Ghostbusters 3 - Part 3

[Teelie]

If this is the worst casting in the history bad castings then you have not seen very many movies, or are an incredibly mysogonist.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Well, I suppose it isn't totally fair to call this "Bridesmaids with Ghosts" when you consider that the original film wasn't "Stripes with Ghosts" just because Murray and Ramis had worked together before.

On the other hand, McCarthy just seems to be trying to play the female Jack Black in everything now, and all Wiig seems incapable of doing anything but making the "Who just farted?" face, so I'm not particularly interested in this.

 

[terry78]

They said the strawman arguments would start online due to them all being women, lol. The problem is that you got people saying they hate it but then they tack on women directed insults and it doesn't really help the cause. People will go see it out of spite then.

 

[DeadPresident]

Anything with Melissa Mccarthy is guaranteed to be horse****. They could have got a bunch of much better actresses.

 

[#root]

Hell yeah, Kate McKinnon! Love her . Wiig's great. McCarthy's alright too. Haven't really seen much of Leslie Jones to have an opinion about her, but this is a good cast .

 

[MadVillainy]

Only saw it once, but I liked it up until about that bridal shower scene. After that it just wasnt that funny to me anymore and became a mediocre chick flick to me.

I do think Wiig and McCarthy are talented. Im more worried about what they do with McCarthy

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

If this is the worst casting in the history bad castings then you have not seen very many movies, or are an incredibly mysogonist.

?????????????????

That most be the worst reply in the history of bad replies oldrazz.
How did you arrived to that moronic conclusion?
Because they are women and i dislike the casting?
I never said i dislike it BECAUSE they are women, so.....

As for "you have not seen very many movies", you need to explain that again, but do it with drawings, because that too f**ked up for me to ever understand by worst alone.
What does "seeing very many movies" have to do with disliking in turning Ghostbusters into a Bridesmaids reunion?

This is why no one liked feminists, because they see attacks when there isn't any.

 

[Dr. Evil]

McCarthy was good in St. Vincent showing off a more serious side.

 

[antsman41]

Yeah, but the likely hood of this showing that side (Gilmore Girls/St. Vincent) of her is one in a million.

 

[John Locke]

McCarthy is good when she's not being slapstick but considering this director is responsible for bringing out her slapstick so I wouldn't count on her being serious.

 

[PacificBoy]

Is this a reboot or sequel? If it's the latter I could picture the four women as daughters of the original four, with their personalities swapped around: Peter's daughter is guileless like Ray, Ray's is sarcastic, Egon's daughter is an everyperson, Winston's is a scientific genius.

But from the other casting choices being pursued it sounds like a reboot.

 

[Dr. Evil]

McCarthy is good when she's not being slapstick but considering this director is responsible for bringing out her slapstick so I wouldn't count on her being serious.

The director probably won't do any future projects without McCarthy involved.

 

[terry78]

Yeah, Feig and McCarthy have kinda become partners like that now. Depp/Burton, Scorsese/DiCaprio, and so on.

 

[PyroChamber]

If the Murray rumor is true, then you mean to tell me that he's turned down every opportunity for GB3 yet this is what he'd say yes to?

 

[JangoNate]

I remember reading this article talking about a movie from the early 80's. People were saying worse casting ever because it was composed of TV actors and members of an improv group and, well, movies were not for TV actors. It was called Ghostbusters.

Seriously, when will we stop judging the book by its cover, even before the cover is revealed. Michael Keaton and Batman, Ledger and Joker, Batfleck (we'll find out soon!), and that's just the Batman films.

 

[LostSon88]

I just don't understand the point of having him back in a brand new role.

It'd be like if Keaton showed up in TDK trilogy. Or Mark Hamill popping up in the PT.

It makes things unnecessarily confusing.

 

[Teelie]

?????????????????

That most be the worst reply in the history of bad replies oldrazz.
How did you arrived to that moronic conclusion?
Because they are women and i dislike the casting?
I never said i dislike it BECAUSE they are women, so.....

As for "you have not seen very many movies", you need to explain that again, but do it with drawings, because that too f**ked up for me to ever understand by worst alone.
What does "seeing very many movies" have to do with disliking in turning Ghostbusters into a Bridesmaids reunion?

This is why no one liked feminists, because they see attacks when there isn't any.

How can it not be interpeted any other way? Your post is echoing every other "women ghostbusters? this sucks!" comment I've seen. There was no indicator why these are the worst cast choices other than they are women. You followed how many dozens of posts whining over women and expect to be taken differently? Tacking "Bridesmaids with ghosts" does not help your "it's not about the women" argument.

Then you brush it off as a feminist argument when it was clearly a response to your parroting every other "women can't be ghostbusters" comment on here.

And plenty of people like feminists, but those who don't typically are mysogonists which is exactly how your response comes off.

 

[JangoNate]

Well, I suppose it isn't totally fair to call this "Bridesmaids with Ghosts" when you consider that the original film wasn't "Stripes with Ghosts" just because Murray and Ramis had worked together before.

On the other hand, McCarthy just seems to be trying to play the female Jack Black in everything now, and all Wiig seems incapable of doing anything but making the "Who just farted?" face, so I'm not particularly interested in this.

I just saw Skeleton Twins and she was pretty great.

 

[The Question]

That's the same plot that's been used in those types of comedies over and over again. been there done that, come up with something new.

It's a really basic, bare bones plot setup. It's not really a detriment to a story to have a set up like that, and the newness comes from what you put on top of that.

You think those SNL girls are some genius comedic actresses? No they're average at best. McCathey's shtick wore thin a long ass time ago, the only one that is decent is Wiig. Not funny and not good looking.

Why do you keep bringing up their attractiveness? Attractiveness is A) completely subjective, and B) completely irrelevant to this conversation.

In the same "franchise"?? Listen to yourself. This is not a good idea at all. Bill Murray in the Ghostbusters world (movies, video games) IS Peter Venkman, to put him in a different role is a slap in the face to fans (like me) who grew up watching these movies from a young age and especially a slap in the face to Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and especially Harold Ramis(RIP) who wanted to do a third one but never could because of Murray.

… why?

What harm does it do to have him play a different character?

This sort of thing happens in franchises all the time. The original Apollo played a recurring villain in the Battlestar Galactica remake. The original Lion-O played Lion-O's dad in the Thundercats remake. This sort of thing is kind of standard operating procedure.

No it's garbage because they're sh__ing all over an iconic franchise,

How?

because people have been wanting a third one for years and only after Ramis passed away are they doing something with this,

A result of poor timing and very unfortunate, but what are you going to do?

it's garbage because this is a complete reboot with no connection to the old ones,

When has that ever mattered?

it's garbage because of the cast (yes they're average actresses at best and they are not attractive at all)

Again, why do you keep talking about attractiveness as if it's relevant to the conversation?

and it's garbage because of the director.

Ah, look. The only reasonable criticism you've made so far.

Yes, I agree, the director is fairly underwhelming.

 

[The Question]

Anything with Melissa Mccarthy is guaranteed to be horse****. They could have got a bunch of much better actresses.

Melissa McCarthy is a fine comedic actor. She's just been in a lot of lousy movies.

 

[The Question]

?????????????????

That most be the worst reply in the history of bad replies oldrazz.
How did you arrived to that moronic conclusion?
Because they are women and i dislike the casting?
I never said i dislike it BECAUSE they are women, so.....

As for "you have not seen very many movies", you need to explain that again, but do it with drawings, because that too f**ked up for me to ever understand by worst alone.
What does "seeing very many movies" have to do with disliking in turning Ghostbusters into a Bridesmaids reunion?

This is why no one liked feminists, because they see attacks when there isn't any.

This is why no one likes anti-feminists, because they don't actually pay attention to what other people say.

The exact wording of the post you replied to was "If this is the worst casting in the history bad castings… "

If you honestly think that this is the worst casting in the history bad castings, then you haven't seen many movies because that is blatantly untrue.

 

[Teelie]

I could invoke a "Heath Ledger's Joker" reference but I don't want to get presumptuous. We don't know how good or how bad they will be as characters we don't know in a story we don't know set in a world we don't know. It's about catching ghosts and that's the extent of it. That they are using the Ghostbusters name is irrelevant since it won't make any difference to the previous two movies.

 

[JangoNate]

I'm personally just excited. Since 1999, I've been following rumor after rumor and script rewrite after script rewrite. Dan Aykroyd would say it's just about to happen... and nothing happened. Yesterday, I went online and saw something I never thought I'd see: Ghostbusters is officially scheduled to be released on July 22, 2016.

It is actually happening!

An internet infested by the typical cynics will not dampen that joy and my little boy (note little boy who's a fan of Princess Sophia and Doc McStuffins with female leads) clapped and screamed 'Yay!' when I said it was coming. Losing the original cast members and cartoon characters didn't dampen his mood and he doesn't see a problem with female leads. Like me, he's just happy to see the franchise expand. Hope it succeeds, be very, very worried... whatever, but nobody's crapping on anyone's childhood at the moment.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Only saw it once, but I liked it up until about that bridal shower scene. After that it just wasnt that funny to me anymore and became a mediocre chick flick to me.

I do think Wiig and McCarthy are talented. Im more worried about what they do with McCarthy

Yeah, that was the scene that kind of ruined it for me too. I have friends who act like that movie should have won an Oscar, and I'm like, "You realize this is a movie where a woman sh**s into a manhole in the middle of the street, right?"

Also, Rebel Wilson and that creepy looking guy who played her brother were unbearable.

 

[JangoNate]

I could invoke a "Heath Ledger's Joker" reference but I don't want to get presumptuous. We don't know how good or how bad they will be as characters we don't know in a story we don't know set in a world we don't know. It's about catching ghosts and that's the extent of it. That they are using the Ghostbusters name is irrelevant since it won't make any difference to the previous two movies.

To invoke the reference isn't too say this cast is guaranteed to be comic gold and woo the fanboyist of fanboys dead set against the film, but it is a simple reminder that we fans aren't always right in our opinions (though we won't be convinced, even if Ghostbusters wins the Oscar for best film ever and makes 3 trillion dollars. We'll just ask if the whole world saw the same movie we saw because it was utter crap aka not what 'I' wanted).