Ghostbusters 2016, sexism and PC agenda in Hollywood.

a reply to: AssiduousSpook

My two cents about this whole thing....

The relationship between the movie maker and the movie fan is a strange one, mostly because there isn't a relationship at all, only a perceived one on the part of the move fan. As a fan, we pay for tickets and pay for merchandise and pay for soundtracks and pay for DVDs so on an emotional level we almost feel like we have some ownership in the future of a franchise.

The harsh reality is though, that we don't own the intellectual property rights so there is nothing any of us can do (nor should we think that there is anything we can do) to prevent the catastrophe of this new Ghostbusters reboot.

Making movies is a business though. If given the opportunity, I would have told whomever was behind this reboot (or any other) to be both respectful and mindful of the original base crowd, as over the long haul they will be the ones who keep the money coming in during and long after the box office.

As it pertains to Ghostbusters, when I had first heard of the "Girl Ghostbusters" I believed it to be an exaggeration. To be candid, although I know Bill Murray had long been against doing another Ghostbusters movie, I had thought that the story would pick up X-years after the events of the less-than-spectacular Ghostbusters 2. I had thought that some of the lead roles would be the daughter(s) or niece(s) of Peter and/or Ray and/or Egon and/or Winston. I had NO ISSUE with female Ghostbusters.

As others have expressed here, the original Ghostbusters was MORE than the sum of its parts. It wasn't just an original idea + a good script + good casting + a good theme song. Somehow, it was more than that. Everything worked so well on all levels (even capturing the "feel" of NY at the time). I can't explain it because it is something intangible.

While reading through this thread I started to think about other classics from that era. I believe that even though SOME fans of the originals would be upset, I think that some movies of that day could be successfully rebooted. I think that Back to the Future could be redone (although there would be no reason to).

One other movie that could possibly be reboot is The Breakfast Club. It would probably not be for my generation but it could be great for the late teen, early twenties crowd. The same issues that the kids in the original one faced, the younglings face today. Of course, in today's modern hyper-PC world, rather than keep the issues somewhat generic (jock issues, nerd issues, stoner issues, etc) the makers may be tempted to go with the LGBT route which would get everybody up in arms.

Actually, the PC stuff is just the icing on the cake of this Ghostbusters reboot (and I'm thinking about that photo that I'd seen earlier in this thread). Many people (admittedly myself included) have simply had ENOUGH of the PC world. I'm not a bigot or a racist or sexist or any of that. I'm also sick of hearing about it. When I see a move, I'm trying to ESCAPE the insane world I live in, not be reminded of it. So you take a classic, give it a questionable reboot when none is needed, then add the PC into the equation... you end up with some unhappy fans.

The BIGGEST problem with the new Ghostbusters movie

So, all of that rambling notwithstanding, here is the biggest problem with the upcoming Ghostbusters. It looks like it sucks.

Last weekend we took our son to see Finding Dory (which was great... almost as good as Finding Nemo). While I don't remember all the previews (as I was in and out getting Twizzlers, popcorn and Sour Patch Kids then taking the kid to the restroom), I saw the following ones:

New Ice Age movie: Looked on par with the rest of them. Tons of laughs from the crown especially when that prehistoric squirrel was trying to get his acorn.

Peter's Dragon: I sort of knew that the original story existed but never read any books or saw any movies. This thing looks like a great movie with action, adventure and more than a few get-choked-up and tear-up-almost-cry moments. You could hear people in the audience saying how cool and interesting the movie was going to be.

That Hawaiian cgi movie: Some laughs. Probably would have been more if anyone in the theatre had any clue what the legend/origin story was about.

THEN.....

Ghostbusters: You could have heard a pin drop. There was a wide range of age/sex in the theatre. Remember, it was opening weekend for Finding Dory. Nobody laughed. I didn't hear anyone say, "Oh, we have to see this." The movie just looks like it sucks.

Although we all have biases when things we like are rebooted/remade, I personally do my best to take a look at previews a second time and pretend it's NOT a reboot. Take this Ghostbusters movie. Change the look of the uniforms, change the look of the equipment and change the Ghostbusters symbol and call it something else and look at it through that lens... and all you would see is a preview for a crappy movie that you would wonder how it got approved by a movie executive.

(Yeah, I rambled a bit).

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: eluryh22

As long as we get to do man-stuff.

No kitchen duties or sewing.

We'll write fan fiction called Ghostbusters: Fetch me a sammich

It looks like a horrific reboot. Like the OP and others have said, there is nothing wrong with putting female actors in a male actor franchise.

Unless it is forced, cheesy and completely unorginal. It looks like it has the same exact storyline. I wouldn't doubt that it even uses some of the same lines!

a reply to: blueman12

I wouldn't doubt that it even uses some of the same lines!

My dear Lord. I hadn't even thought of that but you are probably right.

I'll give you three reasons why this new "Ghostbusters" is a flop out of the gate -

1. No Bill Murray

2. No Dan Aykroyd

3. No Harold Ramis

Okay guys, just saw the trailer last night at the theater. And I don't really care about an all female cast, the movie just looks like garbage anyways. So there you go. Just don't see it. Problem solved.

originally posted by: awareness10
I'm wondering when they'll do a remake of the Movie 'Roots' or perhaps 'The Color Purple' with an all White Cast.

But concerning Ghost Busters new movie, i think i'll pass on that.

Some things are better left untouched.

You can start with a local theater group- White Roots... How about remaking the Cosby Show.

when will a middle-eastern brown man be put on the Christian cross, rather than a white Caucasian Jesus. maybe we could start in the bible belt of the south

Let's not pretend like Ghostbusters was otherwise some awesome, viable franchise. The FIRST movie, thirty years ago, was good, with some groundbreaking CGI, excellent comedic acting from an all-star cast, and a novel premise. The second movie was a ridiculous retread.

This new movie is simply doing what Hollywood does -- attempting to make a buck by putting a new spin on a tired idea that made them money in the past.

If they don't do something different, there is literally no point in doing a remake, as audiences can simply be referred to the original. There's nothing PC here. They're just betting on the idea that audiences would like to see today's female comedians doing these parts. If it turns out they're wrong, they'll file it in the bust column and move on.

originally posted by: awareness10
I'm wondering when they'll do a remake of the Movie 'Roots' or perhaps 'The Color Purple' with an all White Cast.

Similar things have been done: en.wikipedia.org...(film)

Not a great movie. Interesting, but not great.

originally posted by: denybedoomed
Original concepts in Hollywood are few and far between, everything is a remake or sequel. Now there is hope, anybody see the trailer for Swiss army man? Now THATS an original concept.

Actually i was mocking swiss army man. I was saying Go GO GADGET grappling hook,or go go gadget gun. And ghostbusters is gonna flop harder than the fist of a angry thunder god against lokis face.

originally posted by: jimmyx
when will a middle-eastern brown man be put on the Christian cross, rather than a white Caucasian Jesus. maybe we could start in the bible belt of the south

Wasnt the newest movie dealing with Jesus played by a aetheist?

a reply to: AssiduousSpook

My thoughts are that we are in an era of no personal responsibility. All criticism of Obama is "racist," any criticism of the mentally ill is "bigotry," any criticism of the truly atrocious looking movie is "sexist." This entrenched me deeper in the "who gives a rat's ass what you call me" camp. If it is sexist to say this movie looks like crap, then I guess I'm a sexist.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think it's something more than just personal responsibility.

Sometimes I wonder how we got here. Then I remember hearing something that I wish I could remember the name of.
(I think the word "window" is in there somewhere).

Basically, when you want to move a society to a place where it likely wouldn't go on it's own, you move the "window" so far away from where anyone would ever go with ideas and ideals that nobody would ever agree with and what ultimately happens, is that in rejecting the far-out-insane, they are willing to compromise "a little" and slowly move in that direction. If you do this over and over again you end up in the Twilight Zone (which I sometimes believe is where we are all heading).

a reply to: eluryh22

You're right; it was "window" - something.

Overton Window.

The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept.

Don't give a rat's ass about the reasons why the remake is as s#y as it is from the PC end. You can't just replace the original cast, have lousy writing, gun for low-end SFX, and call it a fitting tribute or even a remake, at that.

Fan films for every franchise under the sun have done better. Hell, porno knock-offs have done better. This is just a hot mess of bad everything, and I have no desire to reward that with my money.

originally posted by: jeramie
I actually want to see the new Ghostbusters!

Okay, I'll leave now.

< narrows eyes, examines Jeramie >

GET THE HERETIC!!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: eluryh22

You're right; it was "window" - something.

Overton Window.

The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept.

Damn you're good.

a reply to: ketsuko

Also, your avatar..... Dolly + llama = Dalai Lama...?

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: everyone

You know, I've said it before here on ATS.... and I'll say it again.

I am the father of two daughters. Both young.

The idea that any girl needs to be imbued with "girl power"....suggests that as a female of the species that they themselves do not have power. That they cannot do for themselves. That they cannot exist on their own.

That they are victims.


However, I am opting.... to raise them to simply understand...that this is bullsh*t. That they have all of the "power" they need within them. That while they are physiologically different from men.... that does not make them any less capable to do the things that make them happy in life. That they can see themselves through their own eyes, and not the eyes that society tells them to use. That they are more than their apparent physical beauty.

I have a career as a software engineer. Know who taught me to code?

My mother.

The idea that women are weak, timid, and powerless.... is not an indigenous one.

I am raising them to know...that they.... are NOT victims. And they need not look within themselves to now that they are capable of what they choose to do.

Then it is high time for western woman to stop pretending to be victims pretending to be oppressed and pretending to be rape victims just because a man looked at them and claim we live in a "culture of rape".

Third wave feminism that constantly promotes these ideas seems to be a very bad example for young girls since they constantly make them feel like a victim.

Wow! Speechless.

These guys, their video came on after the main Rolfe video:


They elaborate in Rolfe's defense, from film maker / reviewers perspectives.

What they point out is all the smear campaign the PC lot went about, when the film bombs as a result of all of the above, while destroying a huge franchise, its going to hurt future movies with all female leads from getting made.

Never even heard of these women. But making female versions of the original male cast......... maybe the film is intended to be a proper Surreal flick?

Here goes IMDb:
www.imdb.com...
And Rotten Tomatoes:
www.rottentomatoes.com...

No RT critic reviews yet. Maybe there wont be any, because they'll all be too afraid of hurting someones feelings. It'd be too good if it went down the least reviewed big box office film of all time... not because of refusal, but because of fear (I am afraid of these ghosts).