All Female cast of Ghostbusters announced

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by keratosis

That and Groundhog day.

To late.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631867/

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

To late.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631867/

That's a remake of a Japanese property

[AcGold]

The best comparison I heard was it's very similar to Jurassic World. Comparable imagery, setting and themes with a completely different cast and direction. Jurassic World was pretty terrible imo but a lot of people liked it. New fans will like Ghostbusters 3 old fans will likely hate it.

[blankall]

Waivering on whether or not to see this.

The politicized tone of many of the reviews is really turning me off. Any review that starts with...male fanboys will be upset...makes me suspect. I really didn't have a problem with the all female thing, and thought it would be good.

That being said I do for some unexplainable reason find Leslie Jones hilarious. That SNL skit with Peter Dinklage was hilarious on a totally juvenile level.

My major issue with the casting is that they've chosen 4 Peter Venkmans. The chemistry in the original worked as you had 4 different personalities, with 3 of them being relatively subdued. Venkman was the only giving one-liners. From what I've seen from the ads this just looks like all 4 characters yelling one liners over top of each other.

Meh...may wait for Netflix.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

It's not a new phenomenon. I get that people feel their childhoods are being tainted by awful versions of their favourite franchises, but I stopped caring awhile ago.

Remakes are not new, but they have become more common. To the point where Hollywood is hesitant to make any big-budget movie that isn't based on an existing property or franchise.

Number of the top 20 box office movies that were sequels, remakes, or franchises.

1985: 6

2015: 13

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

Waivering on whether or not to see this.

The politicized tone of many of the reviews is really turning me off. Any review that starts with...male fanboys will be upset...makes me suspect. I really didn't have a problem with the all female thing, and thought it would be good.

That being said I do for some unexplainable reason find Leslie Jones hilarious. That SNL skit with Peter Dinklage was hilarious on a totally juvenile level.

My major issue with the casting is that they've chosen 4 Peter Venkmans. The chemistry in the original worked as you had 4 different personalities, with 3 of them being relatively subdued. Venkman was the only giving one-liners. From what I've seen from the ads this just looks like all 4 characters yelling one liners over top of each other.

Meh...may wait for Netflix.

Thats a very good point.

I think a huge part of what made the original work was the fact that it was 3 buddies who figured 'screw it' and decided to make a movie one day and it became Ghostbusters.

It was awesome, fun and organic. The sequel is the same as this one. Call it whatever you like, gimmicky, prejudiced, whatever, but when you go from something like the original to anything else its forced, its artificial. It doesnt have that same magic.

The original Ghostbusters was far from the perfect film, but it had that indefinable quality that is almost impossible to capture but they did it so well. Hell, Ghostbusters 2 couldnt keep that lighting in a bottle but somehow the cartoon TV show was the closest they could come.

To sum it up, if you take something that was only awesome on its intangibles, remove those intangibles, and then expect it to continue to be awesome then it doesnt matter if you're a feminist revolutionary or a misogynist, its all going to go down.

And finally, look at the products given out to entice you to pay your money, the trailers, they look terrible.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by zamler

Most are excellent remakes because they stayed true to the originals.

I don't think any of those stayed true to the originals, but I agree they were all better. I can't comment on "3 Men and a Baby" though.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Remakes are not new, but they have become more common. To the point where Hollywood is hesitant to make any big-budget movie that isn't based on an existing property or franchise.

Number of the top 20 box office movies that were sequels, remakes, or franchises.

1985: 6

2015: 13

I'm pretty sure this means that audiences are more willing to shell out cash for a known entity rather than an unknown.

Can't really blame the film industry to pandering to the public wants.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm pretty sure this means that audiences are more willing to shell out cash for a known entity rather than an unknown.

Can't really blame the film industry to pandering to the public wants.

You're wrong about the motivations though. We don't want that so we can actually see these movies. We want that so we can then bitch about a lack of original titles.

[nik-]

It's much easier to just to just not watch them.

This movie looks like a piece of ####, as a result I will not watch it. Problem solved!

Michael Bay movies make a billion dollars. We get what we deserve.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's much easier to just to just not watch them.

This movie looks like a piece of ####, as a result I will not watch it. Problem solved!

Michael Bay movies make a billion dollars. We get what we deserve.

True, but nowadays the majority of the billion is from Asia. Have you watched a CGI extravaganza made in China? They look awful, effects-wise.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's much easier to just to just not watch them.

This movie looks like a piece of ####, as a result I will not watch it. Problem solved!

Michael Bay movies make a billion dollars. We get what we deserve.

No kidding.

I've recently been through a bit of a change where I am trying to look for culture that is exclusively local or regional. I never used to think that way. Now I just don't want to send my money away to some massive money pit created for the sole purpose of soaking the masses.

[PsYcNeT]

Well support CUFF events is my recommendation. Check out their Facebook page and event calendar:

https://www.facebook.com/CalgaryUnde...dFilmFestival/

Next up:

Monster movie screening on top of the Marriott!

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by nik-

We get what we deserve.

If every movie had trees as combat weapons we'd all be better off.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Well support CUFF events is my recommendation. Check out their Facebook page and event calendar:

https://www.facebook.com/CalgaryUnde...dFilmFestival/

Next up:

Monster movie screening on top of the Marriott!

I regularly went to CUFF events, but I live in Vancouver now. Sad to lose that bit of Calgary.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

If every movie had trees as combat weapons we'd all be better off.

Those movies were ass.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats a very good point.

I think a huge part of what made the original work was the fact that it was 3 buddies who figured 'screw it' and decided to make a movie one day and it became Ghostbusters.

It was awesome, fun and organic. The sequel is the same as this one. Call it whatever you like, gimmicky, prejudiced, whatever, but when you go from something like the original to anything else its forced, its artificial. It doesnt have that same magic.

The original Ghostbusters was far from the perfect film, but it had that indefinable quality that is almost impossible to capture but they did it so well. Hell, Ghostbusters 2 couldnt keep that lighting in a bottle but somehow the cartoon TV show was the closest they could come.

To sum it up, if you take something that was only awesome on its intangibles, remove those intangibles, and then expect it to continue to be awesome then it doesnt matter if you're a feminist revolutionary or a misogynist, its all going to go down.

And finally, look at the products given out to entice you to pay your money, the trailers, they look terrible.

A major issues with comedians, of all genders, is that everyone wants to be the man. No one is willing to play that truly self-depricating role. You have the Kevin Harts and Melissa McCarthys who flirt with it, but ultimately need to yell and assert themselves in the end. There are no John Candys, Rick Moranises, Steve Martins, etc..

In the original ghost busters you were laughing at all the main characters, even Venkman, and they weren't in on it. I think that was the best point of the review from the food guy, everyone is in on the joke now. It's not just this new Ghostbusters (although I haven't seen it yet), but comedy in general.

There are a few comedians who come close to realizing it. I actually Jonah Hill does a great job in several roles. The first 2 seasons of Arrested Development were great at that. The newest season of Arrested Development (the one on Netflix) shows the change. In that new one the egos of the actors ring through over top of the characters, and the show is unwatchable.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

A major issues with comedians, of all genders, is that everyone wants to be the man. No one is willing to play that truly self-depricating role. You have the Kevin Harts and Melissa McCarthys who flirt with it, but ultimately need to yell and assert themselves in the end. There are no John Candys, Rick Moranises, Steve Martins, etc..

In the original ghost busters you were laughing at all the main characters, even Venkman, and they weren't in on it. I think that was the best point of the review from the food guy, everyone is in on the joke now. It's not just this new Ghostbusters (although I haven't seen it yet), but comedy in general.

There are a few comedians who come close to realizing it. I actually Jonah Hill does a great job in several roles. The first 2 seasons of Arrested Development were great at that. The newest season of Arrested Development (the one on Netflix) shows the change. In that new one the egos of the actors ring through over top of the characters, and the show is unwatchable.

You're right. You're exactly right. No one wants to play the straight-man/woman/person/Carbon-Based Being?

Oh right, NDP...Carbon is bad...

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by nik-

Those movies were ass.

You're wrong.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

You're wrong.

Ass. Unwatchable garbage. Voluminous filth. Eye pus.

I drove through America once with my wife. We took some backgrounds, and by chance, drove by - good lord - a drive-in movie theatre! They were showing Transformers 3 (4? 5? Mark Wahlberg), so uhhh not so great, but the hell, it's a drive-in movie theatre. We were already late for our hotel booking, so why not be more late.

Fast forward. We fell asleep about 90 minutes into the insane montage of rolling mechanical CGI parts, and indistinguishable limb-bashing, and woke up 20 minutes or an eternity later, and pretty much couldn't tell where we had left off in the movie. The exact same thing was unfolding at precisely the same whiz-bang speed.

Awful.