I'm surprised there's not been more play on the 'bust' in Ghostbusters with this. I've no doubt I'll be coming out with some wonderfully cheesy ones this evening.
I was thinking it was a "Starbuck" situation. They're determined to do some sort of new Ghostbusters movie. Murray's not coming back. What male actor isn't going to face all sorts of unflattering comparisons trying to step into his shoes as the lead?
While I don't have any problems with the cast, I doubt it's going to work anything like the first movie. The guys there were essentially man-children, and that was a major part of the humor. That trope doesn't really work with woman.
Or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, or Seinfeld, or Arrested Development? All series that managed to include female characters just as immature as the men.
I'm not really aware of the specific reasoning that went into gender-switching Starbuck (and Boomer) beyond that since they were doing a reboot, nothing said the characters had to be male, and with Starbuck in particular it opened possibilities as far as romantic drama with Apollo and an interesting dynamic with Adama. I actually liked Starbuck at first, and then they went and ruined her, in my opinion, by turning her into something of a Shinji following her time on Caprica. Of course that kind of followed what I saw as the general decline in the quality of the show anyway. As for the Ghostbusters, since it's a reboot, no, there's no reason any or all of them have to be any particular gender, it's just that it seems a bit gimmicky to have all of them be women. But the whole reboot thing in addition to so many other franchises getting a reboot is the bigger issue, really. I can't really cast stones *looks at sig banner* and really I'm not entirely against reboots, especially if they're any good on their own, it's just depressing that this is all we seem to be getting anymore.
This is the key thing, really. But if TIIC want to make reboots/remakes, why not remake something that was fucked up the first time around, like "Godzilla"? I don't see the point (artistically, at least) about redoing a story that was damn near perfection the first go-around. I should be glad for the gratuitous use of the N-word in "Blazing Saddles" which will make a remake next to impossible (not that I'll be surprised if someone tries it in 30 years ).
I see it as people wanting to revisit their childhood, but bring it into a modern setting. Hollywood has always been about going back to the well again and again, so this isn't a surprise. Me, I'm hoping for a great movie starring some funny ladies. That's all I ask.
"Annie" is the most recent attempt to update a classic story...changing the lyrics from "orphan" to "Foster kid" and having a more diverse group of kids in supporting roles. It was a huge mistake running this up against "Into the Woods" within the same week, but at least the lead wasn't played by Willow "Whip my Hair" Smith.
I had a vision of the future, and you just know when she's old enough for sex, she'll do a sex tape, and get a reality show, and it'll be Kardassians all over again.
I'm hoping they'll grow up to be kind, compassionate, well-adjusted adults. For now I haven't seen anything that says they won't. Oh, sure, they're pseudo-philosophical, but they're teens, so of course they're into appealing bullshit. They'll get smarter and wiser as they get older.
I always feel bad for child stars. You peak at a young age, get told you're a diamond, a star, different from everyone else, and then when your voice starts to change you're out on the street and even your parents don't give a shit now that the money's gone. That's a horrible thing. It's no wonder so many of them turn to drugs.
Well, the ones that get their every wish indulged don't. The Mowry twins made it through to the other side, and one was even a virgin till the age of 29 by choice. Same with Shirley Temple in an era where parents almost always swindled their kids' money. And not to pull the race card, but I don't see too many black child stars doing sex tapes or being open with drug use.
I think the difference here is who their parents are. They seem very hands-on, and their father particularly knows what it's like to be rich/famous at 20.
Ghostbusters is going to be a cinematic universe. http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/36102/tatum-to-lead-male-ghostbusters-film
I was OK with the new movie. I am not OK with them now latching onto the series to start sucking it dry.
When the rubble and smoke clears on all these cinematic universes...Marvel will STILL be eating everyone's lunch. As to Ghostbusters....yeah, this could go wrong so many ways. Comedy is a more delicate mixture than Marvel, who can play in multiple genres. There's the "Dumb & Dumber To", thread to attest to that. And if they try to do other genres within the Ghostbusters world, like making the Tatum thing a serious action thing....Ghostbusters is about the humor, not the ghost zapping. If I just want more ghost zapping, I can dig out the old cartoon. Yeah, this makes my ass pucker.
Oh, and there's been a really bad Ghostbusters movie for proof of how it can go wrong, it was called "Evolution".
Wait until your first movie hits before you start mapping out the franchise. It's a tad presumptuous to assume that there's much affection/hunger for Ghostbusters sequels and spin-offs seeing as how there hasn't been a film in--what?--25 years. The all-important 18-25 cohort wasn't even alive when the last one came out.
