Like I've said over and over again in this thread, I'm not critiquing anyone for having an opinion. I've made that abundantly clear. I'm saying it's ridiculous to definitively say you won't see something a year before it comes out. Especially with the talent involved in this particular project. Two completely different things.

I'll say it. I won't be seeing this movie.

If I get a free redbox code emailed to me I might watch it.

quote:

---

If I get a free redbox code emailed to me I might watch it.

---

That's the spirit!

Above 80 on rotten tomatoes, and good word of mouth from chipotle after the redbox viewing and I would watch it on my amazon prime account when it comes out.

Kate McKinnon and Kristen Wiig are hilarious. MM has her moments, but is hit & miss. The black lady (name?) only has one shtick and it hasn't ever been funny when I've seen her on SNL.

I'd might see this if the wife wants to just because of KM and KW.

This is a let the reviews determine whether or not I see it type of movie. To be honest though, I would probably feel the same way if it was the original cast as well. As much as I love the original, I'm not really a fan of part 2.

In general if you remake a classic movie, it will never be anywhere as good as the original. Robocop, Total Recall, Just Go with It, King Kong, Arthur, Red Dawn, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Day the Earth Stood Still, & Manchurian Candidate are all examples of subpar remakes of classic movies.

However, if a remake is based on an obscure (or foreign) movie that the audience doesn't know about, the film is usually good. Departed, Ocean's Eleven, & Vanilla Sky are all good remakes because the source material was obscure.

So, if you're going to remake a classic, you should pull out all the stops and swing for the fences. Casting should be focused on finding the funniest comedians in Hollywood: Zach Galifinakas, Charlie Day, Jonah Hill, Aziz Ansari.

Instead, this casting was driven purely by political motivations, so they got Kristen Wiig (who is very funny), Melissa McCarthy (who can be funny but has a tendency to resort to cheap fat jokes) and then a bunch of scrubs from SNL.

I could be surprised, but I expect this to be very meh.

Dredd says hello




Though I get the point

Holy s**t, Kate McKinnon looks EXACTLY like Egon from The Real Ghostbusters cartoon!

quote:

---

Dredd says hello




Though I get the point

---

I don't think Stallone's version counts as a "classic"


Pretty good points Bobcat

quote:

---

Dredd says hello




Though I get the point

---

Original Judge Dredd sucked. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/judge_dredd/

Remakes are good if the original sucks, but almost always suck by comparison if the original is good.

It's all about managing expectations.

Psycho?

True Grit?

quote:

---

---

Seeing that pic has made me pray even harder for failure of this movie

There is zero chance this movie has anything but glowing reviews. The PC police will demand it.

That said, it does have a chance of being good. wiig is great and McCarthy can be very very good at times as well. If the rest of the cast and director put those two at the center and let them drive, it could be good.

quote:

---

---

Never cross the streams!!

quote:

---

In general if you remake a classic movie, it will never be anywhere as good as the original. Robocop, Total Recall, Just Go with It, King Kong, Arthur, Red Dawn, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Day the Earth Stood Still, & Manchurian Candidate are all examples of subpar remakes of classic movies.

However, if a remake is based on an obscure (or foreign) movie that the audience doesn't know about, the film is usually good. Departed, Ocean's Eleven, & Vanilla Sky are all good remakes because the source material was obscure.

So, if you're going to remake a classic, you should pull out all the stops and swing for the fences. Casting should be focused on finding the funniest comedians in Hollywood: Zach Galifinakas, Charlie Day, Jonah Hill, Aziz Ansari.

Instead, this casting was driven purely by political motivations, so they got Kristen Wiig (who is very funny), Melissa McCarthy (who can be funny but has a tendency to resort to cheap fat jokes) and then a bunch of scrubs from SNL.

I could be surprised, but I expect this to be very meh.

---

This is a very good point.

To give a further example...

12 Monkeys was inspired by a French science fiction film. Now that film is beautiful in its own right. But 12 Monkeys did something very different with it. And even if you don't think much of 12 Monkeys, I think you have to agree it's at least trying something. It's expanding on something.

This is just replacing men with women. I'm sure the jokes will be new.

But this just feels completely inorganic.

Maybe some of this is what prior generations went through. But it seems odd to me that there's demand for this. I mean--I still appreciate old movies. Movies that "pre-date" me. Can people not do that anymore? We need a female version of Ghostbusters?

Is it really the case that what we need, more than these talents working on something altogether new, is an updated version of something with 4 men?

WHAT. THE. HELL.

What's really incredible about this is that whatever empowerment results from women taking over the roles is taken back by the fact that these women weren't clever enough to originate the idea to begin with. And let's be clear about this--this isn't some seed of an idea that they planted and watered and nurtured into something else. Look at that picture above. This is a ****ing rip-off.

temporary side bar but wait- 12 Monkeys the show is not just a drawn out reboot of the movie? I loved the movie but have been ignoring the show because I do not think the original can be improved.

quote:

---

temporary side bar but wait- 12 Monkeys the show is not just a drawn out reboot of the movie? I loved the movie but have been ignoring the show because I do not think the original can be improved.

---

The movie is inspired by a foreign film.

Watching Ghostbusters 2, just killing time. Lots of weird/awkward things about this movie, but maybe the weirdest is that they felt they needed Sigourney Weaver's character for the sequel.

Ghostbusters 2 was good when I was 10, not so much as an adult.

quote:

---

Ghostbusters 2 was good when I was 10, not so much as an adult.

---

What's good about it is also bad, which is that it's just sorta Ghostbusters 1 again. Lots of weird choices, though, like shoehorning in Dana who has married and divorced and left the symphony to work in art restoration? And Rick Moranis kinda thrown in just because he was in the first one. And the art director guy being the worst and most annoying character ever.

I love McCarthy. I will watch this solely because of her. Fat is funny!

Rental mind you. I only go to the theater for stuff like Star Wars.

quote:

---

Romancing the Stone is going to be remade? I like the movie, but holy crap, it's like they're throwing darts at a list of movies and then make the one it lands on.

---

The re-boot will feature Charlize Theron as a down and out American adventurer, stuck in the jungles of Columbia, trying desperately to build up enough cash selling exotic birds so she can finally purchase the sailboat of her dreams and live free upon the tides. Her life will be forever changed when a chance encounter with a metro-sexual, Hillary Clinton supporting, romantic novelist, played by James Franco, stumbles across her path in an ill-fated attempt to find his homosexual brother who has been abducted by the cartel and held for ransom.

Bill Murray just announced that he has a role in the movie.

Interesting. He's been resisting a new movie for decades.

Bet it's a short cameo and nothing more.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/08/09/bill-murray-to-debunk-the-all-new-ghostbusters