Ghostbusters 3 - Part 3

[The Question]

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

How is it alienating. That's what remakes do.

Did Batman Begins alienate Batman fans by not being a sequel?

Why are you here? Are you even a Ghostbusters fan?

Yes, I am a Ghostbusters fan. Nice use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, pal.

Or just want to debate with people who hate what they're doing and calling them gender bias?

I have never called someone "gender bias." That would be a very odd name for a person to have.

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

I was responding to things that you said.

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."

Then why did you list the all female cast and the serial killer bad guy as things that aren't Ghostbusters?

 

[Snow Queen]

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

Not a character I'm familiar with, sorry.

 

[The Question]

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.

Does it? The only thing it would change is Steve Rogers getting the attention that Captain America gets during the war. Which, in the original comics, he didn't. He had a secret identity (for no real reason). His backstory would be the same. Sickly kid from a poor family who becomes a super soldier and an icon to the American people.

 

[Mike_D202]

I'll just leave this here for you to ponder as to why re-imaging a franchise is a horrible idea:

Leprechaun: Origins

There, let that sink in. LET IT SINK IN!!

 

[flickchick85]

Not a character I'm familiar with, sorry.

He was an early super-soldier experiment, and he was African-American. And no, I'm not pretending he didn't exist: I specified in an earlier post that I'm only talking about Steve Rogers and HIS backstory here.

 

[The Question]

I'll just leave this here for you to ponder as to why re-imaging a franchise is a horrible idea:

Leprechaun: Origins

There, let that sink in. LET IT SINK IN!!

I let it sink in, and then I didn't care. What's your point here, exactly?

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

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.

Want another? Thor.
Thor is a Nordic God, to make him black would be ridiculous, as much as Heimdall....oh wait

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.

I disagree with you 200%.
So, in your mind, nothing is sacred, anything can be changed.
The characters are who they are, look at them as real people.
If a character is white/black/asian/man/woman/whatever it shouldn't be changed, unless the character is not crucial, and even so....

For example: a long time ago, before Tim Story's FF, i had the idea of a Fantastic Four movie where i would cast Charlize Theron as Susan Storm and Denzel Washington as Reed Richards.
Why would it work?
Because more important then the characters is the fact that THEY ARE A TEAM.
Even so, i understand that many people would hate it.

To cast MBJ as the Human Torch is stupid because he has a sister, so, unless you change the race of both, to have two of different races goes against who the characters are.

 

[Jason Kane]

Not a character I'm familiar with, sorry.

You have not lived til you read Truth: Red, White, & Black.

Then there's Patriot/Elijah Bradley (Isaiah's grandson) from Young Avengers

 

[Snow Queen]

I'll just leave this here for you to ponder as to why re-imaging a franchise is a horrible idea:

Leprechaun: Origins

There, let that sink in. LET IT SINK IN!!

Yes because the film series with a Leprechaun in space with a lightsaber is above rebooting.

 

[The Question]

Want another? Thor.
Thor is a Nordic God, to make him black would be ridiculous, as much as Heimdall….oh wait

Honestly, that's the only one where I might agree with you. But even then, gods can look like whatever they want. They're gods. And it would depend on the tone and focus of the story. In the Marvel movies, where Nordic cultural heritage and folklore don't factor into the story at all, I think it's a non issue. Something like American Gods, where the immigration and cultural assimilation narrative is the central theme of the story, is a different case.

I disagree with you 200%.
So, in your mind, nothing is sacred, anything can be changed.

Yes, nothing is sacred, but no, not just anything can be changed. "Sacred" doesn't factor into my mindset at all. What factors into my mindset is necessity and functionality. Is a detail doing work in the story? If no, it can be changed. If yes, is the work it is doing absolutely vital to the core of what the story is about? If no, it can still be changed. If yes, it can't be changed. It's that simple.

If a character is white/black/asian/man/woman/whatever it should be changed, unless the character is not crucial.

Isn't that my point? Or is this a typo?

For example: a long time ago, before Tim Story's FF, i had the idea of a Fantastic Four movie where i would cast Charlize Theron as Susan Storm and Denzel Washington as Reed Richards.
Why would it work?
Because more important then the characters is the fact that THEY ARE A TEAM.
Even so, i understand that many people would hate it.

I understand to, I just also don't care.

To cast MBJ as the Human Torch is stupid because he has a sister, so, unless you change the race of both, to have two of different races goes against who the characters are.

Mixed race families are a thing. Adoption is a thing. It doesn't go against who the characters are.

 

[Snow Queen]

You have not lived til you read Truth: Red, White, & Black.

Then there's Patriot/Elijah Bradley (Isaiah's grandson) from Young Avengers

I see. I'll add it to me "to read" list.

 

[Mike_D202]

Yes because the film series with a Leprechaun in space with a lightsaber is above rebooting.

Okay, bad example Point being don't brand it a famous worldwide title when it has nothing to do with the franchise that made the studio money. Name it something else. "Phantom Grabbers" is a good title for Fieg, it's funny and it fits.

 

[flickchick85]

Does it? The only thing it would change is Steve Rogers getting the attention that Captain America gets during the war. Which, in the original comics, he didn't. He had a secret identity (for no real reason). His backstory would be the same. Sickly kid from a poor family who becomes a super soldier and an icon to the American people.

Again, I mentioned part of the reason many people enjoy Cap's backstory is because it fits so believably in with the era it portrays, and the propaganda that was prevalent at that time. An African-American man being chosen for this experiment and becoming the face of the US/Allies propaganda in the 1940's is a huge leap given the historical context and race relations back then. Not that people wouldn't enjoy this version; I'm sure they would, as it could potentially be a very powerful approach, but the base of its appeal would be completely different.

 

[bullets]

I'll just leave this here for you to ponder as to why re-imaging a franchise is a horrible idea:

Leprechaun: Origins

There, let that sink in. LET IT SINK IN!!

A low budget horror film made by WWE vs a comedy made by a Director and Comedian with a proven track record.

Let that sink in!

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Isn't that my point? Or is this a typo?

Yes, it's a typo, i edited it.

Mixed race families are a thing. Adoption is a thing. It doesn't go against who the characters are.

Of course you are wrong and you are wrong about everything i didn't quoted (but, who each his own).
Sue and Johnny are blood related, not blood brother, best friends that call themselves brother and sister nor adopted...things are what they are.

 

[The Question]

Again, I mentioned part of the reason many people enjoy Cap's backstory is because it fits so believably in with the era it portrays, and the propaganda that was prevalent at that time. An African-American man being chosen for this experiment and becoming the face of the US/Allies in the 1940's is a huge leap given the historical context and race relations back then. Not that people wouldn't enjoy this version; I'm sure they would, as it could potentially be a very powerful approach, but the base of its appeal would be completely different.

I really don't agree with you on that. There's no reason the propaganda element has to change if you made it a part of the story that they kept his race a secret. And that also fist in perfectly with the era it portrays. Whitewashing the accomplishments of black people for the purposes of propaganda was a very common thing back then.

The US government conducts Project: Rebirth. Steve Rodgers is the final viable test subject and is chosen to test the serum. It works, but Erskine dies and his notes are destroyed before the serum can be mass produced. Steve is the only super soldier they have. They use him both as a soldier and as a propaganda tool, but they give him a uniform with a full face mask and keep "Captain America's" race a secret for the purposes of said propaganda. As a result, Steve Rogers is forced to have a secret identity.

It all fits pretty well, I think. The difference is that it looks less kindly on 1940s America, which I think is a good thing. While there are things from that era we may admire, it was just as much a mixed bag as today is.


Also, I want to stress that I'm not arguing that such a thing should happen. For various narrative reasons, I think including Isaiah Bradley and Josiah X in the narrative is much more interesting overall. I'm just arguing that it could work.

 

[The Question]

Of course you are wrong and you are wrong about everything i didn't quoted (but, who each his own).

Care to explain how I am wrong?

Sue and Johnny are blood related, not blood brother, best friends that call themselves brother and sister nor adopted...things are what they are.

There is no reasonable distinction between blood siblings and adopted siblings or blood siblings and half siblings. Siblings are siblings. If you grew up together and were raised by the same parents, you are brother and sister in every way that those concepts are meaningful to people. Genetics is just a technicality, and doesn't factor into how people feel about each other.

Also, you can have blood siblings who both have the same parents in mixed families where one looks white and the other looks black. It is a thing that happens and isn't that weird.

 

[flickchick85]

I really don't agree with you on that. There's no reason the propaganda element has to change if you made it a part of the story that they kept his race a secret. And that also fist in perfectly with the era it portrays. Whitewashing the accomplishments of black people for the purposes of propaganda was a very common thing back then.

The US government conducts Project: Rebirth. Steve Rodgers is the final viable test subject and is chosen to test the serum. It works, but Erskine dies and his notes are destroyed before the serum can be mass produced. Steve is the only super soldier they have. They use him both as a soldier and as a propaganda tool, but they give him a uniform with a full face mask and keep "Captain America's" race a secret for the purposes of said propaganda. As a result, Steve Rogers is forced to have a secret identity.

It all fits pretty well, I think. The difference is that it looks less kindly on 1940s America, which I think is a good thing. While there are things from that era we may admire, it was just as much a mixed bag as today is.

While it may be a good thing (and I agree it is), it is also a major change to the whole approach/intent of the story, which was the point. And also the lead hero being from a marginalized part of the population having to hide who he is for propaganda purposes because of the way society would view him is a pretty significant change as well, imo.

 

[Mike_D202]

How is it alienating. That's what remakes do.

Did Batman Begins alienate Batman fans by not being a sequel?

That's a really bad example and I can see you live up to your username. Did they change Batman's origins? Gender? Make him into a flying dragon instead of a Bat? Would you have been okay with all of that as long as he remained a superhero fighting crime? No? Didn't think so.

 

[The Question]

While it may be a good thing (and I agree it is), it is also a major change to the whole approach/intent of the story, which was the point.

I don't know, Captain America comics and stories have in the past made a habit of taking a more ambivalent look at American exceptionalism and notions of an American golden age.

And also the lead hero being from a marginalized part of the population having to hide who he is for propaganda purposes because of the way society would view him is a pretty significant change as well, imo.

Significant, but I think it would only add, not detract.

 

[The Question]

That's a really bad example and I can see you live up to your username. Did they change Batman's origins? Gender? Make him into a flying dragon instead of a Bat? Would you have been okay with all of that as long as he remained a superhero fighting crime? No? Didn't think so.

So you'd be okay with this movie as a remake if the Ghostbusters team came together in roughly similar circumstances as the original team in the original movie?

Also, I'd be fine with a Batwoman.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Care to explain how I am wrong?

I just did when i said "things are what they are".
If you want, look at them as real people.
If you want to change something for the hell of it, you might as well create something new.

Also, you can have blood siblings who both have the same parents in mixed families where one looks white and the other looks black. It is a thing that happens and isn't that weird.

Is not normal, is not something that happens every day.
How many movies you have when a black and a white say that they are brother/sister and everyone goes "really?" or "WTF?".

Besides, you say that it can be changed if it's not crucial...well....you should ask yourself "what does the change brings to the table" as well.
Having the Human Torch black doesn't bring anything but "there is a black dude playing the HT".

 

[Mike_D202]

So you'd be okay with this movie as a remake if the Ghostbusters team came together in roughly similar circumstances as the original team in the original movie?

Also, I'd be fine with a Batwoman.

The only way I'd be okay with this remake/reboot is if they didn't disregard the franchise that built it in the first place. I would have been fine if it took place in a different city where these women had the same character descriptions as they do now and they became a GB franchise after a ghost problem had risen. Fieg's issue is that if he would have done that, ghosts would have been well known and he wants it to be scary. Serial killers are well known, and they are still scary. He just wants to build it from the ground up and make it his own.

And no, it would have been Batman. Except a woman dressed like a dragon. Because it's the same damn thing as what's happening now.

 

[JangoNate]

So many psychics on this board! Or are you from the future and bring a prophecy about the craptastic fail this movie will be?

Nope, it's just the internet where everyone's opinion is fact and if you don't agree what they feel is true, they'll assure you that you'll be back in July 2016 to confess that you were wrong and it was a failure. But if it succeeds critically and makes lots of money it won't truly be a success and years from that point people will forget about the movie and it will whither away into nothingness. And when it celebrates a 25th Anniversary with women decked out in the 'classic' gear...well, we won't care. We're to busy ranting about the rumored reboot that will ruin everything.

 

[The Question]

I just did when i said "things are what they are".

But art is fluid, and what defines a character or concept in a work of art is not as rigid as what defines a person.

If you want, look at them as real people.

I don't want to. That's not a useful mindset, because they're fundamentally different from real people. Real people actually exist, and real people aren't defined by themes and concepts.

If you want to change something for the hell of it, you might as well create something new.

If you want to do something that is exactly like something else but just changes one or two inconsequential details, you might as well adapt that thing.

Is not normal, is not something that happens every day.

It's not normal in the sense of being common, but it is normal in the sense of "being the opposite or weird or alien."

How many movies you have when a black and a white say that they are brother/sister and everyone goes "really?" or "WTF?".

Why does that matter?

Besides, you say that it can be changed if it's not crucial…well….you should ask yourself "what does the change brings to the table" as well.
Having the Human Torch black doesn't bring anything but "there is a black dude playing the HT".

Why isn't that enough?