excelsiorlef
Member
So GB 1 and 2 was gimmicky?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Ghostbusters movie group shot
- Thread starter LiK
- Start date
- Status
So GB 1 and 2 was gimmicky?
They weren't going by gimmicks, and trends when they hired those actors. It was organic, unlike this new one that comes off as forced.
excelsiorlef
Member
And they are here?
I can't believe that you haven't noticed this trend in Hollywood today.
Look I've got no problem with this trend, but making it completely female, instead of making it half male, half female is making it too obvious.
LyleLanley
Banned
Shouldn't you wait until you actually see the movie to find out if this is just a gimmick?
excelsiorlef
Member
What's obvious?
Fine, but casting Hemsworth as the male Janine is a red flag.
LyleLanley
Banned
I don't know, that sounds like it could be funny to me.
We'll see after Vacation(where he'll be playing another gender swapped character(Damn is that all Hemsworth can play after Thor?)).
TheExecutive
Member
To use the ghostbusters name and not tie in the previous movies is pretty much just using the name for money. Are they really ignoring the other movies?
TheExecutive
Member
Haha ok. The casting screams publicity stunt.
LyleLanley
Banned
If it was some no name director and women picked exclusively for their looks I'd agree with you but I trust Feig picked the cast for the right reason.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Isn't every Hollywood production, by definition, a publicity stunt? Or are you suggesting they should've gone with unknown actors?
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
Can someone point me to some non SNL Leslie Jones material? Based on her SNL run, she's def the weak link.
excelsiorlef
Member
It's also using the concept.
Why? Other than Wiig and McCarthy the other 2 are hardly publicity stunt level names and Feig has a working relationship with both McCarthy and Wiig.
Great news dude!! So, that means no more pics?
Candeldandel
Member
HOLY CRAP! Grats, dude! That's so exciting!!! You gotta tell us EVERYTHING!... I mean, that you can. When are you gonna be on set? How long does it take?? Is it just one day or more? I'm so curious :<
Battersea Power Station
Member
I think they just wanted to cast 4 women, not make some progressive statement.
I mean it's Anchorman 2, everyone outside Will Ferrell was shit. Even Steve Carell was awful.
God Anchorman 2 was disappointing.
It says something about the state of the film industry that casting four women can be taken as a progressive statement at all.
Dude, congrats! Guess this means you better stop with the pics and videosLet us know your impressions though - if you don't fall under an NDA that is!
Thanks guys. I should probably be a bit smarter about respecting the privacy of the set for sure. I was offered three days but was only able to take one due to my day job, starting tomorrow.
Who knows, maybe I'll be able to do more, but it's a sensitive time at the office this week and I don't want to screw my team over too bad.
BattleMonkey
Member
Murray, Akroid, were big comedy actors at the time, it wasn't like lightning in a bottle it was an all star cast. You also had big names like Weaver in it, Morranis was known and so was Ramis for his previous hit comedies. The casting is not much different here.
Then there's what happened to relative unknown Ernie Hudson's part after he was casted.
Candeldandel
Member
Well whatever happens, you got a day on set, that's badass in itself! It'd be awesome if you could get more, but it's good you'll be there for your co-workers
Make sure you let us know what you wear so we can try to spot you in the movie!
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Having women as the main characters in a movie is a gimmick or a publicity stunts. You guys are something else.
Gimmick would be a Paul Feig comedy movie with male actors =P
You are like the new Ron Jeremy !
...no wait xD
You are like the new Ron Jeremy !
...no wait xD
It says a lot about the state of the industry that having all-female main characters could be called a gimmick yet no one would ever say the same about all-male main characters.
I think I'll still stick with the notion that they should have made this take place after Ghostbusters 2, in the same universe but a different chapter of Ghostbusters.
They haven't really gained anything from making it a remake, other than the constant criticism, and people are much less likely to even give it a chance, being blinded by loyalty to the original. People will be expecting Stay Puft, and weary of them messing it up, but if it was after the other films, people wouldn't care if they didn't show up because they were already defeated. Sure, they could come back, but new villains would make more sense.
I don't mind what I've seen of it, but I think they could've done more with a continuation rather than a remake, despite what Feig said about not wanting to be tied to an existing continuity, something I think may come back to bite him on the ass if the film does bad.
They haven't really gained anything from making it a remake, other than the constant criticism, and people are much less likely to even give it a chance, being blinded by loyalty to the original. People will be expecting Stay Puft, and weary of them messing it up, but if it was after the other films, people wouldn't care if they didn't show up because they were already defeated. Sure, they could come back, but new villains would make more sense.
I don't mind what I've seen of it, but I think they could've done more with a continuation rather than a remake, despite what Feig said about not wanting to be tied to an existing continuity, something I think may come back to bite him on the ass if the film does bad.
A Link to the Past
Banned
So basically, four women is a gimmick and four men is "well duh"
Ah, so because Kristen Wiig was apparently bad in one movie (which also happens to be a pile of steaming shit itself), that's a bad sign.
So you must hate Ghostbusters since Dan Aykroyd was in shit movies, and so was Chevy Chase. You ever see those Garfield movies?
Ghostbusters has been whored out since the begining. Countless games, cartoons, comics, etc that added very little or nothing to the original.
JasonUresti
Member
The cartoon and many of the comics were excellent.
Indeed, Real Ghostbusters did a better job of continuing the characters than the second movie did. It was also a show that had the Ghostbusters facing everything from Inuit primordial demons, Lovecraft's Great Old Ones and The Four Horsemen to Dickens Christmas Ghosts, Irvings Headless Horseman and the ghost of Charles Foster Kane.
Psyrgery ES
Member
Suits, ecto-1 and proton packs am cry.
Don't have anything to say about the cast though! Not until I watch it.
Don't have anything to say about the cast though! Not until I watch it.
Like, the last thing you can say about this is that it's "soulless". Feig has a ton of passion for the franchise and McCarthy loves the original film.
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
I thought the same but after having thought about it for a while I think a reboot the only sensible choice.
Making a sequel comes with all sorts of expectations and you are saddled with canon storylines, how do you please EVERY Ghostbusters fan who probably loves very different things about both movies. With it being a reboot people know not to expect any referential stuff outside of maybe a few callbacks.
How do you write a third film about catching ghosts that hasn't already been written about in the other two films?
WordAssassin
Member
To be fair there's actually a lot they can do that wasn't done in the first movie. They could get into the science of ghosts, and what makes a person a ghost, and if ghosts from different regions of the planet behave differently.
There's also many AMAZING stories to mine from the IDW comics that don't have anything to do with the first/second movies and are legitimately good story and character progressions.
TheSlySoul
Member
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
I mean yeah.... I hope one is a nerd like egon was
Boy Wander
Member
For me it's more about I grew up with Ghostbusters and it's one of my favourite movie memories from the 80s. It isn't just about the women leads to me, it's more that there are some movies you just shouldn't remake because the casting was spot on. Sometimes that would mean being because of changing gender, sometimes not. In the same way, a male lead in an Alien or Thelma and Louise remake wouldn't be the same and in the same way that the Total Recall or Robocop reboots I refuse to watch, because without Arnie, it is no longer Total Recall and without Verhoeven / Weller, it is no longer Robocop.
Gender swapping is a gimmick, though. It was started by Adventure Time, and wrestling fanboys who drew their favorite wrestlers as women to put on deviant art.
Is it gender swapping if they're different characters though? I mean, I appreciate they fit into similar roles than the first cast, but I think that's inevitable despite the gender of the cast.
They aren't the same characters due to a technicality. But they are most likely playing the same personality, just with boobs, and make-up.
I'm pretty sure that's to be expected though, regardless of gender, and it says more about the creative bankruptcy of movies these days, or at least just a fear of doing something new. it's not some feminist agenda.
For example, I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot of people fall into similar archetypes in the new star wars, and it'll have nothing to do with gender swapping.
Yup, those are things women normally have. Good observation.
I know for a fact from the script leak this is not the case at all. No need to make up bullshit.
...Meaty thighs, tiny feet, bad bowling averages, vertically challenged, etc...
- Status