Ghostbusteresses - a franchise ruined by feminist reboot?

Ok, so 'feminist reboot' may be a bit strong, but does anyone else think this reboot is going to be crap as they've tried to get all '21st Century' and 'girl power' by changing it up with a bunch a fairly poor comic actors - just because they're female??

Don't think anyone outside of America really finds these women funny, seem to rely on really unoriginal 'obvious' jokes, and I can't see what's motivated this change.

What are the board's thoughts on the latest installment to come..........?

Which comedy actresses are going to be in it?

There's that big woman Melissa something who is sporadically funny in some things and wasted in others and then there's the hilarious actress whatshername, no, it's gone. There's only one semi-funny woman in America and even then I'm not totally convinced by her.

It will suck...especially if it's called Ghostbusteresses.

Busty Ghostbusters would be better but, I fear, a completely different film...as it would star Gianna Michaels

There are no words

Ghostbusters will always be my favourite movie, just a great cast, script, the now dated special effects, the subtle one liners from venkman,  I love everything about it

I will not be watching this 'reboot' and i'm actually slightly disappointed that Ivan Reitman has put his name anywhere near it by agreeing to produce it

I canonly remember three of them off the top of my head Dave. Melissa McCarthy (who I can kinda put up with) but then Kristen Wiig, Kate Mckinnon and some other chick from SNL.....hardly a patch on murray, ramis, akroyd, hudson and of course Moranis

gazzyD wrote:There are no words

Ghostbusters will always be my favourite movie, just a great cast, script, the now dated special effects, the subtle one liners from venkman,  I love everything about it

I will not be watching this 'reboot' and i'm actually slightly disappointed that Ivan Reitman has put his name anywhere near it by agreeing to produce it

I canonly remember three of them off the top of my head Dave. Melissa McCarthy (who I can kinda put up with) but then Kristen Wiig, Kate Mckinnon and some other chick from SNL.....hardly a patch on murray, ramis, akroyd, hudson and of course Moranis

Wasn't she in Bridesmaids...with McCarthy? if not, I'll confess I've no f*cking idea who the other two are and just tried blagging it

not seen it, but yeah she was

Aye never heard of either of the others, but believe they're regulars on SNL over in the states

I find Wiig and McKinnon quite funny. Despise McCarthy with an absolute passion though.

I don't really mind an all female cast in principle. It's a reasonable way to distance it from the original and give it it's own identity. Whether the cast/script are good enough to pull this off is an entirely different matter.

JDizzle wrote:I find Wiig and McKinnon quite funny. Despise McCarthy with an absolute passion though.

I don't really mind an all female cast in principle. It's a reasonable way to distance it from the original and give it it's own identity. Whether the cast/script are good enough to pull this off is an entirely different matter.

Should they have these woman as relatives of the original crew who take over business after spooky supernatural nonsense occurs or just make the same film with chicks/birds/dames (delete as applicable)

It's a reboot. Why the fook does it need 'its own identity'. The identity is the original. Want an 'own identity', come up with something original and stick 4 sh!tty female comediennes in it, not bastardise an established, and classic, franchise.

Sh!tty female comedians is very much an opinion. Wiig especially is extremely funny and talented. It's never going to match up to the original, so I just think it's better to avoid the comparisons to Murray et al. as much as they can. Who would they cast in a make remake? Seth Rogen and Jack Black? Tremendous.

JDizzle wrote:Sh!tty female comedians is very much an opinion. Wiig especially is extremely funny and talented. It's never going to match up to the original, so I just think it's better to avoid the comparisons to Murray et al. as much as they can. Who would they cast in a make remake? Seth Rogen and Jack Black? Tremendous.

SO DON'T F*CKING BOTHER would be my considered suggestion, closely followed by, TRY MAKING SOMETHING ORIGINAL AS SOME OF US HAVE MEMORIES THAT STRETCH BACK LONGER THAN A FORTNIGHT

Hills have eyes - Turd..........
Total recall - Turd
Fright Night - Turd
The Fog - Worst remake in history..
Halloween - Turd......
Friday the 13th - Turd
Nightmare on elm street - Turd
Assault on Precinct 13 - Turd......

Certainly isn't very encouraging form when it comes to remakes....

But we may be pleasantly surprised..

DAVE667 wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Sh!tty female comedians is very much an opinion. Wiig especially is extremely funny and talented. It's never going to match up to the original, so I just think it's better to avoid the comparisons to Murray et al. as much as they can. Who would they cast in a make remake? Seth Rogen and Jack Black? Tremendous.

SO DON'T F*CKING BOTHER would be my considered suggestion, closely followed by, TRY MAKING SOMETHING ORIGINAL AS SOME OF US HAVE MEMORIES THAT STRETCH BACK LONGER THAN A FORTNIGHT

Yes, let's never bother to ever try and remake something and put your own spin on it. There's plenty of good remakes of films out there, for all the crap ones. And it'll never match up for people of that generation, but they're aren't the only people in the world.

JDizzle wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Sh!tty female comedians is very much an opinion. Wiig especially is extremely funny and talented. It's never going to match up to the original, so I just think it's better to avoid the comparisons to Murray et al. as much as they can. Who would they cast in a make remake? Seth Rogen and Jack Black? Tremendous.

SO DON'T F*CKING BOTHER would be my considered suggestion, closely followed by, TRY MAKING SOMETHING ORIGINAL AS SOME OF US HAVE MEMORIES THAT STRETCH BACK LONGER THAN A FORTNIGHT

Yes, let's never bother to ever try and remake something and put your own spin on it. There's plenty of good remakes of films out there, for all the crap ones. And it'll never match up for people of that generation, but they're aren't the only people in the world.

If the original was sh!t and could have been improved out of sight I'd agree but chances are it'll be the same formulaic clap trap they always do whilst claiming it's better because they've spent millions on a CGI Slimer...cue massive merchandising spin-off toy!!!!

No doubt it's a massive and horribly cynical marketing ploy, but I actually have reasonable hopes for it. If I'm getting up in arms about a remake it's the fact that it is strongly rumoured that Chris Pratt is going to be the next Indiana Jones...

JDizzle wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Sh!tty female comedians is very much an opinion. Wiig especially is extremely funny and talented. It's never going to match up to the original, so I just think it's better to avoid the comparisons to Murray et al. as much as they can. Who would they cast in a make remake? Seth Rogen and Jack Black? Tremendous.

SO DON'T F*CKING BOTHER would be my considered suggestion, closely followed by, TRY MAKING SOMETHING ORIGINAL AS SOME OF US HAVE MEMORIES THAT STRETCH BACK LONGER THAN A FORTNIGHT

Yes, let's never bother to ever try and remake something and put your own spin on it. There's plenty of good remakes of films out there, for all the crap ones. And it'll never match up for people of that generation, but they're aren't the only people in the world.

Good, glad we've got that agreed.

What're your good remake examples??

One of the few that thought Ghostbusters was okay and nothing more..

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be TRUSS

TopHat24/7 wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Sh!tty female comedians is very much an opinion. Wiig especially is extremely funny and talented. It's never going to match up to the original, so I just think it's better to avoid the comparisons to Murray et al. as much as they can. Who would they cast in a make remake? Seth Rogen and Jack Black? Tremendous.

SO DON'T F*CKING BOTHER would be my considered suggestion, closely followed by, TRY MAKING SOMETHING ORIGINAL AS SOME OF US HAVE MEMORIES THAT STRETCH BACK LONGER THAN A FORTNIGHT

Yes, let's never bother to ever try and remake something and put your own spin on it. There's plenty of good remakes of films out there, for all the crap ones. And it'll never match up for people of that generation, but they're aren't the only people in the world.

Good, glad we've got that agreed.

What're your good remake examples??

Best remake ever............Invasion of the bodysnatchers 1978.........Don't class The Thing as a remake..

TopHat24/7 wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Sh!tty female comedians is very much an opinion. Wiig especially is extremely funny and talented. It's never going to match up to the original, so I just think it's better to avoid the comparisons to Murray et al. as much as they can. Who would they cast in a make remake? Seth Rogen and Jack Black? Tremendous.

SO DON'T F*CKING BOTHER would be my considered suggestion, closely followed by, TRY MAKING SOMETHING ORIGINAL AS SOME OF US HAVE MEMORIES THAT STRETCH BACK LONGER THAN A FORTNIGHT

Yes, let's never bother to ever try and remake something and put your own spin on it. There's plenty of good remakes of films out there, for all the crap ones. And it'll never match up for people of that generation, but they're aren't the only people in the world.

Good, glad we've got that agreed.

What're your good remake examples??

True Grit, Star Trek and Total Recall was passable, of the particularly recent ones. Things like Oceans 11 were enjoyable, the 3:10 to Yuma with Bale/Crowe was good. Further back the de Niro Cape Fear was excellent. Ghostbusters wasn't really my era, so I have no nostalgia complaints about them doing a remake/reboot.

Total Recall?? Christ no!!

This is why the original Ghostbusters was good!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM-l_3RaYsk&index=19&list=PL86F4D497FD3CACCE

The GiggleBusters? The GhostBimbos?

This will only work if the girls don't over-indulge in the kind of humour designed to make everyone 'know' that the original Busters were guys. If a big slice of the written-in humour revolves around the 'dramatic' revision - as in every character they meet alluding to the idea that they're women and not men - then it's going to be a dud.

If Movie Producers want more action female characters, and want the idea normalised, then let's just get on with it and let them write a Very Funny script based on nothing but a very funny storyline. No side show feminism in-joking or satire please. Let's forget they're women.

And just in case people think me an offended Original-is-Bester - nope, not close. I didn't think much of the original - too smartass to be slapstick, too slapstick to be smartass.
An uneasy mix of a movie designed to let you know that the characters knew they were in a movie - especially Bill Murray, who 'sketched' through the thing on smug autopilot.

... or we could give the new film a chance, wait until we've actually seen it and then judge it on its own merits rather than decide it must be rubbish?

If you're going to reboot/remake something you really have to make it differently otherwise it really is a pointless exercise. IN that vein the choice to use an all-female cast is no doubt fairly cynical but also could prove interesting.

Some other examples of reboots/remakes which at least some people find better than the originals:
- the Dark Knight trilogy
- the Departed
- Lord of the Rings
- Casino Royale and the other Craig Bonds
- the Fly
- Some like it hot

I don't get the "waaahhh it's not like the original, they changed things, it's rubbish" argument. If you wanted to just see the same film again, rewatch the original (it's worth noting that the same people who bemoan change are usually equally vocal when a reboot changes nothing or very little - like the new spiderman series - decrying it as pointless).

Mike Selig wrote:... or we could give the new film a chance, wait until we've actually seen it and then judge it on its own merits rather than decide it must be rubbish?

If you're going to reboot/remake something you really have to make it differently otherwise it really is a pointless exercise. IN that vein the choice to use an all-female cast is no doubt fairly cynical but also could prove interesting.

Some other examples of reboots/remakes which at least some people find better than the originals:
- the Dark Knight trilogy
- the Departed
- Lord of the Rings
- Casino Royale and the other Craig Bonds
- the Fly
- Some like it hot

I don't get the "waaahhh it's not like the original, they changed things, it's rubbish" argument. If you wanted to just see the same film again, rewatch the original (it's worth noting that the same people who bemoan change are usually equally vocal when a reboot changes nothing or very little - like the new spiderman series - decrying it as pointless).

All very reasonable until you get to the very real point that The Ghostbusters, neither the producers, the studio nor the writers, have a monopoly on the idea of a comedy about ghosts and people who might hunt them (Scooby Doo?? ).  They (Ghostbuster producers) didn't invent the concept and it wouldn't be copyright infringement to create something very new, something with females (also mimicing Scooby btw) and something altogether 'fresh' that has the idea that ghosts are causing mischief and a group of living souls are out to get them.  And such a movie wouldn't need a name called Ghostbusters.

The ONLY reason an old title gets used is because it wants to feed on an already existing audience that know the concept or grew up with the concept, and/or hold the concept close to their hearts.  The new Ghostbusters will feed on anything that gives it a better chance of calling back in the financial outlay of the making.  So it will have a lot of copyrightable similarities to the original, and they'll be there for a reason - to attract or reattract an audience that is already familiar with the Franchise.

Like I said, I don't care how it all pans out - it's a family comedy concept that's unlikely to have many weepy Oscar moments from any of the cast.  But those people who did watch the originals, and did take them to their heart, they WILL expect some of the taste of the original if the Title suggests a link - and they WILL get mouthy if they're dissatisfied with the result.

SecretFly wrote:The new Ghostbusters will feed on anything that gives it a better chance of calling back in the financial outlay of the making.

Clearly. That's how movie making seems to work nowadays. But then that's capitalism for you...  

SecretFly wrote:But those people who did watch the originals, and did take them to their heart, they WILL expect some of the taste of the original if the Title suggests a link - and they WILL get mouthy if they're dissatisfied with the result.

If that is what they want and/or expect then IMO they are not only daft but misguided, and I'm afraid I won't feel much sympathy for them if they get their hopes dashed. Rather I will continue to say that it is daft and misguided to want a remake/reboot to replicate the original.

I only hope Ray Parker Jr gets a few quid

Mike Selig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The new Ghostbusters will feed on anything that gives it a better chance of calling back in the financial outlay of the making.

Clearly. That's how movie making seems to work nowadays. But then that's capitalism for you...     

SecretFly wrote:But those people who did watch the originals, and did take them to their heart, they WILL expect some of the taste of the original if the Title suggests a link - and they WILL get mouthy if they're dissatisfied with the result.

If that is what they want and/or expect then IMO they are not only daft but misguided, and I'm afraid I won't feel much sympathy for them if they get their hopes dashed. Rather I will continue to say that it is daft and misguided to want a remake/reboot to replicate the original.

Well, Mike, I won't feel any sympathy for them either, trust me.  Real life is much too involving to be worried about guys who perhaps over-emote a tad about movies.  I'm just interested in the dynamics of how all that angst and suicidal social media declarations of betrayal work when any reboot hits the theatres..  
And in that context, I say again that it's lazy 'capitalism' that rushes producers down over-used avenues (and 'Franchise' Titles) in the first place.  It's laziness that has us innundated with rehashes and reboots in movieland .  If Capitalism is your prefered word for it, then so be it.

But its the Producers themselves (without any help from over-zealous fans of the original) who will do the publicity that will virtually say to their prospective audience 'this is a return of an old favourite - come see it and remember the original'  It's they themselves who will market the product down those lines.  "If you liked the original, you'll love our new wallpapered version."  
So it gets kinda wonky when someone then gets a little irked and suggests a portion of the audience might be daft if they feel disappointed that the only similarity to an original might be the Title.

A new film with a 'Fresh' outlook or an 'Edgier' 'Modern' 'Twist', about a group of Ghost hunting women; it doesn't require a Ghostbusters title.  IF they're honest about doing something new with the concept, it doesn't require a title called Ghostbusters.  IF they want a fresh approach then I'd prefer they just had the confidence and courage to be new and make no link at all to a movie that was made a few decades ago.  But I'm guessing they will.  I'm guessing there'll be a whole host of 'Ghostbuster' in-jokes linking the old to the new and even perhaps a well placed 'cameo' or two (just to keep the Ghostbuster ''nerds' happy)

On the more general topic of the abundance of Reboots in modern cinema - you mentioned Daniel Craig -Daniel Craig I looked forward to - and there wasn't a lot of people with me.  
For me, the other Bonds had drifted too far away from the often violently, realistically ruthless Connery original.  So yes, it was a reboot that worked and I believe Craig is probably the best Bond for me (though left carrying some pretty shoddy tales/storylines/dialogue at times! )  
But it wasn't all the sweaty, acrobatic running around and violent fights that genuinely hooked me into his new (old) portrayal, it was actually towards the end of the movie when he steps off a boat to step onto that luxury little island with the grand house, dressed to impress, saying nothing and having just fatally wounded a bad guy without ever working up any 'realistic' sweat.  The music swooned and there he was - Bond was back for sure - new face, same old slick heartless killing machine.  There is nothing 'fresh' about Craig's Bond, only a refreshing return to a less wordy, less jokey, much more dangerous original.  The reboot of Bond actually Does go back closer to the source, closer to the original.... and works because of it not in spite of it.  
For those who'd prefer a more permanent 'reboot' for Bond as sweaty, casuals-wearing street fighter, well...there's always the Bourne series