Ghostbusters 3 - Part 3

[Isildur´s Heir]

I said race, not nationality. I absolutely agree that Bond is a British man at his essence, and that should not change. But, for example, if they were to make Idris Elba, a British man of a different race, the next Bond, I'd be cool with it. That won't happen b/c he'll be too old, but you get the idea.

I wouldn't hate the idea, i'm a big Elba fan, but it would be weird as hell seeing that Bond exist for over 25 years and always as a white male.

 

[The Question]

I read somewhere that someone was confused because they didn't think the Flash was supposed to be Asian.

Oh wow that is so ****ing dumb…

 

[MadVillainy]

I said race, not nationality. I absolutely agree that Bond is a British man at his essence, and that should not change. But, for example, if they were to make Idris Elba, a British man of a different race, the next Bond, I'd be cool with it. That won't happen b/c he'll be too old, but you get the idea.


Lol, I knew as soon as I typed that someone would jump on that part. You are of course correct, but you know what I mean. Everything James Bond is, thematically, emotionally, etc. at his core, is pretty much limited to the male experience. And being a Brit.

Yeah I know what you mean I was just joking around.
I agree that it would be weird to see a female Bond. Im not a fan of that idea

 

[The Question]

A female bond would be sooooooooo much fun. James Bond is a franchise that has allays been defined by a very rigid sense of masculinity. Even the Bond films that move away from that do so by presenting it but then examining it in a way that casts a more negative light on it. Having a female Bond with the same personality and foibles would be so ****ing entertaining to watch if they handled that right.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

In all honesty, i don't like Ezra Miller as the Flash.
Reason: He is way too young to play Barry Allen, and doesn't strike me as Wally West.

And before anyone screams Grant Gustin, not only is Gustin older than Ezra Millar, i have more problem in casting for movies than tv shows.
Superhero tv shows always strike me as a "What if.../Elseworld" scenario, as opposed to movies which i see more as an adaptation (except Agents of Shield, which ties with the movies).

 

[flickchick85]

I wouldn't hate the idea, i'm a big Elba fan, but it would be weird as hell seeing that Bond exist for over 25 years and always as a white male.

Yeah it would be, but that's just because of what we're used to seeing, not because it betrays anything about who Bond is and what he represents. There's a difference between being against a race change just because it's change, and being against it because it actually does a disservice to the character in some way. Race changes that don't hurt the character at their core are ok with me. It's only when you start altering the attributes that make them who they are and made people love them in the first place that I have a problem with. Like Steve Rogers: I wouldn't approve of a race change with him because he represented throwing Hitler's "Aryan ideal" back in his face. But nothing about why people love Bond is about him being white. They love him because he's a badass spy who's cool as a cucumber, has that oh-so-British classy sophistication to him, and is willing to lay down his life for Queen and Country.

That said, I don't think a "gender change" is even what's happening with this film. Sounds like new characters and a new vibe altogether that will really only be called Ghostbusters because they'll be busting ghosts.

 

[bullets]

It's like Hollywood doesn't know what to do with fat actors anymore. John Candy did slapstick, but he was oftentimes the sardonic smart guy in the room also.

John Candy didn't have to resort to slapstick all the time. I hardly remember the slapstick moments and he is one of my favorites.

You can say Chris Farley's act relied on slapstick , but he was a master of the craft. He was so good anyone after pales in comparison.

McCarthy isn't just a one note comedian. She can be great depending on the material.

 

[The Question]

In all honesty, i don't like Ezra Miller as the Flash.
Reason: He is way too young to play Barry Allen, and doesn't strike me as Wally West.

What makes him too young? How old does Barry have to be when he first starts?

And before anyone screams Grant Gustin, not only is Gustin older than Ezra Millar, i have more problem in casting for movies than tv shows.
Superhero tv shows always strike me as a "What if.../Elseworld" scenario, as opposed to movies which i see more as an adaptation (except Agents of Shield, which ties with the movies).

That's an interesting take. Why do you think you see it that way?

Also, what exactly is the difference between an adaptation and a "what if?" scenario?

 

[The Question]

Yeah it would be, but that's just because of what we're used to seeing, not because it betrays anything about who Bond is and what he represents. There's a difference between being against a race change just because it's change, and being against it because it actually does a disservice to the character in some way. Race changes that don't hurt the character at their core are ok with me. It's only when you start altering the attributes that make them who they are and made people love them in the first place that I have a problem with. People don't love Bond because he's white. They love him because he's a badass spy who's cool as a cucumber, has that oh-so-British classy sophistication to him, and is willing to lay down his life for Queen and Country.

That said, I don't think a "gender change" is even what's happening with this film. Sounds like new characters and a new vibe altogether that will really only be called Ghostbusters because they'll be busting ghosts.

I honestly can't think of any characters for whom a race change would do a disservice to said character, except for characters like The Red Skull who are defined by being white supremacists.

Captain America is the only superhero where a race change would require significant story changes, but those story changes could actually be pretty cool and work with what the character is already about if handled well.

 

[bullets]

Supposedly the TV Flash and Arrow exist in an alternate universe to the DC films and there's a rumor it will be mentioned on the show some time in the future.

 

[Mike_D202]

I don't understand why a Ghostbusters fan would come into this thread and post something like that. This movie is NOT Ghostbusters. Ernie Hudson even frowned upon this travesty. They are completely disregarding the previous movies, they could have went with a straight sequel or a new team in a different city while still keeping in with the same universe and NOT alienating the worldwide fan base. But no. That director finds "women more funnier." The studio even asked him why doesn't he just mix it up a little at least and have connections to the other movies, he wants it to be HIS own thing and start a new series of movies that he will have creative control over. You don't piss all over 30 years of a huge movie franchise and childhoods just because you want to be different and use a gimmick. Oh, and did I mention that these "Ghostbusters" are a secret government agency like the Men In Black? Yeah. And they're using high-tech equipment. And Peter Dinklage's character is a serial killer that comes back as a ghost that they have to capture. That's the plot according to the hacked Sony emails. I thought the studio would make him change it, but judging from the casting he has going on I can see that didn't happen. Channing Tatum even contacted the CEO Amy Pascal and pitched her an idea, that they do multiple movies (like the MARVEL universe) and offered to have he and Chris Pratt to star in one directed by the Russos (they were involved in the Captain America sequel), which I would have preferred over this piece of ****. But NO. This will flop like the "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake, will be lost and buried within 4 years of its release.

All women? Cool. Secret government agency to track down an evil spirit of a serial killer? Improbable, but interesting. Just don't call it "Ghostbusters."

Shame on you sir, for coming here and positing that gif.

 

[The Question]

I don't understand why a Ghostbusters fan would come into this thread and post something like that. This movie is NOT Ghostbusters. Ernie Hudson even frowned upon this travesty. They are completely disregarding the previous movies, they could have went with a straight sequel or a new team in a different city while still keeping in with the same universe and NOT alienating the worldwide fan base. But no. That director finds "women more funnier." The studio even asked him why doesn't he just mix it up a little at least and have connections to the other movies, he wants it to be HIS own thing and start a new series of movies that he will have creative control over. You don't piss all over 30 years of a huge movie franchise and childhoods just because you want to be different and use a gimmick. Oh, and did I mention that these "Ghostbusters" are a secret government agency like the Men In Black? Yeah. And they're using high-tech equipment. And Peter Dinklage's character is a serial killer that comes back as a ghost that they have to capture. That's the plot according to the hacked Sony emails. I thought the studio would make him change it, but judging from the casting he has going on I can see that didn't happen. Channing Tatum even contacted the CEO Amy Pascal and pitched her an idea, that they do multiple movies (like the MARVEL universe) and offered to have he and Chris Pratt to star in one directed by the Russos (they were involved in the Captain America sequel), which I would have preferred over this piece of ****. But NO. This will flop like the "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake, will be lost and buried within 4 years of its release.

Shame on you sir, for coming here and positing that gif.

So you think that doing a remake instead of a sequel is somehow disrespectful? Why?

Also, what does the female team have to do with it being a remake instead of a sequel? If it was a sequel featuring a new team following in the footsteps of the originals, as you suggested, it could still have an all female Ghostbusters team. And what's wrong with the ghost of a serial killer plot? How is that non-condusive to Ghostbusters? It's a ghost. They're going to try and bust it.

 

[flickchick85]

I honestly can't think of any characters for whom a race change would do a disservice to said character, except for characters like The Red Skull who are defined by being white supremacists.

Captain America is the only superhero where a race change would require significant story changes, but those story changes could actually be pretty cool and work with what the character is already about if handled well.

Ha, before I saw your post, I edited mine to include Steve Rogers as one of the few that a race change wouldn't work for. That's not to say Captain America can't be of a difference race, but Steve Rogers specifically since a big theme in his story is about Hitler and Red Skull's plans being thwarted by the very Aryan ideal they're promoting.

 

[The Question]

Ha, before I saw your post, I edited mine to include Steve Rogers as one of the few that a race change wouldn't work for. That's not to say Captain America can't be of a difference race, but Steve Rogers and his story since a big part of it is about Hitler and Red Skull's plans being thwarted by the very Aryan ideal they're promoting.

I really don't think that that is an important or necessary part of the character. Especially since that describes most American WWII movies ever made.

If anything, I think Hitler and the Red Skull being defeated by someone who absolutely does not represent the Aryan ideal they promoted is much more powerful and interesting.

 

[Mike_D202]

So you think that doing a remake instead of a sequel is somehow disrespectful? Why?

Alienating everything that came before it is a good start, considering the millions of fans keeping the franchise alive. At least the other remakes that Hollywood made had the same characters and paid homage to the originals. This is "Men In Black" with the plot from "Shocker"

Also, what does the female team have to do with it being a remake instead of a sequel? If it was a sequel featuring a new team following in the footsteps of the originals, as you suggested, it could still have an all female Ghostbusters team. And what's wrong with the ghost of a serial killer plot? How is that non-condusive to Ghostbusters? It's a ghost. They're going to try and bust it.

He's using a gimmick, all females and having the men as villains is so far out in gimmick land that it might as well have it's own movie genre. Who are they targeting this movie to? Don't tell me the fans, because that is complete bull. Interesting plot/story, just don't call it "Ghostbusters."

 

[Snow Queen]

I think there's something interesting to be explored there re: African American Steve Rogers. Someone considered a lower class citizen who ends up becoming the greatest hero of the time.

 

[flickchick85]

I really don't think that that is an important or necessary part of the character. Especially since that describes most American WWII movies ever made.

If anything, I think Hitler and the Red Skull being defeated by someone who absolutely does not represent the Aryan ideal they promoted is much more powerful and interesting.

Most WWII movies don't feature super-soldiers as propaganda tools. IMO, it IS a big part of Steve Rogers' story, and wouldn't work for a different race in the historical context of 1940's America.

Now if you wanted to create some sort of alternate universe America to tell that story in, I agree an African-American Cap could be interesting. But part of the reason a lot of people like Cap's backstory is because it fits right in with the propaganda/spirit of the era as we know it.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

What makes him too young? How old does Barry have to be when he first starts?

Ezra is 22 and looks 22.
I see Barry in his 30s.
For example: Matthew Morrison, Wilson Bethel, Scott Porter (i had to use google to search for candidates)

That's an interesting take. Why do you think you see it that way?

Also, what exactly is the difference between an adaptation and a "what if?" scenario?

Maybe because i always saw superheroes belonging on the big screen more than on the small screen.
As for a difference between an adaptation and a "what if...":

And adaptation follows the books and tries to be true to them, a "what if.." takes the idea of the superhero and turns it upside down, a "what if...this happened" scenario.

 

[The Question]

Alienating everything that came before it is a good start, considering the millions of fans keeping the franchise alive. At least the other remakes that Hollywood made had the same characters and paid homage to the originals. This is "Men In Black" with the plot from "Shocker"

How does this alienate everything that came before? Are they recalling the "Real Ghostbusters" DVDs? Are they going to pass a law banning the first two films?

He's using a gimmick, all females and having the men as villains is so far out in gimmick land that it might as well have it's own movie genre.

So what?

Who are they targeting this movie to? Don't tell me the fans, because that is complete bull.

So Ghostbusters fans are definitionally against an all female cast and a villain who is the ghost of a serial killer? Since when?

Interesting story, just don't call it "Ghostbusters."

Whay is definitionally "un-Ghostbusters" about an all female cast and an undead serial killer bad guy? If this were a sequel, with the four female leads as the new Ghostbusters field team and the surviving original Ghostbusters making a cameo in some kind of administrative role, and the movie was about these new Ghostbusters, still an extension of the original team, fighting a ghostly serial killer, why would you still have a problem with it? How would it not fit?

 

[The Question]

Most WWII movies don't feature super-soldiers as propaganda tools. IMO, it IS a big part of Steve Rogers' story, and wouldn't work for a different race in the historical context of 1940's America.

Now if you wanted to create some sort of alternate universe America to tell that story in, I agree an African-American Cap could be interesting. But part of the reason a lot of people like Cap's backstory is because it fits right in with the propaganda/spirit of the era as we know it.

He could still be a propaganda tool. You could have it be that his mask covered his whole face, and the government kept the fact that he was black a secret. It would explain the presence of the secret identity he originally had.

 

[bullets]

The Aykroyd family is delighted by this inheritance of the Ghostbusters torch by these most magnificent women in comedy. My great grandfather, Dr. Sam Aykroyd, the original Ghostbuster, was a man who empowered women in his day and this is a beautiful development in the legacy of our family business. - Dan Akroyd

 

[flickchick85]

He could still be a propaganda tool. You could have it be that his mask covered his whole face, and the government kept the fact that he was black a secret. It would explain the presence of the secret identity he originally had.

That would be interesting, no doubt. And I would be interested in seeing it. But you have to admit it kinda changes Cap's whole backstory. Which was my main point - that some race changes actually affect who the character is and what they represent. Bond isn't one of them, and Cap is.

 

[Vaibow]

He sold out, took the money and ran.

This bares no relation to the original except name.

This should be called 'bump in the night' or 'Ghost watch' heck, maybe even Ghost Hunters.

 

[Mike_D202]

How does this alienate everything that came before? Are they recalling the "Real Ghostbusters" DVDs? Are they going to pass a law banning the first two films?

Disregarding the origins, characters, and stories from the franchise so he can make his own? Yeah, that's alienating.

So what?

Why are you here? Are you even a Ghostbusters fan? Or just want to debate with people who hate what they're doing and calling them gender bias?

So Ghostbusters fans are definitionally against an all female cast and a villain who is the ghost of a serial killer? Since when?

You are confusing me with someone else, his posts are a few pages back.

Whay is definitionally "un-Ghostbusters" about an all female cast and an undead serial killer bad guy? If this were a sequel, with the four female leads as the new Ghostbusters field team and the surviving original Ghostbusters making a cameo in some kind of administrative role, and the movie was about these new Ghostbusters, still an extension of the original team, fighting a ghostly serial killer, why would you still have a problem with it? How would it not fit?

No, I wouldn't have a problem with it IF THEY KEPT THIS MOVIE IN THE SAME UNIVERSE AS THE ORIGINAL FRANCHISE. And if you want to say "Well it's about a group of people fighting a ghost so its ghostbusters" then you might as well call every ghost story movie the past 20 years "ghostbusters."

 

[Jason Kane]

I think there's something interesting to be explored there re: African American Steve Rogers. Someone considered a lower class citizen who ends up becoming the greatest hero of the time.

So, we're going to pretend Isaiah Bradley never existed all of the sudden?