[DarkSpectre]

Yeah it's a fun game that Alpha and I have lol.

And juror, Disney doesn't need damage control agents

[featofstrength]

Dude the presentation of women in Bridemaids is appalling the same way the representation of men in The Hangover is terrible. Bridemaids isn't progress. It's going the complete opposite way.

Could you explain you reasoning why you think this instead of just stating it matter of factly?

Not to encourage running in circles/running it into the ground, but...


ScarJo is reportedly leading a new R-rated female ensemble comedy:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Scarlett ... 28547.html
Wait...ScarJo is funny? Or is everyone else there to pad and balance out?

[Alphagaia]

They start out that way, but can say the same about these characters at the end of the movie, however?
It's almost if the movie shows you flawed humans that ultimately learn from their mistakes. See: the broken taillight.
The movie gives almost all these characters an redeeming arc. Except for mccarthy. She was still fat.

[featofstrength]

They start out that way, but can say the same about these characters at the end of the movie, however?
It's almost if the movie shows you flawed humans that ultimately learn from their mistakes. See: the broken taillight.
The movie gives almost all these characters an redeeming arc.

2 girls learn to live with each other when the leads life stabilizes (new business, boyfriends)? I would say 1/3 of these characters have an arch. I only saw it once, and honestly, most of these "characters" just seemed to fade away halfway thru the movie.

Except for mccarthy. She was still fat.

But was she ever funny?

...I guess that's an arch, at least.

[Alphagaia]

They start out that way, but can say the same about these characters at the end of the movie, however?
It's almost if the movie shows you flawed humans that ultimately learn from their mistakes. See: the broken taillight.
The movie gives almost all these characters an redeeming arc.

2 girls learn to live with each other when the leads life stabilizes (new business, boyfriends)? I would say 1/3 of these characters have an arch. I only saw it once, and honestly, most of these "characters" just seemed to fade away halfway thru the movie.

It goes beyond the two bridemaids who hate each other, but become best friends. It's also about the bored housewife that finds out why she has a lesbianside, the bride who reconnects with her old friend, the akward sister that learns to open up, etc.

Except for mccarthy. She was still fat.

But was she ever funny?

...I guess that's an arch, at least.

That was the joke.

[Slimered]

They start out that way, but can say the same about these characters at the end of the movie, however?
It's almost if the movie shows you flawed humans that ultimately learn from their mistakes. See: the broken taillight.
The movie gives almost all these characters an redeeming arc. Except for mccarthy. She was still fat.

Some people will only be happy if female characters are portrayed as Mary Sue figures.

[GhstbstrLMLIII]

Why does one call a reboot a lazy way out, though? It's not that hard to come up with a continuation either. It's just a preference.

Again, I completely understand that this is personal perspective and not something that we can prove either way, but I see it as the lazy way out because of the way Feig approached it. He stated he couldn't see a way to make the film where "in universe" the first movies existed. (I think there are plenty of ways he could have.) Then, he completely fell back to his comfort-zone. His go-to writer and 2 lead actresses he's worked with before (McCarthy several times). I see it as a way for him to make the supernatural movie he was wanting to do anyway - but use the logo and established franchise for extra publicity, without taking the time to understand what made that franchise so beloved in the first place or even mess with it since it didn't fit with his plan. He was never interested in making a sequel, but when Pascal gave him the green light to "hi-jack" (my word, obviously) the logo/name for this own purposes, he of course gladly jumped at it.

Side note: I do appreciate the actual discussion that we've worked towards in this forum.

[Alphagaia]

I'm not sure why using established names and a writer he has had great success with is a bad thing. Especially when he picked McKinnon and Lesley as relatively unknowns to break through with this movie.

As you said, reboot is just a preference. He could have made it canon, but he really wanted the evolution of ghost catching in there as he is a gear head. (His parents are scientists).

Also, like it or not. The script was written to be a GB movie. Which Sony hired Feig to do so. I can understand people are disappointed its not a continuation, but that does not mean they cannot call it Ghostbusters when it clearly is meant to be a new spin on Ghostbusters.

[Kingpin]

His go-to writer and 2 lead actresses he's worked with before (McCarthy several times).

I'll agree with you over the use of the logo and other familiar elements of the Ghostbusters franchise. But seeing as Ivan Reitman had his two lead actors from Stripes feature prominently in Ghostbusters, I think the point about reusing your lead actors isn't as convincing.

[Raystantz Italy]

Reitman wasn't remaking a cult movie.

[Kingpin]

Reitman wasn't remaking a cult movie.

Not the point I was talking about, but thank you for playing.

[GhstbstrLMLIII]

...he really wanted the evolution of ghost catching in there as he is a gear head...

Personally, I think he still could have easily done that. The science video they posted talked about the upgrades on the proton packs; cyclotron to synchrotron, etc. They could have explained those upgrades and advancements in the movie.

But seeing as Ivan Reitman had his two lead actors from Stripes feature prominently in Ghostbusters, I think the point about reusing your lead actors isn't as convincing.

Fair that there was a history with Ivan, Harold, and Bill; but I see a big difference there. Harold was specifically brought in to help tweak Dan's original idea. He was part of the creative process from very early on - before production started and before Bill was approached. I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything about McCarthy or Wiig being part of the story team here.

Ghostbusters was an homage to the spook movies that came before, like among others Hold that Ghost, The Ghost Breakers, and Scared Stiff. While being an homage, it was also something new and thread new ground. As Alpha mentioned, a director going back to his wheelhouse isn't necessarily a bad thing. Feig could have done that, done the spiritual comedy he wanted to do, make it an homage, and been fine. Instead, he's unnecessarily using the Ghostbusters name/logo for publicity. This isn't related to the Ghostbusters that came before. So why call it that?

(Again - this is personal preference. No hard feelings.)

[Alphagaia]

...he really wanted the evolution of ghost catching in there as he is a gear head...

Personally, I think he still could have easily done that. The science video they posted talked about the upgrades on the proton packs; cyclotron to synchrotron, etc. They could have explained those upgrades and advancements in the movie.

But that would already mean these gals know how to catch a ghost, because the devices has already proven itself for at least two movies (not counting the canon videogame) that it works. Starting fresh allows them to literally start from scratch (see the trolly they use as the first proton pack) and learn from each mistake. I believe the fun in this movie in part comes from them using all kind of untested contraptions that destroy everything but the ghost, just like a ghostbuster should. It might nog even actually hold a ghost. Getting a pack and traps that works on ghosts from day one is a bit boring storywise, and then you have to explain why there are no ghosts for 25+ years, if the videogame, comics, cartoons etc never happened that is.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make it canon, I just think a 'what if' could be fun as well.

But seeing as Ivan Reitman had his two lead actors from Stripes feature prominently in Ghostbusters, I think the point about reusing your lead actors isn't as convincing.

Fair that there was a history with Ivan, Harold, and Bill; but I see a big difference there. Harold was specifically brought in to help tweak Dan's original idea. He was part of the creative process from very early on - before production started and before Bill was approached. I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything about McCarthy or Wiig being part of the story team here.

Ghostbusters was an homage to the spook movies that came before, like among others Hold that Ghost, The Ghost Breakers, and Scared Stiff. While being an homage, it was also something new and thread new ground. As Alpha mentioned, a director going back to his wheelhouse isn't necessarily a bad thing. Feig could have done that, done the spiritual comedy he wanted to do, make it an homage, and been fine. Instead, he's unnecessarily using the Ghostbusters name/logo for publicity. This isn't related to the Ghostbusters that came before. So why call it that?

(Again - this is personal preference. No hard feelings.)

It's completely normal to reboot a movie and keeping the original name, themes, gadgets, rules etc.

[GhstbstrLMLIII]

But that would already mean these gals know how to catch a ghost, because the devices has already proven itself for at least two movies (not counting the canon videogame) that it works. Starting fresh allows them to literally start from scratch (see the trolly they use as the first proton pack) and learn from each mistake. I believe the fun in this movie in part comes from them using all kind of untested contraptions that destroy everything but the ghost, just like a ghostbuster should. It might nog even actually hold a ghost. Getting a pack and traps that works on ghosts from day one is a bit boring storywise, and then you have to explain why there are no ghosts for 25+ years, if the videogame, comics, cartoons etc never happened that is.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make it canon, I just think a 'what if' could be fun as well.

But the movie universe doesn't have many of the items we've seen: bear trap, proton pistols, etc. They could certainly have had McKinnon's character work on tweaking and coming up with most of that stuff (and some of it not working for humor or plot building). I think you could hit many of the points you are talking about, while still having the base there because that is stuff not explored in the first two movies.

As to the 25 years with no ghosts, wanting unbelievers - Personally, the franchise somewhere else option was the way to go. Have them set up in Seattle or something. They residents there may have heard about the events of the first films (maybe even not) and certainly passed it off as New York hype or tourist show. If there hasn't been a PKE spike in their area, no reason ghosts would be readily accepted anywhere outside NY. (How many of us still want to touch the wall when we see a sign that says "wet paint"?)

It's completely normal to reboot a movie and keeping the original name, themes, gadgets, rules etc.

And that's unfortunate. It has become the "norm" for Hollywood, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Have there been some good ones? - yes. But most of them don't make for good movies.

[Alphagaia]

Again, I dont think it's impossible to think up a canon way of doing it. (Though it would be weird Egon did nothing during the 25 years and suddenly McKinnon thinks up a lot of new gadgets and proton packs that either work or fail. It would deflate both characters imo.) It's preference. And we had extreme ghostbusters already which is kinda how you are describing it.
I hated GB2 just went with derp after 5 years we all forgot ghosts exist, so maybe that's why I understand Feig did not go that route. If ghosts existed and New York was terrorised not once but twice, the world would have known. Heck after two they would still have a containment unit full of ghosts to proof any doubters.

You actually would be surprised how many remakes are good.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/be ... 50_movies/

[Kingpin]

Personally, the franchise somewhere else option was the way to go. Have them set up in Seattle or something.

I'll admit that having a new film, or a TV series not set in New York for the majority of it's running time would actually make said film/series a bit less appealing to me, because New York is as much a character in the property as the four Ghostbusters. I'm of a different mind when it comes to the comics, or an occasional episode of a show where they're briefly out of town, because it helps to show a bit more of the world, but you'll know that sooner or later, they'll be back in the Big Apple.

[pferreira1983]

The film speaks for itself.

No, it does not. If you cannot provide examples your argument stands weak as we cannot understand your line of thinking.

It's gross-out comedy, plain and simple. We get caricatures which might be okay if it wasn't appealing to the lowest common denominator.

[pferreira1983]

My idea is to take the agenda out, simples. What that leaves you with are people behind it that only want to push a decent script.

OK I think I understand, it's the affirmative action bit that you don't like, correct? I can understand that. It doesn't necessarily mean the product won't be good, but at the same time it's not an ideal practice.

Well it's half that, half the fact that Ivan Reitman was sorted of shunned out and so we're getting a reboot (probably a remake) without the original characters. I think if that happened we wouldn't have a classic but it would be an okay film.

[pferreira1983]

Except the "selling an agenda" bit came up after the film had already started going into pre-production, rather than it being the basis for the film coming to be. I'd be willing to concede more to the point that the reboot is a "political agenda" if the aim of making the whole cast female had been around since day one, but it wasn't.

The leaked Sony e-mails as you know along with Paul Feig being a feminist point to the idea of enforcing an agenda way back when Feig was asked to work on the project. I mean if Feig hadn't done Ghostbusters he would have done another comedy film with women in the lead right? He planned to until Pascal said she'd give him full control.

[pferreira1983]

Could you explain you reasoning why you think this instead of just stating it matter of factly?

Not to encourage running in circles/running it into the ground, but...


ScarJo is reportedly leading a new R-rated female ensemble comedy:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Scarlett ... 28547.html
Wait...ScarJo is funny? Or is everyone else there to pad and balance out?

I want to say something but...yeah...

[RedWithEvil]

It's political nonsense. Hyper sensitivity by the elites to keep society sleepwalking.

Gimmick, or progress? This is a movie. It's suppose to be art. Art, (like people) can be taken many different ways, by many different people, in many different circumstances. This isn't communist China - why should people be guilted so quickly rollover and play dead on command? Don't be Paul Feig's lap dog in regards to GB.

In regards to women in movies. I like women to be women in movies, just as much as I'd like to think women enjoy men being men.

No populations, or occupations anywhere on the planet is 50/50. And if they ever are then something very bizarre is going on and we're no longer a free nation.

[Alphagaia]

Movies are art I agree.

So basicly you are saying Feig is equivalent of the Avante-Garde?

[RedWithEvil]

Actually, I think Paul Feig is more interested in my epididymis.

[Kingpin]

This isn't communist China - why should people be guilted so quickly rollover and play dead on command? Don't be Paul Feig's lap dog in regards to GB.

...

I feel strongly inclined to point out (seeing as you reference Communist China in your example) that China has had a horrendous problem of female infanticide stretching as far back as the 19th century, something that was likely made even worse when the ruling Chinese Communist Party enforced a one-child policy, which saw countless daughters being abandoned or murdered so that families could have a higher-valued son to continue their family lines.

Now, I'm willing to believe your comparing greater opportunities for women and female/male equality with the actions of Communist China is simply a case of ignorance, rather than gross social insensitivity. I would like to recommend that to avoid a similar occurrence in the future, some research might be beneficial.

[Egon's Pompadour]

This isn't communist China - why should people be guilted so quickly rollover and play dead on command? Don't be Paul Feig's lap dog in regards to GB.

...

I feel strongly inclined to point out (seeing as you reference Communist China in your example) that China has had a horrendous problem of female infanticide stretching as far back as the 19th century, something that was likely made even worse when the ruling Chinese Communist Party enforced a one-child policy, which saw countless daughters being abandoned or murdered so that families could have a higher-valued son to continue their family lines.

Now, I'm willing to believe your comparing greater opportunities for women and female/male equality with the actions of Communist China is simply a case of ignorance, rather than gross social insensitivity. I would like to recommend that to avoid a similar occurrence in the future, some research might be beneficial.

I don't condone infanticide of either gender; nor the slaughter of dogs and cats which is commonplace in the east.

The one child per family mandate is a result of being grossly overpopulated. I've yet to hear any feasible alternatives at this point.

[RedWithEvil]

This isn't communist China - why should people be guilted so quickly rollover and play dead on command? Don't be Paul Feig's lap dog in regards to GB.

...

I feel strongly inclined to point out (seeing as you reference Communist China in your example) that China has had a horrendous problem of female infanticide stretching as far back as the 19th century, something that was likely made even worse when the ruling Chinese Communist Party enforced a one-child policy, which saw countless daughters being abandoned or murdered so that families could have a higher-valued son to continue their family lines.

Now, I'm willing to believe your comparing greater opportunities for women and female/male equality with the actions of Communist China is simply a case of ignorance, rather than gross social insensitivity. I would like to recommend that to avoid a similar occurrence in the future, some research might be beneficial.

I see. Well. When I casually reference communist China.., or to be more general - left wing nationalism as a whole. There is ALOT that can be said of it's historical - and current offerings. Why you focus on female infanticide doesn't reflect my own social insensitivity.

Infanticide of China, and India, etc. wasn't even on my radar. I don't know if this is misogynistic. But, I think the controlling aspect (Sony), and strict limitation of opinions on the new film (Feig) is more relative to what my point was then merely infanticide. Which is something, as I said, I don't really think of when referencing communism.

I'll just go with Marxist feminism.

[Kingpin]

Why you focus on female infanticide doesn't reflect my own social insensitivity.

I focussed on it because if you think that trying to equalise things for men and women in Hollywood is not even remotely comparable to the act of a communist dictatorship, if said state has already had such a poor history with it's female population, it seems unlikely that any time soon they'll be pushing for greater equality.

[SpaceBallz]

Movies are art I agree.

So basicly you are saying Feig is equivalent of the Avante-Garde?

[Alphagaia]

I see I have to clarify: the avant-garde used art, besides something to enjoy, as a means to give a political message.

Hey, that sounds familiar!

[Hairy Biker]

I'm all for equal rights. Infact everyone in my life is female basically, so I will support womans rights till my final days.
Am I upset by female busters? Nope not at all.
Am I upset with 3/4 of the cast? Yup, but thats just my personal opinion on those actresses.

But I am worried that at some pount female lead films will become a gimmick and do more harm then goid, especially when Hollywood keeps dishing out female lead remakes.

We have Ghostbusters currently.
They're also producing an all female remake of Escape From New York and an all female remake of Ocean's Eleven.

At what point does it stop being a support of equal rights n just another Hollywood gimmick?