scenes from films can you even remember where at least half of the funny bits were peformed by women?
Women almost entirely work in comedy only when they are the straight 'man' (you know what I mean) to the incompetent or stupid or deluded etc comedy male. There are some great exceptions, but they really are exceptions rather than the rule.
I'm certainly not hoping it will be a disaster, but I think it will be.
I did read that Joan Rivers investigated why there are so few women comedians, and she came to the conclusion that most women don't like being laughed at.
Yeah awesome :p
16 year old Tyra Banks a 2:08 :D
I know, but it was one woman, not a cast of women, and actually (I may be alone here) I thought it was rather good... Effects were a tad ropey compared to Rob Bottins from the 1982 one, but yep... pretty good...
Missed a trick with the kitten though...
Ah, I just make this crap up on the spot. I could pretend some thought goes into it, but i'd just be lying to everybody. And myself :lol:
The music was good (thanks Boozy, saved me youtubing that ;) )
I may have to rewatch the sequel now; it's been a while, so it might have improved with age...
Smoking doesn't really bother me in films at all, though I don't smoke myself. But some of the health fanatics today would even be against Twinkies :lol:
This scene would probably horrify them.
I want to disagree with you tbh, but you might have a point. However for me there's hardly any funny male comedians about now either. any comedy that is actually funny is an exception rather than the rule these days. since 2000 I can think of hardly any comedy movies that genuinely made me laugh. Meet The Parents did, A Mighty Wind did, and the recent Alan Partridge movie did. struggling to name any more. US pumps out woeful dreck like the Hangover/American Pie/Horrible Bosses kind of semi-gross out, semi-'buddy flick' type movies most featuring the same line ups that are just not funny. I don't think it's just women it's everyone. :)
edit. Coen Bros make funny movies when they want to I suppose. they seem to have the ability to make any actors they work with appear funny though.
I really think "darker and grittier" as said earlier would be totally the wrong direction. They should return to the manner of humour of the first variously a bit oddball, and gently self-deprecatory.
I'm not really keen to get drawn into a big debate here BUT the issue is the writing and the culture, not the performers. I'm sure it may surprise you but women can act, even a comic role! But we are culturally dominated by white men writing funny stuff that they have worked on for their male mates to perform. It is created in cosy pubchatty environments and often the work of mates like Curtis and Elton, Pete n Dud, Skinner and Baddiel or your favourites, Edmondson and Mayall.
I know lots of naturally funny women socially, perhaps you do too.
Give good actresses enough chances and they'll go box office.
Many badly written roles for women in comedy films are the result of Hollywood insistence on eye candy or romance.
There are, happily, many examples of good looking women whose funny side was under wraps until someone had the imagination to offer them the right script - Meg Ryan, Joanna Lumley, Frances Mcdormand, Cameron Diaz, Felicity Kendall, Miranda Richardson...
Still, humour is a fickle thing, and I'd think that if someone's decided that there are no funny women then there'll be no dissuading them. You might as well try to convince a UKIP voter that some Muslims aren't terrorists, or a radical feminist that it's possible for a man not to be a sexist prick. It's not going to happen.
They are all women, so will be cast as underdogs. Always women are the underclass in hollywood films. If it was made by Quentin Tarantino it would be interesting, but its not, and is going to be a pure effort on appealing to women only I bet. They (hollywood) look for what creates the biggest divide between people and make a film around it. Whatever creates the biggest reaction, a bigger portion of that 'type' will go to watch it.
Its going to be a feminist take on the original I reckon. With women playing/taking over the masculine roles.
Edit:
Hollywood and the film industry are run by jews, as are all countries currencies except Iran, North Korea and Cuba (As of 2015). So its always going to have females as second class. Only 3 countries left from being owned by the Rothschild empire......
My ZX Art Music Page
Carlos Michelis Theme
mind you I found slimer from the original to be properly scary, although to be fair I was only about 6
back in t'good olde days haha.. it's all about pleasing the venture capitalist's and money men backing the film... oh and if a dose of nostalgia gets more folk in , then even better.
there is a saying everyone here probably has heard, hollywood ran out of idea's years ago and is doing a lot of recycling. more is fighting for our attention = less funds for big films etc. and a lot of the reboots / remakes just play safe.
and the big problem , as we have seen so many films.. so much comedy etc.. we are a far harder audience to please