Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon most definitely. Two very funny, talented women who I'd gladly watch.
Leslie Jones ?, The same Leslie Jones who messed up so badly on SNL, she walked off mid-sketch, came back on and completely lost her place. The same Leslie Jones who has botched at least one line in every sketch she's been in since.
And Melissa McCarthy ?. As I originally said, she'll play the same character she's played in every other film she's been in.
I think Im the only person who doesn't think this is a terrible idea and is willing to give it a chance!
To be honest, the more I think about it, the more i'd be willing to give it a chance but only for Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon.
Unfortunately, I think they'll have McCarthy as the main focus of the film as they'll be of the impression that she'll be the one that people will pay to see.
To be honest, the more I think about it, the more i'd be willing to give it a chance but only for Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon.
Unfortunately, I think they'll have McCarthy as the main focus of the film as they'll be of the impression that she'll be the one that people will pay to see.
Not me, Wiig is more talented and interesting.
I'm afraid I can't comment on the other two as I don't know them!
I think it's quite a good idea. It's not as if the original Ghostbusters are incredible films and untouchable. They aren't classics or anything. And Wiig is a pretty great comedienne and actress. Is the director also the guy who did Bridesmaids?
Loving all the casual sexism in this thread, as personified here.
Because if women are the main stars in films they must be housewives "pretending" to do the REAL characters jobs, which can only ever be men, right?
Read a tweet earlier on this which I thought was spot on
"The idea of women being the main agents in stories that aren't about sex or femininity is still deeply shocking, and powerful".
The way I remember Ghostbusters is that Bill Murray played a character who was more bothered about seducing his test subjects and clients than actual paranormal research. The others were out and out nerds. Rick Moranis played an even more ineffectual male. The "normal" characters in the original film were Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts. The big bad was another woman, Gozer (played by Slavitza Jovan).
So if they really have decided to make the misfits all women, good. Just remember that they have to follow the same demeaning roles as the originals - one needs to be chasing teenage boys/ desperate, one needs to be a latecomer and utterly irrelevant to the plot and the other two nerds with no communication skills, no backstory and no life.
I think it will likely be a good movie on account of the cast and director having good form. But I'm not sure who this movie is actually aimed at though.
Ghostbusters is generally comedy horror, with action and very SFX ladden. Trying not to generalize but I presume the younger paying audience would be more boys than girls. Then there is the older group, 20 - 40 year old's who grew up with the original, sequel and cartoon spin offs. Many of this age group - both male and female - will have fond memories of the iconic franchise, very probably stubbornly refusing to accept anybody who isn't Bill Murray in the lead role. That's without that little word reboot involved. Very risky situation when this type of movie will require at least a 125 million dollar budget.
I think Im the only person who doesn't think this is a terrible idea and is willing to give it a chance!
I thought it was a terrible idea back when Bill Murray was still possibly going to be in it so I can't see much changing my mind. As much as I love the original film there was only just enough mileage in the idea to fill 100 minutes, as proved by the godawful sequel.
Loving all the casual sexism in this thread, as personified here:
Because if women are the main stars in films they must be housewives "pretending" to do the REAL characters jobs, which can only ever be men, right?
Read a tweet earlier on this which I thought was spot on
"The idea of women being the main agents in stories that aren't about sex or femininity is still deeply shocking, and powerful".
If they want to make a movie where the leads just happen to be female, then fine, but this shoe horning in of a pro female agenda is quite patronising to both women and men.
Its the same people who are desperate to have a female james bond, rather than make a new character and new story, they want to foist their agenda into existing franchises.
Comments
It was obvious she would be lol
I was being sarcastic about the casting. Haha.
Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon most definitely. Two very funny, talented women who I'd gladly watch.
Leslie Jones ?, The same Leslie Jones who messed up so badly on SNL, she walked off mid-sketch, came back on and completely lost her place. The same Leslie Jones who has botched at least one line in every sketch she's been in since.
And Melissa McCarthy ?. As I originally said, she'll play the same character she's played in every other film she's been in.
Not interested.
It's basically rehashville.
To be honest, the more I think about it, the more i'd be willing to give it a chance but only for Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon.
Unfortunately, I think they'll have McCarthy as the main focus of the film as they'll be of the impression that she'll be the one that people will pay to see.
Not me, Wiig is more talented and interesting.
I'm afraid I can't comment on the other two as I don't know them!
Because if women are the main stars in films they must be housewives "pretending" to do the REAL characters jobs, which can only ever be men, right?
Read a tweet earlier on this which I thought was spot on
"The idea of women being the main agents in stories that aren't about sex or femininity is still deeply shocking, and powerful".
The way I remember Ghostbusters is that Bill Murray played a character who was more bothered about seducing his test subjects and clients than actual paranormal research. The others were out and out nerds. Rick Moranis played an even more ineffectual male. The "normal" characters in the original film were Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts. The big bad was another woman, Gozer (played by Slavitza Jovan).
So if they really have decided to make the misfits all women, good. Just remember that they have to follow the same demeaning roles as the originals - one needs to be chasing teenage boys/ desperate, one needs to be a latecomer and utterly irrelevant to the plot and the other two nerds with no communication skills, no backstory and no life.
Ghostbusters is generally comedy horror, with action and very SFX ladden. Trying not to generalize but I presume the younger paying audience would be more boys than girls. Then there is the older group, 20 - 40 year old's who grew up with the original, sequel and cartoon spin offs. Many of this age group - both male and female - will have fond memories of the iconic franchise, very probably stubbornly refusing to accept anybody who isn't Bill Murray in the lead role. That's without that little word reboot involved. Very risky situation when this type of movie will require at least a 125 million dollar budget.
I thought it was a terrible idea back when Bill Murray was still possibly going to be in it so I can't see much changing my mind. As much as I love the original film there was only just enough mileage in the idea to fill 100 minutes, as proved by the godawful sequel.
And excellent PR, which is I'm convinced is the driving force behind the decision to go all-female, as opposed to a gender mix.
Its the same people who are desperate to have a female james bond, rather than make a new character and new story, they want to foist their agenda into existing franchises.