Support NeoGAF

[Nappuccino]

I disagree, misogynist.

He could be both. But he's definitely Pillville.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I had no idea people rode this hard for Ghostbusters

cynicism and faux outrage.

 

[Resident4t.]

Other than Kristen Wiig, that cast does not inspire confidence.

 

[SoundsOfScience]

I'm cool with this casting except for McCarthy. Should have just gone full SNL and got Maya Rudolph.

 

[AkuMifune]

Better than Seth Rogan being involved I suppose.

 

[Azriell]

Better than Seth Rogan being involved I suppose.

I was upset at first. Thanks for putting things in perspective.

 

[terrene]

when some of the reactions seem to be "wahhh wahhhhh it's just the old cast with tits and girl power!" then, yeah, you can say what i said with a straight face. Seems some people have qualms outside of that though, so i'll grant you that much.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly suspect sexism in many of the complaints about the cast, but I just don't like knee-jerk "sexist!" accusations.

because i don't want the same exact movie all over again, i want something that takes the skeleton of GB's and makes it its own thing. Otherwise, i'd just watch the first 2 movies till the end of time and be done with it.

To me, ghostbusters is about a rag tag group of 4 people coming together to bust ghosts and that, in turn, will hopefully make them feel good and make me laugh a few times. that's the core of the experience, no? So let them mix this up so that new people might actually go see this and that the old fans get something new.

Bolded got me lol

I agree, essentially it's about the four characters busting ghosts, maybe feeling good, and if cooler heads prevail, not being afraid of no ghosts. But losing the firehouse and giving them nice gear - I can see people being upset that so much flavor of the original is going to be gone. You even use the phrase "rag tag" in what you imagine the Ghostbusters to be, but are people with nice gear "rag tag?" Could be trouble, who knows, but setting and origin story count for a lot. If the Ninja Turtles used guns instead of ancient ninja weapons and were based in a nice condo in the Upper West Side instead of the sewer it would probably be fuckin weird, no?

 

[rmt92]

I'm cool with this casting except for McCarthy. Should have just gone full SNL and got Maya Rudolph.

Maya Rudolph would have been so rad as a ghostbuster.

 

[SoundsOfScience]

Maya Rudolph would have been so rad as a ghostbuster.

Right? She is so underrated, she should be doing stuff like this and not shit like Grow Ups 2 and the Angry Birds movie.

 

[rmt92]

Right? She is so underrated, she should be doing stuff like this and not shit like Grow Ups 2 and the Angry Birds movie.

Absolutely. Have you seen The Way, Way Back? She was excellent in that.

Do people honestly think Tina Fey or Amy Poehler are good choices for a Ghostbusters movie or is it just a easy thing to say given the lack of relevant female comedians?

Tinay Fey and Amy Poehler have ties to SNL, which Ghostbusters also has. That's probably why a lot of people are saying that. Besides that, I could see Amy in the movie, but Tina not so much for some reason. I'd have to figure out why.

 

[BertramCooper]

Ignoring the weird detour into Akroyd/Ramis authorship, which neither I nor the poster you replied to mentioned. Anyway!

That was addressing why the ancillary material shouldn't really be regarded as anything worthwhile, as far as the films are concerned. They're just that - ancillary.

Sure, you *can* make a Ghostbusters movie without it being about a ragtag group of nerds who start a business, or having it take place in a converted firehouse (complete with alarms for emergency calls), or having the nerds use cobbled-together gear (including their converted car) -- and instead have them use slick gear.

You can also reboot Star Trek and change the scale/economy of everything there, too -- reversing the slickifying of the new Ghostbusters (since The Enterprise is on such a grand scale), I guess that would mean Captain Kirk flying a jalopy around the galaxy as the leader of a group of mercenaries.

You could reboot the Ninja Turtles so that they don't live in the sewers anymore and eat sushi.

You could reboot Back to the Future and have the time travel vessel be a rigged-up Lay-Z-Boy, or maybe have Doc be working for the CIA instead of being on his own.

You could reboot Rocky and have it take place in Korea and make Rocky a Tae Kwon Do expert instead of a boxer.

But why the fuck would you?

Because there's no rule saying you have to. It's a new canon, and one based on a film series that can barely be called a film series because it was so brief. If Sony is fine with the direction Feig is taking, I'll wait and see how it turns out before bashing it mercilessly. It's kind of gross that some people in this thread seem to want this film to be formulaic.

If the film ends up being not great, at least all of the diehard Ghostbusters fans (because apparently there is such a thing) won't have to worry about it tainting the original two (even though the second was already lousy) because they're not directly connected.

This post lays out some legit concerns and you just called him crazy for no reason. I dunno if you're riding hard because you're worried about sexism or what, but I don't feel it.

WordAssassin isn't being sexist (though many posters here clearly are); he's just making a strange, inconsistent argument. He's been saying that this film is so disconnected that it shouldn't even be called Ghostbusters while also saying that it's a rehash of the origin story. It doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

 

[The Beard]

It's EGON Spengler, not SHEGON Spengler
It's Ray STANTZ, not Ray WOMANTZ
It's Peter VENKMAN, not Peter NOTAMAN
It's Winston ZEDDEMORE, not Winston ZED-DAME-MORE

This reminds me of an old Conan sketch. They had Arnold Schwarzenegger's face on the screen and he was talking about how he is opposed to gay marriage in California.

He said, "It's Deuteronomy, not Do-it-to-me-Rodney. It's the book of Exodus, not Look at Rex's ass"

I don't endorse fake Arnold's beliefs by the way. I just loved those sketches.

 

[SoundsOfScience]

Absolutely. Have you seen The Way, Way Back? She was excellent in that.



Tinay Fey and Amy Poehler have ties to SNL, which Ghostbusters also has. That's probably why a lot of people are saying that. Besides that, I could see Amy in the movie, but Tina not so much for some reason. I'd have to figure out why.

I have not, I'll check it out!

 

[Aske]

Awesome, and finally!

I will say I find Jones' schtick on SNL a bit hacky (I think Sashir Zameda would have been a far better choice, especially given the rest of the cast), and I wish this wasn't another Melissa McCarthy vehicle because while I find her hilarious, her comedy is pretty one dimensional. This is clearly going to be much less subtle and much more goofball than the originals; but it's Ghostbusters - as long as Feig nails the balance between supernatural action movie and comedy, and as long as the actors all gel nicely on screen, this could still be really special.

Kate McKinnon is the cast's saving grace right now. Shame they didn't recruit more subtle comics to recapture the tone of the original.

Just for fun, I'd have gone with Nassim Pedrad in full dork mode, Erin Whitehead (or Alison Brie) as the wide-eyed rookie, Tina Fey as the reluctant voice of reason, and Cameron Esposito as the guns blazin' tank. All of these actors would bring far, far more to the table than the basic character-type labels I've given them; they'd have fascinating on-screen chemistry, they can all be both subtle or blatantly hilarious (often at the same time), and they'd all feel extremely fresh (as beloved as Fey is for her writing and TV work, she's not starred in many movies). Bonus: Chelsea Peretti as their secretary/PR manager. Or Jason Bateman if we're sticking to the gender swapping.


Edit: Very disappointed to see so much gender whining.

 

[SoundsOfScience]

Awesome, and finally!

I will say I find Jones' schtick on SNL a bit hacky (I think Sashir Zameda would have been a far better choice, especially given the rest of the cast), and I wish this wasn't another Melissa McCarthy vehicle because while I find her hilarious, her comedy is pretty one dimensional. This is clearly going to be much less subtle and much more goofball than the originals; but it's Ghostbusters - as long as Feig nails the balance between supernatural action movie and comedy, and as long as the actors all gel nicely on screen, this could still be really special.

Kate McKinnon is the cast's saving grace right now. Shame they didn't recruit more subtle comics to recapture the tone of the original.

Just for fun, I'd have gone with Nassim Pedrad in full dork mode, Erin Whitehead (or Alison Brie) as the wide-eyed rookie, Tina Fey as the reluctant voice of reason, and Cameron Esposito as the guns blazin' tank. All of these actors would bring far, far more to the table than the basic character-type labels I've given them; they'd have fascinating on-screen chemistry, they can all be both subtle or blatantly hilarious (often at the same tine), and they'd all feel extremely fresh (as beloved as Fey is for her writing and TV work, she's not starred in many movies). Bonus: Chelsea Peretti as their secretary/PR manager. Or Jason Bateman if we're sticking to the gender swapping.

Damn, I would have loved Peretti and Alison Brie in this!

 

[starchild excalibur]

I knew it wouldn't happen with Feig set to direct, but a part of me still thought it'd be awesome to have someone like Louis C.K. in one of those roles.

 

[Kain]

I just rewatched Ghosbusters recently and I have to say, there are a lot, I mean A LOT of penis and sex jokes/scenery. I say this because this is pretty much a guaranteed PG rating which means there probably won't be any of that. And that's not good

I'm not seeing penis jokes with the female cast, either. Maybe vagina jokes? Is that considered sexist?

 

[MutFox]

Hope it's better than Ghostbusters 2... (Nothing can be worse)
Though I don't think it'll be better than the original Ghostbusters.

I love that 1st one.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I knew it wouldn't happen with Feig set to direct, but a part of me still thought it'd be awesome to have someone like Louis C.K. in one of those roles.

If they don't get Murray for the Walter Peck-esque role, I think going after Louie would be a good call.

I. I say this because this is pretty much a guaranteed PG rating which means there probably won't be any of that.

Nobody at a major studio is making PG movies that aren't aimed DIRECTLY at children ages 5-10. Nobody. This will be a PG-13. The question is how far they feel like stretching it.

Considering the original movie was absolutely not for kids, I'm willing to bet they're going to try stretching it at least as far as the original

He's been saying that this film is so disconnected that it shouldn't even be called Ghostbusters while also saying that it's a rehash of the origin story. It doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

Yeah, there's a TON of that cognitive dissonance in the thread. It mostly comes from the almost reflexive response to shit on the mere idea of something previously recognized maybe being reworked as a means of claiming ownership over that thing, and lodging protest that said ownership isn't being recognized.

That's almost always all it is. Which is why arguments that go deeper than that tend to crumble under any sort of sustained weight unless they actually HAVE valid complaints as to why it won't work.

For a lot of people, they don't. It's just "NO. MINE." but with more syllables.

 

[Aske]

Hope it's better than Ghostbusters 2... (Nothing can be worse)
Though I don't think it'll be better than the original Ghostbusters.

I love that 1st one.

Ghostbusters 2 wasn't as great as the original, but it's still better than 90% of the garbage Hollywood pumps out these days.

Not to derail the thread, but does anyone know why the first two decades of the 21st century ushered in a golden age of television while simultaneously dragging us into a dark age of cinema?

 

[Reclaimer.]

At least they got actress that looks like Bill Murray.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Not to derail the thread, but does anyone know why the first two decades of the 21st century ushered in a golden age of television while simultaneously dragging us into a dark age of cinema?

Short answer: Writers realized TV was where they had power. Technology made the visual gap between TV & Film almost non-existent if so desired.

Long answer: 2014 was one of the best years for film in a LONG time. It's not a dark age of cinema at all, unless you're focused solely on large-budget popular entertainments to the exclusion of the majority of movies NOT made in that milieu where good work is still being done. But that advancement of technology has introduced a mindset where people are much more inclined to wait until home video, or to watch catalog stuff via streaming (or their backlog of DVDs), or just mainline entire television series in one go, all of which are cheaper and easier than paying 20 bucks to hit a theater for a blockbuster film that is absolutely designed to play more like an amusement park ride than it is a movie because that's the only way studios feel they can justify the expense and the bother of going out to the movies anymore.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Meh just seems like another remake I can pretend doesn't exist.

 

[bananafactory]

Not to derail the thread, but does anyone know why the first two decades of the 21st century ushered in a golden age of television while simultaneously dragging us into a dark age of cinema?

I feel like there's been a ton of amazing movies post-2000.

/shrug

 

[Forceatowulf]

I'm a little shocked by the reactions in here. All of these women are very talented...

I mean Damn, at list wait until a trailer out script leak before you decide to lose it.

As for me, I'm all in. Let's see what happens.

 

[Endo Punk]

At first I was like "woah" but now I believe it's the right choice to go with an all female cast. The og Ghostbusters is so legendary and ingrained into our childhood that the only way to remotely succeed without the og cast is to go in a different direction. I mean the guys played off each other so well that having a new all male cast will just be seen as poor mans version or something.

 

[PseudoKirby]

but what about egon?

 

[PaNaMa]

you're absolutely right, misogynists come in all shapes and size. that post should be updated to reflect that.



What makes you think this will be some sort of GIRL POWER production when no one involved has ever done such a thing?

My unwavering pessimism, I suppose.

 

[bananafactory]

At first I was like "woah" but now I believe it's the right choice to go with an all female cast. The og Ghostbusters is so legendary and ingrained into our childhood that the only way to remotely succeed without the og cast is to go in a different direction. I mean the guys played off each other so well that having a new all male cast will just be seen as poor mans version or something.

I agree. I don't want a half assed sequel or quasi-reboot in the same universe. If we can't get a real Ghostbusters 3, this is the next best thing.

Lots of talent and a completely fresh direction. I'm super excited.

 

[CrichtonKicks]

Honestly, I'm not invested in its success or failure either way, but considering Sony also financed another much-loved '80s film reboot flop earlier this year in RoboCop I'm surprised they're going through it all again with Ghostbusters.

There is no comparison. RoboCop was a reasonably sized surprise hit in 1987 making $57 million. The remake had zero starpower.

Ghostbusters was an absolutely massive hit in 1984 ($229 million in 1984 is insane). And the remake is being made by a team with an excellent box office track track record. I think this movie is a pretty safe bet on Sony's part.

 

[Unbound By Death]

I'll assume they are from US tv shows or something.

Doubt I'll lever watch this though. Ghostbusters was a huge part of my childhood and it's perfect how it is, so I have no interest in a reboot.

(Just want to point out that it's not because of the female thing. I wouldn't watch a reboot even if it was a male cast)

Yea no matter the gender of the cast I wouldn't want to ruin my childhood either.

 

[dalin80]

Gb2 really isn't as bad as many claim, asides from an obvious phoned in performance from bill Murray it's quite enjoyable.

 

[Cybit]

:/

Is hollywood really that dead for ideas? Transformers, TMNT, the freaking Power Rangers reboot? <sigh>

Hopefully it is good - but I don't like this entire "let's remake every good movie from the 80s" kick Hollywood has been on. Feels like corporate suits trying to avoid risk at all costs.

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

No Emma Stone? Hype dead.

Gutted. She had Venkman written all over her.

 

[Clinton514]

It's EGON Spengler, not SHEGON Spengler
It's Ray STANTZ, not Ray WOMANTZ
It's Peter VENKMAN, not Peter NOTAMAN
It's Winston ZEDDEMORE, not Winston ZED-DAME-MORE

I had a good laugh there.

 

[Sanjuro]

Gb2 really isn't as bad as many claim, asides from an obvious phoned in performance from bill Murray it's quite enjoyable.

It's just bad in comparison. Again, still horrified to find people who enjoy it more than the original.

 

[IndieJones]

McCarthy playing the Stantz role while channeling her super-charming old-school Gilmore Girls days would be amazing. She's only really turned intolerable in the last three or four years, to be honest.

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

And I don't want to see any of the original cast appearing in this as different characters. I hate it when that happens.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

I only know the girl from Mike & Molly, at least she's funny though.

 

[Pillville]

:/

Is hollywood really that dead for ideas? Transformers, TMNT, the freaking Power Rangers reboot? <sigh>

Hopefully it is good - but I don't like this entire "let's remake every good movie from the 80s" kick Hollywood has been on. Feels like corporate suits trying to avoid risk at all costs.

All the remakes/reboots anger me, and it has nothing to do with changing the gender, race, etc.. of the characters.

Just look at all the upcoming reboots:
http://www.eonline.com/news/534413/31-upcoming-film-reboots-and-sequels-that-are-completely-unnecessary

 

[Clinton514]

starting to feel like some of the GGs are bubbling up in this thread.

I have absolutely no idea what that means. Good Guys? Grey Goose?

 

[Mad Season]

Melissa McCarthy is a one hit wonder IMO. She has a schtick that is already tired

 

[CadetMahoney]

This reminds me of an old Conan sketch. They had Arnold Schwarzenegger's face on the screen and he was talking about how he is opposed to gay marriage in California.

 

[MHWilliams]

Sure, you *can* make a Ghostbusters movie without it being about a ragtag group of nerds who start a business, or having it take place in a converted firehouse (complete with alarms for emergency calls), or having the nerds use cobbled-together gear (including their converted car) -- and instead have them use slick gear.

You can also reboot Star Trek and change the scale/economy of everything there, too -- reversing the slickifying of the new Ghostbusters (since The Enterprise is on such a grand scale), I guess that would mean Captain Kirk flying a jalopy around the galaxy as the leader of a group of mercenaries.

You could reboot the Ninja Turtles so that they don't live in the sewers anymore and eat sushi.

You could reboot Back to the Future and have the time travel vessel be a rigged-up Lay-Z-Boy, or maybe have Doc be working for the CIA instead of being on his own.

You could reboot Rocky and have it take place in Korea and make Rocky a Tae Kwon Do expert instead of a boxer.

But why the fuck would you?

It's called adaptation. Things change. Arrow's Oliver Queen isn't DC Comics Oliver Queen. Things shift. The Karate Kid (2010) wasn't about Karate and there was no Mr. Miyagi, but the spirit of the previous film was in full force and it worked. Things adapt. All You Need is Kill is a story of nihilism, of the relentless drive to survive in the face of certain death; Edge of Tomorrow is a Hollywood action film with a cool premise.

I don't need slavish devotion to the original concept or creation. Play around. How far can the concept go? Where else can you take it? That's why I love Kamen Rider, Gundam, the Mission: Impossible films, and even the Fast franchise. They play within the confines of the same basic idea.

They want to because the name or original concept resonates in some way with people. Past that, the final product has little bearing on the original. The new Ninja Turtles film did little to diminish the original film or the Mirage comics. (The cartoons and live-action films weren't much like the comics, which varied in tone on their own.)

Which is to say, I completely disagree with your premise.

 

[Sanjuro]

McCarthy playing the Stantz role while channeling her super-charming old-school Gilmore Girls days would be amazing. She's only really turned intolerable in the last three or four years, to be honest.

I think this is the other issue. I don't think these women have to conform to the pre-existing roles.

 

[DragonSworne]

So what's the premise?

 

[Sanjuro]

So what's the premise?

Men worldwide are inflicted with a crippling ghost disease.

 

[terrene]

It's called adaptation. Things change. Arrow's Oliver Queen isn't DC Comics Oliver Queen. Things shift. The Karate Kid (2010) wasn't about Karate and there was no Mr. Miyagi, but the spirit of the previous film was in full force and it worked. Things adapt. All You Need is Kill is a story of nihilism, of the relentless drive to survive in the face of certain death; Edge of Tomorrow is a Hollywood action film with a cool premise.

I don't need slavish devotion to the original concept or creation. Play around. How far can the concept go? Where else can you take it? That's why I love Kamen Rider, Gundam, the Mission: Impossible films, and even the Fast franchise. They play within the confines of the same basic idea.

They want to because the name or original concept resonates in some way with people. Past that, the final product has little bearing on the original. The new Ninja Turtles film did little to diminish the original film or the Mirage comics. (The cartoons and live-action films weren't much like the comics, which varied in tone on their own.)

Which is to say, I completely disagree with your premise.

I can see you worked hard on this post, but you seem to forget that many of the new entries in these amazing new imaginings that you're so fond of were fucking terrible. Are you seriously going to bat for your argument with the latter entries in the Karate Kid, Ninja Turtle, Mission Impossible, and Fast franchises? Why not bring up CG Smurfs and Chipmunks, or The Invasion, or Vince Vaughn's totally unneeded Psycho remake, or that Guess Who's Coming To Dinner remake, or Tim Burton's shitty Planet of the Apes and Alice reboots, or any other number of complete failures of this idea?

If that's where you hope Ghostbusters is going with things, I can see why people are concerned. Those all did a lot to harm their franchises, I don't care what you say.

 

[Beerman462]

I can't help feeling this is a cash grab. It also doesn't seem to meant for fans of the first two movies. Regardless of the all female cast/casting choice, the choice of director and screenplay writer leaves me thinking this movie won't be great. Even if they did a great job, I doubt I could ever separate it from the source materiel, but I could be wrong.

Also, I checked out the IMDB and Dan Aykroyd is listed as a character writer. While I'm sure he is perfectly capable of writing new characters, this may be where some are getting the idea of gender swap characters.

 

[Sanjuro]

I can't help feeling this is a cash grab.

That is the primary reason for the existence of films.