Ghostbusters reboot (film) - Female cast

[MinionZombie]

First trailer: Meh. Thumbs downs are leading the ups by five thousand on the video at the moment.

[Trancelikestate]

Scooby doo+Bridesmaids+Goosebumps. Someone shoot me.

[EvilNed]

Meh. Thumbs downs are leading the ups by five thousand on the video at the moment. That's because the internet is full of insecure virgins who think the world is gonna end because suddenly one in ten action films doesn't feature an all male cast. I think it looks mildly amusing. It seems to go the comedy route, which I think is the right choice. Adventure films these days are dead.

[shootemindehead]

Well...no surprises there.

[Trancelikestate]

The dislikes are about 23k ahead now.

[MinionZombie]

That's because the internet is full of insecure virgins who think the world is gonna end because suddenly one in ten action films doesn't feature an all male cast. Yes, to be fair, the hatred surrounding the film is rather Internetty - but at the same time there'll be plenty of people who just don't like the vibe of this flick. As I've said before, I think this 'flip the gender completely' is really a step behind where we should be. It feels a bit binary and it's proven to be an awful distraction for everything else the film is trying to do ... whatever it's trying to do is another issue entirely, and I'm not convinced by anything I've seen thus far. I think completely ignoring that GB1 and GB2 ever existed in that universe (unlike previous incarnations of the story for a new GB film) has stuck in the craw of many fans. I think one issue about the 'all female' cast thing is it feels more about that than about it being a Ghostbusters movie ... if that makes sense? Then there was that trip to a children's ward with the cast in costume which felt far more like an advertising exercise than anything else that left a sour taste. Your movie's still in production and far from actually being released, but you're visiting children's wards to hop on the Avengers/DC bandwagon? Hmmm... I'm not averse to all female casts. I loved Bridesmaids and it felt a totally natural choice - whereas here with nu-GB it feels regressively engineered to make a point rather than a movie. That's that vibe it's putting out there. As I said above, it feels a bit binary and behind where we should be with this male/female issue. It should be a mixed cast, not this sort of 'segregation flip flop' that we've got, if that makes sense? I think that would have been a better - and frankly more interesting - fit for nu-GB, but there should also always be films that have all male or all female casts, if that's what suits the story/type of movie. The Expendables makes sense to be all-male because it's shtick is 80s action movie stars all together on screen - who are almost all male anyway - and targetting a specific audience. Although I will say I rather enjoyed the inclusion of Ronda Rousey in #3, even if that film had troubles from an overlong running time and a stupid PG-13 rating. I'd totally watch an all-female Expendables flick, too - with all the iconic heroines of movies past and present. A really good example of diversity - that also makes sense and fits the material - is the Fast & Furious franchise. Men and women side-by-side, all of them bringing it full-bore, and they're also a mix of nationalities and races ... and you know what? It's barely commented on whatsoever (and never to make some blunt, hand-wringing point) - it's just how it is, as it should be in life - about being a member of the team and having the back of your friends/family. In not making a big deal out of it, and as such they do far more for tolerance, acceptance, and cohesion. Nu-GB might end up being okay, but this is ostensibly a remake of Ghostbusters. That in itself puts a great big mark against it.

[EvilNed]

The thing is, people don't raise an eyebrow when it comes to thousands of all-male cast films. The reason people are doing it now is because it's that uncommon. Which is a travesty, sure, but at least this film is trying to set that record straight. I applaud it's efforts. I hope it succeeds. I think it looks nice. I've yet to read or hear an argument against an all-female action film that makes any sense. The argument you're making, that it's "going in the wrong direction", I only ever hear when it comes to all-female cast films or things of it's kind. Like, nobody ever says that when Die Hard 5 is announced. It is a traditionally male dominated genre, and with all male casts all over the board. Going after the one female film in an ocean of male film is just shallow and a sign of how twisted things have gone. I loved Bridesmaids and it felt a totally natural choice - whereas here with nu-GB it feels regressively engineered to make a point rather than a movie. That's that vibe it's putting out there. As I said above, it feels a bit binary and behind where we should be with this male/female issue. I agree that the gimmick is getting in the way of the movie - but that's the case with most films these days, isn't it? So why single this one out? I mean, wouldn't you say that the gimmick of Expendables is also getting in the way of the movie? I would. It's a very specific gimmick. Yet I enjoyed the first two (haven't seen 3), so I'm fine with that gimmick. Just as I'm fine with this one. As for it being regressive, I don't buy it. If it's regressive to produce an all-female cast film, then why does nobody ever raise an eyebrow at all-male cast films? Maybe that is the point it's trying to make, and you can't deny that if that's the case - it's succeeded because that's all everyone is talking about including us. It's very sad that people feel the need to attack this film for it's all-female cast. Why is that not allowed to exist? There's no good answer to that question. EDIT: It should be noted, I'm not really a Ghostbusters fan. So I don't really care about the remake aspect of it. I am glad they actually did a twist on the gender roles rather than just remaking it. That'd suck. Bring something new and fresh. I like that they're doing that.

[Trancelikestate]

Let's consider this: (posted on another board, not my quote) "Outside of my opinion of the trailer this must be a major backlash in terms of a trailer release/PR nightmare. For comparison's sake the Fantastic 4 reboot from 2015 that was not well received has two trailers on youtube. One from April and the second from July for an August release. the April one has 11m views with 40,523 likes to 7,092 dislikes the July one has 7.6m views with 20,333 likes to 8,735 dislikes the new Ghostbusters trailer isn't even 24 hours old with 5.5m views as of 1:00am eastern with 70,477 likes to 103, 187 dislikes. Those numbers are bonkers. I zeroed in on the F4 reboot for comparison because it was a reboot and had some similar dislike built in with fans before people saw the film that ultimately won a Razzie."

[shootemindehead]

The all woman gimmick is just that. A gimmick. Used by "money (wo)men" in Hollywood to sell a sub par product and hopefully try and con an unaware/non-discerning audience into parting with their hard earned. This whole mess is simply a misappropriation of a popular 80's title to fleece money out of people in yet another completely unnecessary sequel/reboot and by that yardstick, I believe a lot of people are angry against it. Not being that massive a fan of the 1984 film (it's good, but ridiculously overrated by some), I don't really care that much. But, I certainly understand the ire that some people will have against this. My personal distaste for this rubbish stems from the tiresome remake/reboot cycle that has produced more duds than hits and will be completely unsurprised if this bombs. Although, I can see it possibly break even as cinema audiences these days are a very strange bunch and sometimes a film only has to break even to warrant a sequel. That trailer, though, just confirms everything that I suspected before hand. Seriously, this shitty thing needs to die and be buried deep. Very deep. - - - Updated - - - I mean, wouldn't you say that the gimmick of Expendables is also getting in the way of the movie? The gimmick of 'The Expendables' IS the movie though. The story is shit and not even worth talking about. The whole film is simply a gimmick involving a nostalgia effort of watching old farts from crap 80's action films take the piss out of themselves. The gimmick of an all woman ghostbusters does absolutely nothing for the film and is simply being used to generate some buzz. They're all pretty awful "characters" too by the look of that trailer. Just a box ticking excercise and an effort to mirror the original in some way. It couldn't have been more lame tbh.

[Rottedfreak]

I stand by my original statement on this.

[EvilNed]

Let's consider this: (posted on another board, not my quote) "Outside of my opinion of the trailer this must be a major backlash in terms of a trailer release/PR nightmare. For comparison's sake the Fantastic 4 reboot from 2015 that was not well received has two trailers on youtube. One from April and the second from July for an August release. the April one has 11m views with 40,523 likes to 7,092 dislikes the July one has 7.6m views with 20,333 likes to 8,735 dislikes the new Ghostbusters trailer isn't even 24 hours old with 5.5m views as of 1:00am eastern with 70,477 likes to 103, 187 dislikes. Those numbers are bonkers. I zeroed in on the F4 reboot for comparison because it was a reboot and had some similar dislike built in with fans before people saw the film that ultimately won a Razzie." Its getting so much publicity it's bound to do well. F4 barely got any at all. There's a difference. I get that there's alot of angry white dudes out there that feel that they should be ontop of everything. It's sad to see. But this isnt gonna be the last all-female action film, so let's not even bat an eye about it.

[bassman]

There are a few things I like, and quite a few I dislike. Judging from the trailer alone of course, the comedy is mostly completely different from the original. The original was more dialogue and situational driven, where as this seems to be more in-your-face and what I can only relate to fart gags. It's thirty years on and times have changed, so I guess that's to be expected. Although...I did laugh at Mckinnon's "is it the hat?" line. The biggest negative was definitely the part with the woman screaming and slapping the spirit out of McCarthy. That was cringe worthy and the trailer should've ended with the busters in times square. Now here's my biggest nerdy conundrum with this thing...is it a continuation or a complete remake? There are soooo many hints that this may actually be a third film in the existing franchise, but it seems like Sony is trying to play coy for some reason. The "30 years ago" text, the rumored rewrites and reshoots for franchise continuity reasons, the inclusion of the firehouse including interior shots with equipment and such, the spray painted ghostbusters logo in the subway(almost like the sort of "we remember" bat logos in The Dark Knight Rises), spoilery details regarding the original cast cameos, maybe even the times square scene of the busters obviously time travelling or walking through a parallel dimension 1970/80s times square(im thinking 70's because of the taxi driver advert though), etc. I'm thinking Sony feared the fan backlash and made some changes to make it a reboot rather than a full on remake. The original team has been out of business 30+ years, these new scientists discover a surge in paranormal activity, then are ultimately given the GB business by the original crew that has since moved on. One of them even being related to an original member... I'll no doubt see this opening weekend, but I definitely don't feel comfortable with what I've seen so far. If it reinvigorates the franchise, that'd be wonderful. If only for future films like Reitman/Pierce's current GB project. - - - Updated - - - Its getting so much publicity it's bound to do well. F4 barely got any at all. There's a difference. I get that there's alot of angry white dudes out there that feel that they should be ontop of everything. It's sad to see. But this isnt gonna be the last all-female action film, so let's not even bat an eye about it. I'm not touching the whole male/female debate again, but I just have to ask....do you see this or the existing GB films as action films? I've heard many people throughout the years referencing the ghostbusters as almost superheroes and that's always thrown me off. Curious to hear how some folks see it as action whereas it was intended as, and I personally only see it as, comedy.

[shootemindehead]

Only ever a comedy to me and a pretty small time one at that. It somehow morphed into the must see film of 1984 though and managed to get Hollywood execs into a funk trying to replicate that success for years and years. Christ, even the filmmakers were flabergasted by its success. They didn't even know what the formula was either. It would have been much, much, better if they had just let the original film stand alone. If ever there was a picture that didn't need a sequel, remake, reboot, reimagining or whatever your having your self...it's 'Ghostbusters'.

[bassman]

Only ever a comedy to me and a pretty small time one at that. It somehow morphed into the must see film of 1984 though and managed to get Hollywood execs into a funk trying to replicate that success for years and years. Christ, even the filmmakers were flabergasted by its success. They didn't even know what the formula was either. I'd have to disagree with that. There are interviews with the cast and crew both during and after filming where they state they know they have something special on their hands. Ramis, Akroyd, and Reitman hit on a winning formula and they actually knew what that was. When GBII started to come to fruition, Columbia Pictures basically f*cked them over. The original GB2 script was just obliterated by the studio due to the success of the GB cartoon. The studio wanted a kid-friendly special effects extravaganza while the creators were trying to apply their formula to a different story. Unfortunately at that point they had already signed contracts, so they were stuck with it. This is one of the bigger factors as to why they never were able to continue the series. It scared them away, including Murray. It would have been much, much, better if they had just let the original film stand alone. If ever there was a picture that didn't need a sequel, remake, reboot, reimagining or whatever your having your self...it's 'Ghostbusters'. While I'll never say GB2 is on par with the original, I think it does have some solid laughs and ideas throughout. I enjoy it quite a bit, really. So if there is only one good thing to come from Feig's remake, it's that GB2 can no longer be widely referred to as "the crappy ghostbusters".

[shootemindehead]

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject Bassy. I've only ever thought of the film as a grand memory from the 80's myself. It means more to you than it does to me. TBH, I think 'Ghostbusters II' was ok and far from the disaster that a lot of people say it was. It's not a patch on the original of course. I didn't know that Columbia did the lads over. If that's the case then it goes some way to explaining things. But even so, I still think there was an element of "lightening in a bottle" with 'Ghostbusters' that was always going to be really difficult to replicate. It's a real shame, though, that the original lads couldn't get another film together to round off a trilogy. Although, maybe it was a good thing too. Diminishing returns and all that. Who knows. This thing though is nothing but a cash in on a famous, instantly recognisable name. I don't think I'll be bothering with it. But if it turns out to be good, I'll be happy to be proven wrong. I though 'Mad Max' was going to be rubbish and that turned out to be one of the films of the year. Ah well...sure it happens to the best of us after all.