Meet The All-Female Ghostbusters Team

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
I have NO idea who any of these people are, not even vaguley. I've never seen any of their work. Well now I have no idea what to expect. I can only assume its going to be very....female for want of a better word.

Ten Foot Bunny said:
True, that! And the creation of two priceless reboots (21 Jump Street and Evil Dead) does not a mediocre trend forgive.
Heck, 21 jump street really isn't normally my style of humour, but I think that worked because it embraced the fact that it was a reboot , and played with how rediculous the whole concept of the movie is in the first place, while also taking the piss out of reboots.

22 Jump street seemed contemptuous its own existance while still doing a good movie (I imagine if it's your bag, even a great movie), as even while the movie personally screamed "This doesn't need to exist" it still felt like the guys involved wanted it to feel worth your time watching it, despite the fact that they'd clearly been made to make it.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
NuclearKangaroo said:
i proved you women have been acting on theatre for centuries and cinema isnt that different
you didn't "prove" anything and quite frankly I am not doing this again

gooday
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Vault101 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
i proved you women have been acting on theatre for centuries and cinema isnt that different
you didn't "prove" anything and quite frankly I am not doing this again

gooday
the term actress, the female form of actor has existed since atleast 1660, what does that tell you?

if women werent performing since then why does the term exists?
 

liviebutton

New member
Jan 29, 2015
3
0
0
Eh, I don't mind the idea. I loved the original movie and it's not like women cannot be great at comedy. But it really depends on the script. I'll wait to have a proper opinion when the trailer comes along.

But now I kind of wish they had picked Caroline Rhea as one of the protagonists - she's awesome, haha.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
prowll said:
WhiteNachos said:
I had this long reply typed up that got deleted. Suffice it to say the humor in ghostbusters never relied on being from a male perspective and never relied on jokes about men or jokes about women, so this feels like a cheap gimmick.

And the fact that they don't have Tina Fey or Amy Poelhmer makes me think they both saw a trainwreck coming (either that or the casting director didn't like them which would be an even worse sign).
Consider the scene at the beginning with Vinkman shocking the male student, and NOT shocking the female student, and then when the guy gets fed up and leaves, he starts hitting on the girl.

Or when Ray gets visited by the 'ghost' in the firehouse, and his pants go down.

Now think of those two scenes with a female cast. You have a pervy girl hitting on guys, and a rape scene.
It's a rape scene either way just people would take it more seriously. And I don't think that first joke would be that much more funny if the genders were swapped around (guy on guy, girl on guy etc.), it really depends on how much the shocker can pull off lovable rascal vs. creep.
 

Anti-Robot Man

New member
Apr 5, 2010
212
0
0
I'm so tired of reboots, especially an uninspired one like this.

A sequel would've created so many more story telling opportunities (The original Ghostbusters franchising out would have made perfect sense and the time between the films would've provided an interesting space to do some minor alternate history stuff - the world would be a little different if ghosts were documentable), it also means there wouldn't be as many direct comparisons making it easier to just enjoy the movie for what it is. One of my favourite elements from the originals is that the Ghostbusters are reckless and irresponsible; they cause more property damage than they prevent and Egon's containment unit is a WMD waiting to happen in the middle of New York for example. The long term implications of that could've created some interesting comedy scenarios, a reboot resets everything leading to a high probability of either rehashing or losing the more interesting elements of the original (I'm speaking broadly about remakes here, it's admittedly to early to tell on this one).

The all-female team concept is fine but I'd prefer new characters set in that universe rather than female versions of originals. It all just seems like the laziest way to do things.

I also find Melissa McCarthy painfully unfunny, so I'm quite sure I'll be avoiding this.
 

o_d

New member
Mar 27, 2011
46
0
0
I'm more excited for this than if it were an all-male reboot, or - heaven-forbid - a threequal involving the remaining original cast.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
Holy lookie at all these tiring, moany (yes, i refuse to be more literate today!) comments. Im not gonna lie...i read the first page and just zipped to the end, as my eyes were starting to badly glazing over with despair.

So this film. Hmm i had a positive opinion to write but now all i can think is comments! Negativity in waves of comments about race/gender/change, in 2015? On the escapist?? Ooooohh it is a bad day to not have my medication.

*Obligatory giff appreciation to someone i cannot quote now, or remember their username. Im sure it was Chris Evans running into a shop window though. Made a laugh happen. Thankyou.*
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Daaaah Whoosh said:
As I recall, the original Ghostbusters were more about being New Yorkers than being men. If the new cast can keep that up, rather than focusing on women's problems, then it might be something I'd watch. Otherwise, maybe I'm not the target demographic, and I'm fine with that. Women need more role models, and maybe some of them will be Ghostbusters now.

EDIT: Oh no. Fuck no. There's going to be a scene where they're looking at the old uniforms, and maybe the fat one will try one on, but they're going to be like "Nope, they're ugly", and go on a shopping montage. Argh it's going to happen, and it will cause so much rage.
Well, that's not true actually. I think the gender and the location were secondary. At the end of the day the thing that drove The Ghostbusters is that they were all underappreciated scientists who were not taken seriously, trying to make a business out of something that nobody else took seriously if they had even heard of it. Every one of these guys was supposed to have a degree, and they were all professionals. Even Venkman who was the closest thing to a team goof was at the end of the day a doctor (as in he had a legitimate doctorate in parapsychology) and wanted the business to succeed. The whole story arc of "Ghostbusters" was that they started out broke and hated, and really had to dig to find any work, their first serious client even tried to screw them on payment (which they dealt with by threatening to led the ghost go again). The whole second act is about their success, and how they have to rally to become heroes of a sort when things suddenly get really serious, their success being due to a rising evil that only they can barely confront. It's a sort of "rags to riches and beyond" story. One of the big problems with "Ghostbusters 2" was that it pretty much just retreaded the same story as the first one, inventing a reason for them to be mocked again, and then having them get their groove back, right in time to save the world from yet another major evil in the 11th hour.

The guys who created "Ghostbusters" and understand we're actually dealing with some major comedic geniuses here, almost all of whom have had massively successful careers writing and performing (the success can't be argued with even for people that don't like these particular guys). One of the reasons I've been reluctant on any revival of this is because if Dan Ackroyd, Bill Murray, Harold Raimis, and Rick Moranis can't come up with decent ideas for it, I doubt this team is going to do anything better, especially if it's true that a shopping montage making fun of the previous movies is to be taken seriously. None of these ladies is that talented to begin with, and I'm not even sure with that crew who is supposed to be writing this. That said I get the basic idea you have the pudgy girl to be Ray, the smart wallflower girl to be Egon, the pretty girl to be Peter, and the black girl to be Winston by way of analogy and have them do a similar schtick. However having someone act like a female version of Bill Murray to be "hilarious" is more sad, I'd rather them just get Bill Murray and do some thing where they bring the REAL Ghostbusters out of retirement. Indeed I'd argue they could actually recycle the old story a third time and have it work by simply playing up the age of the characters. Indeed that is the movie I'd probably try and make. I'd have most of them retired, successfully as opposed to sadly, having made tons of money, but having run out of Ghosts to bust (going with the theme that the Supernatural tends to come out in force when some major evil is rising). When the ghosts start coming back they need to rebuild the team to confront the threat knowing from experience that something big has to be coming.... but this is a major digression.

At the end of the day part of the "fun" of Ghostbusters is that as absurd as it is the characters are consummate professionals (except for maybe Venkman who tends to be sarcastic and piss people off). The Ghostbusters go for functional not "pretty uniforms" which basically means that this movie is doomed to failure if that's accurate as it's an attempt to make things not only girly, but faux-girly, in an almost humerous direction implying that in the movie the girls aren't being taken seriously in these roles and stepping into the initial shoes. For the Ghostbusters, the uniforms were part of the charm, they were basically wearing exterminator outfits, replacing the stereotypical back tanks of bug gas and stuff with proton packs... which was amusing because that's what they were... a pest control service for ghosts... that's why you can't mess with this, it was actually pretty well thought out which is why it came together. By playing it straight it made it possible to suspend disbelief (well partially, in context) in a way that few things this absurd have even been able to achieve.

At any rate, the big test here if they want a girl ghostbuster team would be to ask... could any of these ladies convince you they would logically have at least one Doctorate, never mind possibly multiples (Engineering and such as well as Parapsycology, remember The Ghostbusters made all their own stuff). They could make a joke out of how unlikely seeming it is, but that's not really Ghostbusters... all of the characters, including Bill Murray, were portrayed in a way you could see them as intellectuals. The exception being Winston who was largely brought in as muscle at the end.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
o_d said:
I'm more excited for this than if it were an all-male reboot, or - heaven-forbid - a threequal involving the remaining original cast.
Well as I said in my rambling, I might be able to stomach a threequel but I'm guessing a big part of why nobody has actually done one was that the people involved can't think of a way they could make a good product out of it. With "2" they retreaded the same basic arc of the first movie with mixed results.

See, the thing is that with Harold Raimis, Bill Murray, and Dan Ackroyd all involved in this they had some great comedic writers and actors all of whom had successful careers even when this was going on. The ladies they are selecting don't have the same chops, and honestly I can't see them having written anything great, and I notice they aren't exactly trotting out some big name writer with a pedigree to try and convince us they could out do the original team. I mean heck the other movies even had Rick Moranis and he's another guy who has had a pretty bloody successful comedy career. These guys also played their roles straight, it was all about the situations they set up in the movie, as opposed to them doing stand up routines, which is an important distinction since a lot of "funny guys" are not that versatile.

Opinions vary of course and I don't begrudge you yours.

Personally if I was going to try and do another Ghostbusters as I said I'd probably have the original team happily retired with decent amounts of money, the supernatural situation on earth being well under control, and there just not being any ghosts left to bust seemingly. The team having caught most of the ones that were known, and there being no great evils to cause a spike in the activity. Of course when there IS a spike in the activity they would have to rebuild the team as old geezers knowing it means some big evil is coming. Done correctly they might even make a mystery out of what the evil is (as opposed to making it obvious from the beginning) until the final act. Given that these guys are more academics than action heroes conceptually anyway them being old doesn't make that much of a difference. What's more the passage of time can account for Egon's death (due to the actor dying), and one big thing might be Ray needing to step into his shoes, Ray being the other "big brain" who worked with Egon but wasn't quite as smart, of course he could be shown as having come into his own, and perhaps needing to prove he's just as good to himself. The only one of the team who was a meathead (so to speak) was Winston who was a mercenary picked up as muscle (pretty much) even Venkman was a Doctor.

To me this reboot just from what little I see, seems to miss the point. What's more if they want to tell a whole new story, using all new characters, why even call it "Ghostbusters" why not simply create a similar movie for this ladies with a different title and franchise. It might even go over better by not directly inviting direct comparisons. That's my problem with a lot of "reboots" and "re-imaginings" they always strike me as being inherently stupid, coming from people that don't have the confidence in their own product or performance to really do their own thing and try and piggyback off of someone else's past success.

It will probably not happen, but if this DOES get made, the first thing I'm going to be looking for is what Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd think of this interpretation of one of their most famous, if not most financially successful (though it might be) products. I could be wrong, but I've always been under the impression part of what made Ghostbusters was that these guys wrote it as well as acting in it, and being who they were, it turned out great as a result.
 

Souther Thorn

New member
Apr 5, 2013
105
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Nice try, but your strive for women's equality changes nothing about the fact that this is just another 80's nostalgia plunder. Make another movie with an all-female team, but for fuck's sake, leave Ghostbusters alone. The Ghostbusters are Egon Spengler, Ray Stanz, and Peter Venkman (Winston Zeddemore was just a joke character), or more specifically, they were Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd, and Bill Murray.

And maybe this is me just not being very intune with American female comedians, but the bulk of their material generally consists of 'Look how out of control we are, eventhough we're women, WOOOAH!' I'm fucking looking at you McCarthy, you're 'obnoxious fat person' routine is old and stale. Replace McCarthy with Julia Louis-Dreyfus and throw in Catherine Keener, and maybe we'll talk... just maybe.
I beg your pardon, I object. Winston wasn't wonderfully developed on screen (and Ernie did what he could with what he was given and gave it a surprising amount of depth), but Winston earned a doctorate while working with the Ghostbusters, even wrote a couple of books if I remember right. I'd love to have him in a new one, as a kind of 'Neil Degrasse Tyson' of the paranormal, being the great weirdscience communicator and educator.
 

Souther Thorn

New member
Apr 5, 2013
105
0
0
wulf3n said:
So who wants to start taking bets on who's playing who?
From the synopsis I've read posted at other movie sites, they won't directly relate at all to any of 'Our guys', it's two academics that fracture and go their own ways, hook up with others, and then have to get back together to beat the bad guys.
...and they want Dinklage for the bad guy.
 

nightmare_gorilla

New member
Jan 22, 2008
461
0
0
Mckinnon i like, she's very funny at least to me, wiig i could take or leave, she's fine, been in some good stuff and some bad stuff as long as they don't hammer on and on about "omg i'm awkward" which is never funny, those two will be fine by me. Mcarthy i flat out do not like, not because she's fat but because her whole gimmick is "look i can be disgusting too just like a guy!!!!!" listen sugar tits be the best you you can be don't try to be the best guy a girl can be. leslie jones, the black one, eh, she's been on snl for like a month and she's not bad but she was hired more or less to tick a box and keep people form protesting no black chicks on snl. no matter how funny she actually is that's WHY they hired her and it's probably why she's in this.

I do so love watching these though, studios basically gaslight their whole audience by going "We made this character black/female/gay/trans I DARE you to complain about it!" then idiotic internet activists who think they're saving the world with a retweet yell at everyone for what bad people they are no matter what the response is and the movie gets millions of dollars worth of advertising for free. some chick on facebook shared some jezebel article about how this movie is "a punch in the dick to all mankind!!!!!!" and i'm just sitting here going, seriously guys? i could give a fuck have fun. same with that annie remake, I joked about how a rich dude saving an orphan with the super power of his fortune might not play the same way to today's audiences that think all rich people are guilty of....something.... and it took about 3 seconds for it to be decided "wow this guy's such a racist what's his problem." congratulations movie studio you've done it again, enjoy all the free advertising, unless i hear something about the movie itself that makes it sound good i'm pretty comfy staying home.
 

wolfyrik

New member
Jun 18, 2012
131
0
0
Vigormortis said:
I want to be on board with this. I want to be excited for a new Ghostbusters.

But I can't. I just....can't.

It's not the all-female cast that gets me. I'm absolutely for that. I love that idea, though I'm not entirely sold on this cast reveal. It's not even that it's a reboot. Some reboots work and are as good or better than the originals.

No. What gets me is that Paul Feig is writing and directing. The guy's the definition of hit-or-miss[footnote]With far more in the "miss" category.[/footnote]. And for me, even his hits are bad.

Now, had a better writer and/or director been involved like, say, Edgar Wright, I'd be incredibly hyped for this film. As it is?

I mostly agree but I don't know why it has to be a reboot. For the most part every reboot I've seen has been a moneygrabbing, soulless mess of ideas designed aimed at the lowest common denominators, manufactured soley for the purpose of exloiting the audiance, treating the general public as little more than mindless cash machines. Not to say that some sequals weren't also that, of course.

As for Edgar Wright, FUCK YES! He and/or Simon Pegg would actually have a chance at doing Ghostbusters some justice. They actually care about the films they make and the people they are making them for. And it shows.