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.

This has a pretty solid cast - Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Sarah Paulson, Mindy Kaling, Helena Bonham Carter - and I'm digging the Sandra Bullock as George Clooney thing. Kind of excited. I mean, Cate Blanchett and Helena Bonham Carter is a pretty easy sell.

I guess it will be OK, but having an all woman cast to have an all woman cast seems...meh?

But what do I know?

I mean, it worked out great for Ghostbusters, right?

 Alpharius wrote:
I guess it will be OK, but having an all woman cast to have an all woman cast seems...meh?

It's interesting that this is your first thought. I wonder how many reviews of the George Clooney Ocean's 11 (or virtually any other movie, to be honest) indicated a concern that the cast was all male? I bet that number was very close to zero!

 Alpharius wrote:
I mean, it worked out great for Ghostbusters, right?

Sure, if the only metric you use is that there are a lot of women. I mean, there are other things you could consider as well, such as that the director and 5 principal cast members of this movie have 5 academy awards and another 15 nominations.

I'm not sure it's a very good comparison in any but the most crude metric.

This looks like it is actually well thought-out, and could be good. I will see it for sure.

The only cast member I'm not sold on is Rihanna, but I'll give her a chance.

I can understand the comparisons being drawn to Ghostbusters, but this looks entertaining. Even if it's not spectacular I don't think it will reach the dumpster fire level that was the new Ghostbusters.

I think the point he was making is they took an already established movie and just gender-swapped everyone in order to...gender-swap everyone. Which is ridiculous.

Maybe if Sony wasn't selectively deleting Youtube comments so that only the most sexist comments were visible, and not the ones pointing out flaws in the story and concept, the new Ghostbusters wouldn't have been such a dumpster fire.

With any luck, Warner Bros. will learn from Sony's mistake and not guilt-trip people into watching this because of the current political climate.

 Ouze wrote:


This has a pretty solid cast - Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Sarah Paulson, Mindy Kaling, Helena Bonham Carter - and I'm digging the Sandra Bullock as George Clooney thing. Kind of excited. I mean, Cate Blanchett and Helena Bonham Carter is a pretty easy sell.

Looks fun, I'd watch.

 Ouze wrote:



This has a pretty solid cast - Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Sarah Paulson, Mindy Kaling, Helena Bonham Carter - and I'm digging the Sandra Bullock as George Clooney thing. Kind of excited. I mean, Cate Blanchett and Helena Bonham Carter is a pretty easy sell.

Those two are. Anne Hathaway is a tricky sell for this kind of film (I only know her as generic love interest for mediocre teenage romances) and the other two I don't know at all... but Sandra Bullock? Ugh. And as lead? Double ugh. Brain sex from Demolition Man is pretty much the high point of her capabilities as an actress (and no, that isn't a compliment).

And from that trailer, Bullock as Clooney as Ocean just doesn't work. No style or flair, just... sunglasses.

Huh...

I don't realy know what to make of this. I have a hard time disagreeing with the idea of it being a gender flipped remake of a remake.

I would have thought a better way to achieve the same goal would be to do like a spin off with Julia Roberts in the lead role.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the point he was making is they took an already established movie and just gender-swapped everyone in order to...gender-swap everyone. Which is ridiculous.

Exactly!

But I do appreciate the mental gymnastic above that tried it to paint it in another light.

To be fair to the film, I remember lots of people saying the same negative comments before seeing the film about how Clooney and Pitt were are nothing compared to Sinatra and Martin.

Like, people WERE saying things like, "what, you really expect that gakky Batman and soap opera actor to take over the same role as Ol' Blue Eyes himself?"

Meh. And not because of all female cast, that's not the issue.

They done how many films and this is just a sequel with a new shell and gimmick.

I think thr idea had its day, no one needs to have a do a fast and furious and produce a million similar films.

 Alpharius wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the point he was making is they took an already established movie and just gender-swapped everyone in order to...gender-swap everyone. Which is ridiculous.

Exactly!

But I do appreciate the mental gymnastic above that tried it to paint it in another light.

Plus lets be honest: a selling point for this film is the fact it is a gender-swapped cast which wasn't true of the original or the decades later remake. It doesn't mean it is good or bad by itself but that is one of the selling points made when pitching it and now when selling it. Pretending we shouldn't notice something that is explicitly being marketed at us doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 Compel wrote:
I would have thought a better way to achieve the same goal would be to do like a spin off with Julia Roberts in the lead role.

Wait, WTF? Julia Roberts isn't one of the leads of the crew?

F this.