Ghostbusters reboot with all-female leads

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but is this idea of an all-female cast some fiendish trick to ensure any legitimate criticism of this pointless and unwanted reboot can be brushed off as the wailing of a group of sexist, misogynist dinosaurs?

Ghostbusters 2 already proved that Ghostbusters was a lightning-in-a-bottle thing, going back to tap the well again in today's risk-averse, creatively-bankrupt Hollywood system seems like a real exercise in futility.

Really? NO!
 
Who's going to watch this movie? Surely not guys who loved the original franchise. Probably not too many female fans either. Millenials don't think GB's cool, do they?
 
Such a terrible idea this reboot it. IMO it's best to let this series rest in peace with the first two. This won't re-capture the magic of the originals at all. The first two are among my favorite movies and I long made peace that another wasn't likely to happen. If anything good is to come out of this reboot maybe GB2 will be appreciated more and looked upon in a better light (I'm among the few who likes it as much as the first).
 
the thing prequel flopped
robocop flopped
everyone hates the new spiderman
everyone hated the conan remake
no one even saw Arthur or footlose
the omen remake never got any sequel
the nightmare on elm street never got a sequel
no one even cared about the amityville movie


why do Hollywood keeps trying? the answer always is that "Hollywood needs familiar properties to make money, a safe bet because fans will see it" that was my answer all the time for any of these movies

but when these movies keep failing so bad.... that answer doesnt even hold true anymore. doesnt count anymore
is everyone in Hollywood just crazy?

As far as I can tell, Hollywood seems to be run top-down by terminally-uncreative glorified accountants. As far as they're concerned, it's some kind of holy wisdom that 'brand recognition' is important because they probably heard someone talk about it at a marketing seminar once. It's not the reboots that are the problem, it's the directors/writers/marketing team/release date/audience's fault it failed. I've heard these people say of forgettable by-the-numbers reboots that 'it was a great film, the problem was fan entitlement' or something of similar effect.

They won't pull their heads out of the sand and accept that this wisdom of branding is a fallacy. Now they seem to be in full-on panic mode looking for things to rehash, we've got whitewashed Ghost In The Shell, Yukikaze and Akira to look forward to in the near future. They've been trying to get a Dune reboot off the ground for a decade but not once did it occur to them to throw some cash at Jodorowsky and chop up the nine-plus hours of film he always wanted to make into a trilogy. They're still making grim and gritty repurposings of children's fairy tales, despite them all flopping bar Malificent.

I'm predicting - and hoping - that the film industry as we know it will implode in 2016 or 2017. Spielberg claimed that it would only take a handful of mega-budget films failing to perform to cripple major studios like Warner Bros. 2016/2017 have at least one comicbook movie coming out in nearly every month for the whole year, and around them yet more sequels and reboots no-one really wants to see, all with budgets equivalent to the GDP of an African nation. It's my dream that this oversaturation of cape films, sequels and reboots kills the industry like the disaster movie escalation of the 1970's. Then hopefully we can get back to a Hollywood that out of necessity has to give smaller budgets to riskier projects from talented auteurs - which is how we got classics like Terminator, Robocop, Alien, etc and talent like Scorsese, Spielberg, Cameron, Scott, etc in the first place.
 
Lets not forget about "Clash of the Titans"!!

The Thing prequel was OK. The only thing that hurt it was the cG creature effects.
 
Lets not forget about "Clash of the Titans"!!

The Thing prequel was OK. The only thing that hurt it was the cG creature effects.

I liked it, but then it was really nothing much like the original. I also like the new Spiderman.

This, no, they would be better off giving these ladies a whole new kind of movie. They could be ghost chasers, just not Ghostbusters.
 
the thing prequel flopped
robocop flopped
everyone hates the new spiderman
everyone hated the conan remake
no one even saw Arthur or footlose
the omen remake never got any sequel
the nightmare on elm street never got a sequel
no one even cared about the amityville movie


why do Hollywood keeps trying?

Red Dawn and About Last Night too. What was the last successful remake of an American film? PJ's King Kong? Then before that 2003's TCM? They really have been busting out remakes for the last 10 years and I also have to wonder how even the pencil pushing bean counters are able to justify getting them greenlit. They all flop or barely break even.
 
Red Dawn and About Last Night too. What was the last successful remake of an American film? PJ's King Kong? Then before that 2003's TCM? They really have been busting out remakes for the last 10 years and I also have to wonder how even the pencil pushing bean counters are able to justify getting them greenlit. They all flop or barely break even.

True Grit (2010) was a great remake. It has a 96% of RT, made $250 million on a $38 million budget, and was nominated for 10 Oscars. The Fly and Cape Fear remakes were as good or better as the original, but those are older films. 3:10 to Yuma (2007) another successful remake of an American film (ironically another Western). Christopher Nolan's Insomnia is also a remake, but the original was not an American film though, same goes for The Departed.
 
Well, look at the guys responsible for those remakes. The Coen Bros., David Cronenberg, Martin Scorsese--some of the best directors alive today. You could have any one of them remake Ishtar and it would probably be awesome. Most remakes ain't made by them, though.
 
Well, look at the guys responsible for those remakes. The Coen Bros., David Cronenberg, Martin Scorsese--some of the best directors alive today. You could have any one of them remake Ishtar and it would probably be awesome. Most remakes ain't made by them, though.

So people complain about remakes, then when you mention good remakes, they "don't count" because the directors making them are good? :lol I forgot about Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, also a remake, but it doesn't count because he's a good director (and because Tom Cruise is in it and people don't like him now), I guess. Only the bad remakes by less talented directors should be acknowledge then, and used as an example to call Hollywood uncreative, even though more original movies are being made now than ever before, and remakes have always been part of Hollywood and film making from the very beginning.

Having said all that, I'm not against or in favor of remakes. In fact, the only two remakes that I prefer over the originals are, Cape Fear and Little Shop of Horror, that's it.
 
Well, look at the guys responsible for those remakes. The Coen Bros., David Cronenberg, Martin Scorsese--some of the best directors alive today. You could have any one of them remake Ishtar and it would probably be awesome. Most remakes ain't made by them, though.

There you go. If a remake/reboot isn't directed by someone who's a freaking legend then forget it. Who is making the new Ghostbusters? Tarantino? Eastwood? Paul Thomas or Wes Anderson? If it's one of them then I can't wait.
 
There you go. If a remake/reboot isn't directed by someone who's a freaking legend then forget it. Who is making the new Ghostbusters? Tarantino? Eastwood? Paul Thomas or Wes Anderson? If it's one of them then I can't wait.

But the same can be said about any film though? :lol Meaning, any film directed by a "meh"...Director, is probably not going to be great either. Therefore, the problem is the reboots or remakes, as people suggest, instead the problem is bad movies in general, so there's no reason to be against remakes, imo. Any film can be good(or bad) if directed by a good director.
 
You're missing the point. 99% of all remakes are only good if directed by a GREAT director. 99% of all non-remakes do NOT require a great director to be good.
 
You're missing the point. 99% of all remakes are only good if directed by a GREAT director. 99% of all non-remakes do NOT require a great director to be good.

Those percentages are manufactured and doubt there's much scientific data involved :lol But seriously, I don't agree because Robocop (and other remakes) wasn't directed by a great director an it was ok, not a bad film. Now, lets look at how many films come out in a year, in 2013 there were over 600 theatrical films released in the US alone (without counting TV films, direct to DVD releases among other things), so you are telling me that 99% of those films are good? Come on now. Good films are hard to make. Also, you have to take into consideration the negative connotation some remakes have. Most people didn't even know True Grit was a remake, so no one cared, but you take a high profile brand, and nostalgia can influence peoples views and opinions even before the films comes out. I'm guilty of that, ironically. I don't want this Ghostbuster film :lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top