Nobody would think twice if you made an all-skirt (or majority-skirt) film that was an original work; but when you re-boot an existing franchise with one for no other reason than 'women mate' it hinges its success on its pointless political gimmick.
Nobody would think twice if you made an all-skirt (or majority-skirt) film that was an original work; but when you re-boot an existing franchise with one for no other reason than 'women mate' it hinges its success on its pointless political gimmick.
Gimmick or not, it's a decent way of taking a step in the right direction.
Which is what, separate films for women, whose delicate minds can't ever really invest themselves in male leads? Isn't that the same logic that these people whinge against when toy companies put dolls in pink boxes?
It's not, really. It's quite patronising.
Nobody would care about an all-women cast if it was a good film and an original script - e.g. Pitch Perfect, Steel Magnolias etc.
This is, as Lewis alludes to, just trying to reboot an existing franchise and generate interest through 'but women, lads'.
The other day you were saying "nobody is forced to eat McDonald's". The "nobody is forced to" bit applies much better to watching films.
How's that relevant? You're suggesting it's a move in the right direction. I disagree. Whether either of us will personally bother to watch it is an entirely irrelevant matter.
It's relevant because you're moaning about it being "patronising".
I'd say it's a good choice of reboot as the original was highly successful.
Yeah, because rebooting old film franchises in an all-female format is a bit patronising isn't it. We can't be bothered creating any half-decent new ideas for you, so let's dredge up some decade old shite and slap some lipstick on it. That'll keep them happy.
Feminists across the land rejoice.
It'll inevitably be much shitter than the original as well.
They're doing a mostly female re-boot of Ocean's Eleven. That might actually have some value to it.
Then again, it's going to be starring Rihanna and something called an "awkwafina", so probably not.
The first paragraph applies to much of cinema in general. And people don't seem to mind about quality too much. They go and see sequels knowing that sequels 90% of the time are disappointing. They also go and see comic book film number three hundred and one after moaning about the previous three hundred.Originally Posted by GS
I think you're missing the point, but it's hardly worth labouring it further.
I think he's the massive striker who plays for Dagenham or something? #BEASTMODE
We should strike back with a Thelma and Louise for blokes.
"They've got custody of our kids and these superhero costumes do nothing."
Think you missed the point totally. It's more insulting that original scripts are seldom created, rather that the whole concept of opening up roles for females is by just rebooting the original and sticking women in there. Regardless of the quality of film.
Got the four Bourne blu-rays with the intention to watch all four and then the new one. Watched the first one and it's a really REALLY long film where nothing really happens and the end is diabolical.
Do they improve or should I sack off the plan?
I'm a twit
The first Bourne film is a shade under two hours long.
I really enjoyed the first one, but if you didn't you're unlikely to enjoy the others. I think the crap one with Jeremy Renner is more of a pure action film so maybe give that one a go.
Nah, I understood. (@ Sam and GS.)
--
The Wrecking Crew is a really good documentary about the group of session musicians who pretty much ruled popular music for a period, mostly in the 60s. They played on songs by the Beach Boys, Sam Cooke, The Ronettes, Simon and Garfunkel, The Byrds, and tonnes of others. They were the guys behind Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" (listen to Be My Baby or Good Vibrations). It's directed by the son of one of the musicians, so it's got a cool personal feel to it. On Netflix for anyone interested.
Was it a gimmick when it was all men? Or is that more "normal"?
If it's a gimmick, then presumably all-male casts is just an equivalent gimmick that became so prevalent we've all gotten used to it.
Deadpool is hugely over rated. What was all the fuss about?
It was an original film then. Just mix it up, suit the roles, whatever. But these WOMEN ONLY remakes of films are a gimmick and are rather pitiful and offensive to women more than anything.
I find remakes to be offensive in general.
The Ocean film isn't a remake though. It's a reboot which isn't pretending to be the same story - just the continuation of a common theme of a group of sympathetic thieves with an elaborate plan to pull a heist, . In which case presumably they can pick whatever cast they want.
And if it happens to be all women, well, so many films have happened to be all men, that just statistically it had to happen at some point. Unless men leading a film is "normal" and women are the exception. Which we've largely been conditioned to think, anyway, but in reality is equally improbable.
They're really not.
The reaction to these films should be "oh, that sounds shit a bit shit" (as remakes often are) and we move on. But instead, pages upon pages of discussion is generated. It's all a bit odd.
Nobody would care if it was an original concept.
I also don't especially care for publicising the film with "ALL WOMEN LADS", as if that should be a selling point. It'll be irrelevant when determining whether the movie is good or shit.
Pages and pages is a stretch, but I did take issue with Reg's assertion.
Let's not pretend that Ocean's 11 was some epoch-defining classic, the rebooting of which is a stain on our adolescence. It's an excuse for a heist movie using an existing IP.
Heist movies are fun. The cast looks fun. It should be a fun, if somewhat forgettable, movie. Like Ocean's 11.
You are still so caught up in being gender correct at all costs that you are completely missing the point.
Would it be fine if they called it "Super Fun Heist Film", and kept everything else the same?
A movie should be able to have an all-female cast and have it be the same non-story it's been every time a movie had an all-male cast. It shouldn't be seen as any less "normal".
Ital's clearly the sort of lad who would support women-only shortlists, so he's a lost cause.
For the record, I didn't watch Ghostbusters. Didn't interest me. I do enjoy heist movies, so I'll watch this.
I just don't have a problem having a heist movie with an all-female cast. It's clearly a very good cast, and they didn't go overboard in the announcement. They basically announced the cast, and the internet started throwing their toys out of the pram.
Let's not pretend that we haven't been conditioned to think of men in movies as "normal" and women leading movies as "exceptions".
THANK YOU. Only person I know who also thinks this. Massive pile of shite.
What makes you think it's so bad? Generally curious as I've not met anyone who didn't like it.
For a massive cash-in, I quite like the look of this.
Ryan Renolds been a proper cunt doesn't help, but I didn't find it funny. The jokes just felt so forced and the trailer pretty much showed all the key one liners.
It wasn't so much bad, just distinctly average. I much preferred guardians of the galaxy.
Then again, I've never been a big 'superhero film' fan.
Picked up Room, Spotlight, The Revenant and Creed to watch over the coming week or so.
I feel like Deadpool's problem is Deadpool himself.
The original Ocean's 11 was about war veterans, and then the remake tried to play on the 'Rat Pack' bollocks by using George Clooney and all his too cool for school mates, so there were narrative and aesthetic reasons for having an all-male cast. If you just made an all-female heist film, with an original concept and characters, then nobody would care; but if you attempt to ride on the back of existing ones then you are clearly doing so for some pointless reason.
Foe and LR going against popular opinion is hardly a ringing endorsement for most of us being wrong.
That's such a stretch.
Presumably the reboot of the remake is playing off the same "bunch of cool guys" by having a "bunch of cool girls" for narrative/aesthetic reasons too. As a counter-point, if you will.
Also, the pointless reason is presumably that existing IPs make a ton more money thanks to existing brand recognition. I don't like Hollywood's reboot obsession, but it's fairly obvious why they do it. There's only one bottom line there.
Then we'll need a cool bunch of Muslims, and an all-disabled one. As counter-points, if you will.
As for existing brand recognition, I find it hard to believe that people went to see the 2001 film because they wanted to see how it differed from a crap, self-indulgent Frank Sinatra vehicle that nobody remembered. They wanted to see Brad Pitt and Matt Damon and George Clooney. So if you did make Lady Heist Movie with the stellar (or at least well-known) cast that has been floated for this then people would go and see it for that, rather than because they recognise the tired franchise.
So people would go and see an all original film because it had Rihanna, Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter. But instead those same people will stay at home because it has Rihanna, Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter HOWEVER has foolishly dared to ride on the back of the original film.
Nobody gives a shit and it will be a big success.
If anything, the important "theme" that links the Ocean movies is an ensemble Hollywood all-star cast who seem to be there to have a good time.
Turns out, that doesn't strictly require a penis.
EDIT: Lewis, you missed the brand recognition point; it was about the new new movie. People are more likely to watch a heist film in 2016 with Ocean in the title because of the 2001 film. I don't think the original original is really on anyone's radar anymore (I reckon if you polled movie-goers, a majority would think that the 2001 film was the original), but Clooney-Pitt-Damon still has pop culture cachet. They're trying to trade off that by putting together another all-star heist film. In that case, the existing IP immediately tells you what to expect, and improves initial brand recognition. It's all the bottom line.
I can see the market for a heist film with Rihanna and Anne Hathaway, and presumably advertising exists for a reason. In which case, forget all of the gender politics bollocks; why open yourself up to unfavourable comparisons with what is still, when you ignore the terrible sequels, a really good film? With that in mind, I don't see how it represents a net gain to 'cash in' on the existing brand. It's very easy to say that it is all about money, but it's not like Ghostbusters is doing particularly well.
Ghostbusters and Bridesmaids have the same director and several of the same stars, and they're both ensemble comedies released in the Summer. The one big difference is that the former is trading on a familiar name while the latter is an entirely new property. Bridesmaids outperformed Ghostbusters at the box office by half. Brand recognition means next to nothing when the pitch is that you're going to fundamentally change the property and just stick a familiar name on it.
"Sorry, Rhianna doesn't know any jokes."
"Get me Queen Latifah."
Do Fast and the Furious but with women. It'll be the most empowering and patronising film ever made.
Firstly, I like that trailer quite a bit more than the first one. Secondly, and I might just be imagining this, but it has more of a war film feel to it in some of the action-y bits. I hope that turns out to be right because I think they need to do something with the non-Episodes to make them a bit different, other than just dipping into a different time in the canon. One thing I think Marvel have done well with the non-ensemble films is giving some of them slightly different styles (Winter Soldier being a sort of Marvel-does-political-thriller type thing, for example) so I'd hope Star Wars will do something similar with these extra ones.
This looks pretty good:
Does anyone else find Amy Adams a bit shit? She peaked in Enchanted.
David Brent: Life on the Road is alright (better than expected) as a standalone film, but - and this is why it is actually shit - the premise relies on this David Brent being so over-the-top and Flanderised that it basically ruins the character, and Ricky Gervais is the worst thing in it.
Just watched Creed and really enjoyed it. I was beginning to wonder if they were gearing up for a different ending but I liked how they finished it. Jordan and Stallone were both excellent.
I saw it yesterday. The character has lost all of the subtlety that made him great. And the forced redemption at the end was vomit inducing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote