Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Picture of them in uniform

http://www.eonline.com/news/674853/ghostbusters-cast-spotted-in-uniform-for-the-first-time-see-the-pic

Picture of Ecto - 1 and Ecto - 2

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2015/07/09/new-ghostbusters-photos-video-show-ecto-1-in-action-debut-the-ecto-2/


My childhood has been crapped on

Guess which one is Winston

Maaaaan. Now they're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Next they'll be making remakes of re-.

Oh. feth.

Both all-female and all-male casts are stupid. It's just like all-white or all-black, they lack of diversity makes it boring.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Both all-female and all-male casts are stupid. It's just like all-white or all-black, they lack of diversity makes it boring.

I don't follow your logic here. Why should a lack of variation in skin color or sex make a story boring?

I mean that if the underlying message of a diverse cast is to show that we are all the same and that sex and color shouldn't make a difference. Then discriminating against a movie for having a homogeneous cast would seem to run contrary to the message.


Later,
ff

 focusedfire wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Both all-female and all-male casts are stupid. It's just like all-white or all-black, they lack of diversity makes it boring.

I don't follow your logic here. Why should a lack of variation in skin color or sex make a story boring?

I mean that if the underlying message of a diverse cast is to show that we are all the same and that sex and color shouldn't make a difference. Then discriminating against a movie for having a homogeneous cast would seem to run contrary to the message.


Later,
ff

Because if all people come from the same group, there is no inter-play between them. It's just a personal thing, but I enjoy movies better when they have that. We are different but equal, and our differences are interesting.

Sorry if thiss comes out a bit weird, it's 2:30 at night, and I need sleep .

What does "all-female cast" mean exactly?

Will there be only women in the entire film, or only women that are Ghostbusters? If the former I don't see the point. If the latter I don't see the problem.

The first movie was fine as it is (it was great), this series doesn't need any sequels. They can do whatever they want with the series as I have no investment in it after Ghostbusters 1.

I have far more problems with this being a reboot than I do with an all female cast. The timing is perfect for one or two of the originals to be mentors to a new team - see Extreme Ghostbusters.

Regardless it's going to not be as good as Ghostbusters, but there are degrees of worse.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Both all-female and all-male casts are stupid. It's just like all-white or all-black, they lack of diversity makes it boring.

I don't follow your logic here. Why should a lack of variation in skin color or sex make a story boring?

I mean that if the underlying message of a diverse cast is to show that we are all the same and that sex and color shouldn't make a difference. Then discriminating against a movie for having a homogeneous cast would seem to run contrary to the message.


Later,
ff

Because if all people come from the same group, there is no inter-play between them. It's just a personal thing, but I enjoy movies better when they have that. We are different but equal, and our differences are interesting.

Sorry if thiss comes out a bit weird, it's 2:30 at night, and I need sleep .

While I disagree with your view on the necessity of multi-racial and multi-sexual casts for compelling inter-play...I will wait until another time, when your not tired, to discuss further.

Later,
ff

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Both all-female and all-male casts are stupid. It's just like all-white or all-black, they lack of diversity makes it boring.

I don't follow your logic here. Why should a lack of variation in skin color or sex make a story boring?

I mean that if the underlying message of a diverse cast is to show that we are all the same and that sex and color shouldn't make a difference. Then discriminating against a movie for having a homogeneous cast would seem to run contrary to the message.


Later,
ff

Because if all people come from the same group, there is no inter-play between them. It's just a personal thing, but I enjoy movies better when they have that. We are different but equal, and our differences are interesting.

Sorry if thiss comes out a bit weird, it's 2:30 at night, and I need sleep .

I think it's a mistake to assume that because people are all of the same race or gender that they come from the same group. Diversity is way more than race and gender, and trying to distill it to only those two factors really, really misses the mark on why diversity is important and good. Racial and gender diversity is literally the most superficial indicator of diversity.

That said, I think the context of the film matters. It could make sense that a film set in ancient or medieval Europe might have only white actors, just as a film set in certain regions of Africa might have only black actors, or a film set in China might have only Asian actors.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Both all-female and all-male casts are stupid. It's just like all-white or all-black, they lack of diversity makes it boring.

I don't follow your logic here. Why should a lack of variation in skin color or sex make a story boring?

I mean that if the underlying message of a diverse cast is to show that we are all the same and that sex and color shouldn't make a difference. Then discriminating against a movie for having a homogeneous cast would seem to run contrary to the message.


Later,
ff

Because if all people come from the same group, there is no inter-play between them. It's just a personal thing, but I enjoy movies better when they have that. We are different but equal, and our differences are interesting.

Sorry if thiss comes out a bit weird, it's 2:30 at night, and I need sleep .

I don't get this considering everyone is different in their own way.

I don't care so long as they get a cast that's worthwhile. The ghostbusters movies had excellent qualities between the leads and each allowed them to play off each other in a humorous fashion.

Without that it really wouldn't be a good ghostbuster movie.

Much like most attempts to mine the nostalgia caches of my generation (roughly), I don't see this going well. Because eighties movies didn't succeed because they were brilliant or flawless ideas, they got by on luck, charm, or pure awesome ridiculousness.

There are two way to properly do an update like this - take the very basic premise and completely re-do things based on that, thus it is a new story inspired by the original.

Or, do as close to a scene for scene reshoot with updated VFX and maybe a few very minor changes.


Instead, almost every reboot/update of eighties movies we have seen have toed some tepid middle ground, where they keep pretty much all of the plot points, but get rid of the soul of the movie - so they end up being plodding, predictable messes. Because that is what happens when Hollywood and a director meet. The director probably wants to do their own thing, but the suits won't let them stray too far; so the director doesn't just want to remake a movie scene for scene - that'd be like admitting someone else is/was a better director than them.

Exemplars of this have been Total Recall, Robocop, Friday the 13th, Red Dawn, The Invasion*, Taking of Pelham 1 2 3*, Death Race**, Rollerball*, and so on.


*not actually 80's movies remakes, but I stand by the rest of my argument and didn't want to rewrite this whole thing.

**I'll admit I liked the new Deathrace (not the direct to dvd sequels, because Statham.

This will be awesome. I nominate Kevin Hart or Aziz Ansari for the secretary role. I think Aziz could do a more active role, with attempts to monetize the ghostbusting. Kevin Hart would probably be more fun to watch when he's being slimed and running from ghosts.

 Bromsy wrote:
I have far more problems with this being a reboot than I do with an all female cast. The timing is perfect for one or two of the originals to be mentors to a new team - see Extreme Ghostbusters.

Regardless it's going to not be as good as Ghostbusters, but there are degrees of worse.

Agreed, don't mind that it's all female cast it's the rebooting that bothers me.

I hope they can capture the dry martini sense of humor from the original.

 focusedfire wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Both all-female and all-male casts are stupid. It's just like all-white or all-black, they lack of diversity makes it boring.

I don't follow your logic here. Why should a lack of variation in skin color or sex make a story boring?

Have you watched a Tyler Perry movie?? To give you an idea.... Try, seriously TRY to sit through "Why Did I Get Married?"


There are really very few movies out there that are truly homogenous of course, and sometimes, a movie makes more sense if it's "all male" or "all female" (see: Hangover, Last Vegas, Ghostbusters 1, Miracle), but a movie like what Tyler Perry makes, generally are utter crap and so unenjoyable that if I see the film makers name on it, I'll know just to skip it.

I am okay with this. I really liked Bridesmaids and The Heat and the same director is attached to this project so I am willing to see what he has in mind for the reboot.

I think this would work.
A reboot would have fans comparing the new characters with the old. A gender switch refreshes the series and allows continuation without that problem.

Also as its purportedly Ghostbuster 3 its a sequel not a reboot so the characters are not the same as the orginal , they follow on from. Surviving members of the original cast might have cameo roles.

If so I suspect it might end up like Charlies Angels.with a female action cast and a male support cast which is also a command group.

All in all its a smart way to move the franchise forward. Now it all depends on whether they get it right.

 Orlanth wrote:
I think this would work.
A reboot would have fans comparing the new characters with the old. A gender switch refreshes the series and allows continuation without that problem.

Also as its purportedly Ghostbuster 3 its a sequel not a reboot so the characters are not the same as the orginal , they follow on from. Surviving members of the original cast might have cameo roles.

If so I suspect it might end up like Charlies Angels.with a female action cast and a male support cast which is also a command group.

All in all its a smart way to move the franchise forward. Now it all depends on whether they get it right.

No, the Ghostbusters 3 rumors are older and separate. If the reboot and female cast rumors are legit, I doubt it is going to be Ghostbusters 3. And we'll still compare the characters.

 Orlanth wrote:
Also as its purportedly Ghostbuster 3 its a sequel not a reboot so the characters are not the same as the orginal , they follow on from. Surviving members of the original cast might have cameo roles.

They've stated that 3/reboot isn't a sequel anymore and that IF the original actors cameo, it won't be as the characters they played originally.

I don't have an issue with how they want to cast the leads. Just hoping the script and directing produce a good film.

Hopefully it will do well and be a kick in the nards for the "must have male lead" mantra of action and comedy films (and hopefully games too ).

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I am okay with this. I really liked Bridesmaids and The Heat and the same director is attached to this project so I am willing to see what he has in mind for the reboot.

Blah.

I thought both Bridesmaids and The Heat were terrible.(I only watched The Heat at my wife's request)

To be fair, I don't think Melissa McCarthy is funny. At all.

This Ghostbusters reboot sounds just awful.

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I am okay with this. I really liked Bridesmaids and The Heat and the same director is attached to this project so I am willing to see what he has in mind for the reboot.

Blah.


To be fair, I don't think Melissa McCarthy is funny. At all.

This Ghostbusters reboot sounds just awful.

I think this is the first time we've ever agreed. Putting McCarthy in it means I won't touch it with somebody else's wallet. She's a crap actress. The trailers alone from Identity Theft made me want to vomit-her performance looked obnoxious and terrible. Auto pass on anything with her as a lead role.

Is she the... uhm... large one? I don't care much for her either. But otherwise I think the Bridesmaids cast was pretty good, and I like Sandra Bullock.

And I couldn't care less if they do a reboot. At least they're not digitally replacing Bill Murray with Kristen Wiig and pulling the original off the shelves. God damn George Lucas has set my standards very low when it comes to remakes and sequels.

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:
Is she the... uhm... large one? I don't care much for her either. But otherwise I think the Bridesmaids cast was pretty good, and I like Sandra Bullock.

And I couldn't care less if they do a reboot. At least they're not digitally replacing Bill Murray with Kristen Wiig and pulling the original off the shelves. God damn George Lucas has set my standards very low when it comes to remakes and sequels.

Yes, that is Melissa McCarthy. I think she excels in a supporting role more than as a lead. Tammy didn't do well as an example. However, if you see her contribution in This Is 40, where she is able to let loose with her improv abilities, you get real a sense of her comedic talent.

If they go down the reboot route I hope it is similar to 21 Jump Street, as that was the first reboot in a long time that I enjoyed. There was clear homage paid to the original and cameos throughout of the original cast while still being new and relevant and not taking itself too seriously. If we got a Ghostbusters reboot like that I think they will have a winner on their hands.

Have we got a source on the cast yet?

Or... should we just assume it's going to be Sarah Silverman, Tina Fey, Melissa McCarthy and some other generically funny female comedian?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Also as its purportedly Ghostbuster 3 its a sequel not a reboot so the characters are not the same as the orginal , they follow on from. Surviving members of the original cast might have cameo roles.

They've stated that 3/reboot isn't a sequel anymore and that IF the original actors cameo, it won't be as the characters they played originally.

Pity, that was making sense. A remake with female characters doesnt, its just a core concept recycle with the original name.
Why is it Ghostbusters 3 then? Or is that a press assumption.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Also as its purportedly Ghostbuster 3 its a sequel not a reboot so the characters are not the same as the orginal , they follow on from. Surviving members of the original cast might have cameo roles.

They've stated that 3/reboot isn't a sequel anymore and that IF the original actors cameo, it won't be as the characters they played originally.

Pity, that was making sense. A remake with female characters doesnt, its just a core concept recycle with the original name.
Why is it Ghostbusters 3 then? Or is that a press assumption.

It's not anymore. Even the media has started just calling it the reboot instead of the third Ghostbusters movie. We all got stuck on Ghostbusters 3 because there was so much talk about it happening then Hollywood heel-face turned into a reboot instead. The confusion is happening because of how fast the premise changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Have we got a source on the cast yet?

Or... should we just assume it's going to be Sarah Silverman, Tina Fey, Melissa McCarthy and some other generically funny female comedian?

I believe someone mentioned Amy Poehler, but that may have been fan wish listing or something.

I'm not really a fan of any of them. Used to be a Sarah Silverman fan but her newer stuff doesn't seem as good as her older stuff and she's better as a support actress than a lead, IMO.

sounds great to me. i hope it's done well.